Corps Wants To Raise Lake

[Wayne SW/MO]

As for Shadow Rock Park, what I see is Taney County now has a ton of money they are needing to spend, why not someone in Taney County take the lead and see about a new and better fair grounds with more parking somewhere?????

If Shadow Rock isn't kept within a reasonable distance from Forsyth center, it won't be the same. The fair could be moved and the park could be moved, but where? The land in this area still offers very little land that's reasonably level.

Five feet today means nothing, but a five foot head start toward filling the flood pool, a five foot higher head for Powersite and the loss of a lot of bank fishing days for people in the area is important.

If the lower White is a world class fishery whats going to improve? The only reason it's being considered is because of the drought periods, but they always cycle.

The big one is the fact that they came close to flooding the White river agriculture areas this spring and I don't know if they 5 feet to spare.

[Phil Lilley]

The big one is the fact that they came close to flooding the White river agriculture areas this spring and I don't know if they 5 feet to spare.

Not sure about that one, Wayne. It may be true but not because of this year's high water. This has been in the works since at least 1997.

[Don Allenbaugh]

I live on the White and need to throw in my 2 cents worth. I do believe that no one to my knowledge ever talked to and/or consulted with any entity in Mo concerning the impact of min flow on any of the impoundments in Mo. Please if I am wrong so enlighten me. Now concerning some of the impact on Ak:

It is a fact that if BS had an additional five more feet (proposed power pool) of water last spring and received the rains that we did there would have been far greater flooding than that which happened. If Norfork had also had an additional 3 ft of water (proposed power pool) to begin with the results from BS and Norfork would have been a diaster unknown untill that time.

Min flow had four groups of people behind it: 1-Tyson foods, who spent over 3 million lobbying for it, The Arkansas Cattleman's Assoc, which spent 1 and 1/2 million lobbying for it (Forest Wood was Presdient of the assoc), the guides on the White River, and the AGFC. The North Ark FFA also supported it but did not pay for lobying as near as I could determine. Yjr corps was not initially for it nor was the SWPA.

I was and still am against min flow. In my opinion the only thing min flow will help will be to dilute the pollution from the chicken farms and the cattle fields. In addition it will give the guides more water to fish and require more people to use guides since you will not be able to wade. Understand that the original proposition was to add 3000 cfs of water to the river 365 days a year. That would have added approximatelyh 18" of water to the White. At that rate wading fishermen would lose most of the productive wading waters. Those for min flow say 18 inches more water would add more wading water but in truth it would not as it would be poor wading water. 18 inches will also add to the loss of life as you will be required to wade in deeper water and everyone knows what that causes. I believe bank fishing will be greatly curtailed and thousands of acres of personel property and public property above the current power level will no longer be avalable. The SWPA did not come out for or against min flow because they will be paid yearly for water lost to min flow. Currently there is only wild speculation as to the true cost to taxpayers for monies lost. It will certainly be in the 10s of millions of dollars that the taxpayers will be required to pay SWPA for revenue lost. At present there are no payments being considered for private or public lands lost or for helping marinas or dock owners having to move their docks.

Those who are say that flyfishermen are for min flow are fabricating that story. In talking to over 250 flyfishermen I have only talked to 10-15 that were for min flow As a matter of fact over 95% of the people who I have talked to in Ark about min flow are against it. There is one group who do favor it and those persons live on the river and have a dock It is understandable that these people are for min flow because on very low water they have an ingress and egress problem with their docks (perhaps it gould have been poor planning).

I have asked the AGFC, Forest Wood, over 15 guides and many members of the NAFF to send to me or to give to me a site refererence on one case study that has been completed anywhere in the world that shows the results of instituiting min flow, positive or negative. I have not received any and if anyone on this board can show me one I would be very happy to read it and if justified I could change my mind.

I do believe that at the present timethe White is a world class trout river and if "it ain't broke don't fix it".

The min flow project has been approved by congress but it has not been funded. I do know that many thousand's of projects are approved and funding is delayed for years and in many cases never funded. One has to wonder with all that is happening with the bailouts if there will be any funds available to implement min flow.

OK guys eat me alive.

[laker67]

nor was the SWPA.

I was and still am against min flow. In my opinion the only thing min flow will help will be to dilute the pollution from the chicken farms and the cattle fields. In addition it will give the guides more water to fish and require more people to use guides since you will not be able to wade. Understand that the original proposition was to add 3000 cfs of water to the river 365 days a year. That would have added approximatelyh 18" of water to the White. At that rate wading fishermen would lose most of the productive wading waters. Those for min flow say 18 inches more water would add more wading water but in truth it would not as it would be poor wading water. 18 inches will also add to the loss of life as you will be required to wade in deeper water and everyone knows what that causes. I believe bank fishing will be greatly curtailed and thousands of acres of personel property and public property above the current power level will no longer be avalable.

Don,

If minimum flow goes into effect on the White and the Norfork, I'm sure that it would be just a matter of time before it happened at Beaver tailwater. Unlike BSD and Norfork dams,Beaver's only outlet would be Table Rock lake. If TRD followed suit, then there you go. I would also be against adding a minimum 18 inches to my wading water.

[Ham]

Hey Don:

I haven't read anything about minimum flow being as high as you mentioned. I had read about 300 more CFS on the White and 150 or so more CFS on Norfork. Both of those numbers would keep the water cooler, expand the area where scuds and sowbugs grow, help a little bit with O2 (maybe), and maybe expand areas where people can wade. MOST of the folks I have talked to are in favor of it and most seem to think it might improve the fishery; More fish for everybody.

I've never had the feeling that it was being pused by the guides so that more people would have to hire a guide. I've also never considered that the folks lobbying for it just want to dilute their pollution. I guess I'm just naive. I've heard Mr. Wood is a good guy and wants to improve things. He's been a good guy in the past in regards to how he ran his plant and donations for various area projects.

In regards to your first point about extra water in the lakes PRIOR to the flooding rains; l would hope that with the knowledge they had less room to spare, the decision of when to begin letting water out might have been different. I don't think I would assume that five extra foot would have made things 5 foot worse.

I also think that the extra 5 foot isn't going to be static. They may keep if 5 foot higher in the spring and reduce the lake level by five foot less in the fall. Norfork was 8 foot low last fall maybe this year they will only run int to 5 foot low.

I'm firmly against giving SWPA money for energy NOT generated.

[Wayne SW/MO]

In regards to your first point about extra water in the lakes PRIOR to the flooding rains; l would hope that with the knowledge they had less room to spare, the decision of when to begin letting water out might have been different. I don't think I would assume that five extra foot would have made things 5 foot worse.

The thing is Ham, the release is centered around the agriculture on the lower White, that's the propose of the lakes. My thinking is the if we start having wet springs, and they have "lost" 5 feet of flood pool, they will start releases early on for longer periods. If they do this the White could run heavy for a longer period, and while this might be good for the guides, the economy that thrives on the "go it alone" fishermen will suffer. If they find the new level is unworkable than the infrastructure will not fit, again.

If this wasn't needed in the 40's, 50's, etc, I would think that nothing monumental in the environment has changed.

I suppose I remain skeptical and they need to "Show Me" it will benefit those who paid for the dams.

[taxidermist]

My Exwifes family live just below Batesville, since we are still freindly I called to see where the water had been this past spring.

It covered the lower bottom and crested near the high bottom. loosing almost 40 feet of bank last spring. the section below Oil Trough was under water, water also breached the levee as it does most springs at the Jackson county land. Taking 1800 acres out of production, Which is what was out of production over all the years due to high water.

What is not mentioned is the amount of debrie cleanup required. The lower end of the river was flooded anyway i.e Cotton plant, Des Arc etc. That floods annually. its beyond control of the dams and nothing can be done to stop that. as the black and Strawberry, Lil Anguile and even Cache' River become involved.

So the rains we had effects the rest of Arkansas way beyond the point the dams could help.

So if it happens next spring nothing will help.

Will it help the DO that has dropped in the summers and fall? Reports say it will but without studies with the higher water noone knows for certain.

I dont know but it seems that 30 feet X 10 feet X 1 foot is 300 cubic feet. the added discharge would be less than one generator correct?