New Report On Reservoir Locations

[Flysmallie]

They have set up a two-day conference in Springfield to discuss these issues. They say it's open to the public but it will cost you $95 to attend.

Working to Ensure Adequate, Quality Water Supplies

September 17th & 18th, 2009

Doubletree Hotel • 2431 N. Glenstone Ave.

Springfield, Missouri

This two-day conference will provide a forum for discussion of pressing water issues - including water quality, water supply/availability and the efficient use of water (conservation) - in southwest Missouri, northwest Arkansas, northeast Oklahoma and southeast Kansas.

The event is open to participants from all areas concerned with water issues, including public, private, nonprofit, and government representatives. We will discuss technical and political issues related to water supply and water quality as we consider the past, present, and future of water in our region. Come prepared to throw some ideas on the table.

By sharing information, and developing a regional planning mechanism, we hope to further our common goal of ensuring adequate, quality water supplies for generations to come.

Conference Fees:

$95 per person (2-days)

$65 per person per day

(Fee includes lunch)

Accommodations:

Rooms are available at the Doubletree Hotel in Springfield under “Missouri State University”.

Call (417) 831-3131

Fax (417) 831-9786

Contacts:

Bob Nichols

Tri-State Water Coalition

(417) 673-7151

Gail Melgren

Missouri State University Leadership Project

(417) 836-3701

Phone Registration:

Call (417) 836-4126 or Toll-free (877) 678-2005

[Danoinark]

Seems like that will limit the number of "general" public participation...Dano

[CBNMO]

Seems like that will limit the number of "general" public participation...Dano

Danoinark, I was able to save the report to my hard drive as you said. The way my window is set up, I clicked on File, Save As, then directed it where to put it on my hard drive. Took about 5 minutes to save it on my old computer. Size is 21.4 MB. Thanks for the help !

I think besides helping cover some costs for the conference, it has that added benifit, for them. I think it would be great for someone to go and get a feel for where this is headed. Anyone available that is interested in sitting through this for 2 days?

I'll be glad to donate.

[ozark trout fisher]

Chief, here is the link:

http://www.news-leader.com/assets/pdf/DO13816678.PDF

It is the report, not just a newspaper article. I don't know how long this link will remain, so you might want to print it out if it's important to ya. Total is 126 pages. I don't know if this site can, or wants to, support a copy of it here?

I've read this a couple times because I live in the area. I think above I said that it would impact 17 miles of Crane Creek, but the report says: "estimated 17 miles of perennial and 10 miles of intermittent streams would potentially be impacted". It does NOT say 17 miles of Crane Creek. Sorry if I mis-typed/quoted, earlier. I like to try and keep the facts correct here so we don't get misled on our own ;-)

The conclusion says roughly, that damming Crane Creek would be cheaper than pumping from Table Rock, and about the same cost as pumping from Stockton. IF, they could get approval.

Just as important is the other proposed site for the Western side of the area. Site 8 is a proposal to dam Indian Creek in McDonald County and create a 3,800 acre lake to pump water to the Joplin treatment plant.

As they say, click on the above link and "READ ALL ABOUT IT !"

These are full scale, large reservoirs. This would be disastrous if implemented.

CBNMO, sorry about the insult. I read into your first post a bit too much. My bad.

[Dan052]

funny....you don't hear anyone from or around Crane complaining.

That's probably because they know they are going to get a fat check from the state of Missouri.

I won't participate in any sort of opposition, because i could be focusing my energy on something other than effectively adding my name to the state of missouri's "dung list". I hate to rain on anybody's parade...

but do you honestly think that a small group of people in southwest missouri, who are upset because they are going to be losing their favorite fishing hole...is going to sway the state of missouri's decision to build a lake?

The answer is no, and it has always been no...Look at history. If the government has ever wanted to build anything, anywhere...chances are, they eventually gained the right to do so. regardless of any kind of protest.

I admire the ambition to preserve a TINY section of missouri's waterways...but seriously, let go of the tree and go with the flow. It's not like they're building a nuclear power plant....Jesus.

[zsmith62]

I don't know how to respond to this last post, so I'll just quote what OTF said earlier in this thread...

This is extremely short-sighted of you. Do you have absolutely no regard for the natural world?

I am not willing to see one more Missouri stream dammed, not because it will hurt the fishing, but because I feel it is a moral transgression of enormous proportions. We need to stop thinking with our wallets, and begin thinking about what is best for the future of our world. As I said in an earlier post, we can only keep taking so long without it coming back to haunt us. The time has come to begin trying to make our world more like it should be, more like it originally was, not less. I will not sit back and allow those who do not care about conserving our earth plow over those who do any longer. I care. I will be fighting this.

Stop thinking about what will be best for your pocketbook in the short term. Instead, ask yourself what is the truly moral, right thing to do here. Damming a stream never is.

I guarantee you that in the state of Missouri there are more of us than you. We're not going to give up.

I'd be willing to bet Dan052 was just hoping to get a reaction. This has been a fairly civil debate, lets not let it get too rough here.

So, Dan052, I suggest you take it somewhere else.

[Dan052]

take what somewhere else? I was simply stating my point of view like all of the rest of you.

My pocketbook has nothing to do with it, seeing as I own NO land in or around the Crane Creek area.

I suggest you read my post again. Think about it. Then decide if i was being "uncivil". If you seem to think so, I suggest you read a book about debating.

I wasn't insulting anyone. I was stating a point of view.

What's going to happen when someone brings up an "uncivil" point of view to the table, at one of these town/state meetings to discuss it? Are you going to tell them to "take it somewhere else?"

Im just bringing up the fact that your guy's argument, for the most part, has absolutely none of the substance needed in order to actually make a feasible case. There's a reason that they chose to use that creek...and there are people that get paid to decide why Crane Creek is a good creek to dam up and turn into a reservoir. Before we go calling it a piss poor idea, and insulting somebody's quality of work, based upon our initial emotions, why not look at their point of view first? Try and understand why they think it's a good idea. Think OUTSIDE the box.

Then, if you still feel strongly against having it built, at least you will have more information and knowledge of the actual process to go off of, when making your case for the opposition.

People that go in there, waving and flailing their arms (figuratively), and acting over emotional to the whole situation, have less likely of a chance of being listened to. Especially when all they have to throw on the table is a moral belief.

[Danoinark]

I have to disagree with you on whether the little man can put up a good fight. I point to the opposition by landowners, conservationist and other good deed doers who battled the forces that once wanted to dam the Buffalo River in N. Ark. Half of Newton County would have been under water. The fight was arduous, long, and expensive but it was won because of grass root efforts. The River is now protected forever.

I then point to gravel mining on Crooked Creek another Gem of the Ozarks. The mining was devastating to the stream bed and dangerous to the future of the trophy small mouth. Because a handful of dedicated folk prevailed its now protected. I just don't buy any argument that says the government will get what it wants...maybe so in this case but not in the instances I cited.

I would urge anyone who is passionate about protecting our waterways to fight the good fight.

Dano

[Dan052]

i don't know much about either of those two examples other than the information you have given me, which is.

A. the buffalo river dam would have put nearly half of newton county underwater.

- This proposed lake near crane will take up nearly 4 square miles, out of a 619 square mile county. The magnitude for the buffalo river proposal is FAR more significant in land damage and property compensation than the proposed crane lake reservoir. Giving the "little guy" much more of a voice, considering this lake would have covered more than 400 square miles, based on newton county's size. even though we both know that 400 square miles of lake would be absolutely enormous, more than quadrupling the size of table rock....and the lake, in actuality would have probably been no more than 50 square miles. Either way, the difference in 4 and 50 square miles is still VAST, nautically. and especially for the areas affected by it.

B. crooked creek mine. The mine was obviously endangering the life of these fish, correct?

- When you have a matter of harming wild life....then a whole separate issue comes in to play. I can almost guarantee that if they thought by building this dam, would destroy crane creek's current population of fish...it wouldn't even be an issue. PETA and MDOC would already be in on the fight to stop it. Building a lake isn't going cause an aquatic holocaust, much like the mining on Crooked Creek very well may have caused if it would have been allowed to continue. Leaving far more VAST of an argument in their case, than this.

I'm just trying to point out some realities here. Not trying to insult anyone. Sometimes, causing a stink over something as minor as a 4 square mile lake...will just cause deeper and "fishier" issues than what are already at stake.

[Phil Lilley]

funny....you don't hear anyone from or around Crane complaining.

That's probably because they know they are going to get a fat check from the state of Missouri.

I won't participate in any sort of opposition, because i could be focusing my energy on something other than effectively adding my name to the state of missouri's "shit list". I hate to rain on anybody's parade...

but do you honestly think that a small group of people in southwest missouri, who are upset because they are going to be losing their favorite fishing hole...is going to sway the state of missouri's decision to build a lake?

The answer is no, and it has always been no...Look at history. If the government has ever wanted to build anything, anywhere...chances are, they eventually gained the right to do so. regardless of any kind of protest.

I admire the ambition to preserve a TINY section of missouri's waterways...but seriously, let go of the tree and go with the flow. It's not like they're building a nuclear power plant....Jesus.

No we won't go with the flow.

And it won't be a small group of people fighting this, you can assured of that. You have an opinion... yes... and you're free to express it. You may suggest we let go of the tree, but we won't.

And it's not our favorite fishing hole... most of us haven't even fished there. I have once. It's more than a fishing hole. And in our opinion and many others, it's worth fighting for, thank you.

Now you can politely agree to disagree and quit telling us what we should and shouldn't do... or you could go ahead and tell us to let go of the tree - you'll be wasting your finger-energy.

I happen to like nuclear power plants. They should build more of them and not hydro plants.