New Report On Reservoir Locations

[Dan052]

I have clearly stated my indifference to the entire situation, in the previous two posts.

I am neither pro, nor anti-dam building on Crane Creek.

You guys are obviously anti-dam building, which is fine, and if you were to fight it and win...I would admire and respect all of the hard work and commitment put in to fighting the issue by you guys and who ever else joins the effort.

You say that it's more than a fishing hole.

Well I say that seems to be the general concern amongst the posters on this thread.

Some might say that it's to preserve an ecosystem.

Well I say that it would be creating an entirely new, not to mention beautiful, ecosystem for generations of wildlife and mankind to come...minimally harming the current one in place.

I was simply stating (in so many words) that you are going to need more of a substantial argument, if you don't want this to happen.

With that, I'll bow out of the debate, to prevent any further discontent among the forum.

Good luck.....

[drew03cmc]

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.

Did you read what you wrote or did you just let your fingers do your thinking? How would these native, rare-strain rainbow trout be helped by another warmwater lake? simple, they would be killed. The cool spring creek would back up a bit, causing water warmth and the trout would be killed. The only way any trout could survive would be if they huddled in the springs. You have just opened a can of something I wouldn't have opened here in your 40th post. I am willing to fight to save Crane Creek. I have not fished there, but I want my grandkids to be able to fish there for these gorgeous redband trout.

Your reality is something that may be reality to you, but to others here, that reality is nothing but a pain in the butt. This creek will not be dammed if we have anything to say about it. This is a RARE jewel, and it happens to be in Missouri. Do you feel no pride about that? Do you care? Are you willing to give up another free-flowing stream for yet another lake, and probably a lake that cannot support general use?

[drew03cmc]

I have clearly stated my indifference to the entire situation, in the previous two posts.

I am neither pro, nor anti-dam building on Crane Creek.

You guys are obviously anti-dam building, which is fine, and if you were to fight it and win...I would admire and respect all of the hard work and commitment put in to fighting the issue by you guys and who ever else joins the effort.

You say that it's more than a fishing hole.

Well I say that seems to be the general concern amongst the posters on this thread.

Some might say that it's to preserve an ecosystem.

Well I say that it would be creating an entirely new, not to mention beautiful, ecosystem for generations of wildlife and mankind to come...minimally harming the current one in place.

I was simply stating (in so many words) that you are going to need more of a substantial argument, if you don't want this to happen.

With that, I'll bow out of the debate, to prevent any further discontent among the forum.

Good luck.....

Minimally harming the existing ecosystem? Have you looked? Are you crazy? It would cause the creek to change permanently and for the worse. The trout would be gone, and replaced with green sunfish and largemouth bass, not to mention silt, mud, and algae. Please reconsider your feeling here.

[Phil Lilley]

I probably made my post alittle too personal against Dan052 - sorry about that. Wanted to make a point about Crane Creek. It is special. I'd almost compare it to finding an endangered species while building a road... they find a cave with blind crawfish and the project is halted. The McCloud Rainbow should be on an endangered list because of it's rarity. How many places in the country are there pure strains of the McCloud? They've survived how many droughts and floods?

Our fight isn't with each other, it's against the powers who want to build a lake. We should keep it that way.

[Danoinark]

It is special. I'd almost compare it to finding an endangered species while building a road... they find a cave with blind crawfish and the project is halted. The McCloud Rainbow should be on an endangered list because of it's rarity. How many places in the country are there pure strains of the McCloud? They've survived how many droughts and floods?

Phil brings up an excellent point. Maybe that is where this should be explored.

It would be interesting to see what attitude those in charge of endangered wildlife would have.

[Dave Cook]

I have not yet done the homework as many of you have done to know what is in the project.

But I would like to add some info (for you youngsters out there) that I hope encourages those of you that are opposed to damming Ozark streams.

Congress approved a COE project to dam the Meramec River. A large number of people wanted it as a recreational facility and had a lot of popular support. This was stopped around 1978 even after the project had begun.

[ozark trout fisher]

I have clearly stated my indifference to the entire situation, in the previous two posts.

I am neither pro, nor anti-dam building on Crane Creek.

You guys are obviously anti-dam building, which is fine, and if you were to fight it and win...I would admire and respect all of the hard work and commitment put in to fighting the issue by you guys and who ever else joins the effort.

You say that it's more than a fishing hole.

Well I say that seems to be the general concern amongst the posters on this thread.

Some might say that it's to preserve an ecosystem.

Well I say that it would be creating an entirely new, not to mention beautiful, ecosystem for generations of wildlife and mankind to come...minimally harming the current one in place.

I was simply stating (in so many words) that you are going to need more of a substantial argument, if you don't want this to happen.

With that, I'll bow out of the debate, to prevent any further discontent among the forum.

Good luck.....

. It is about preserving an ecosystem. The one in place, is the natural ecosystem that has been there thousands of years. Building a lake would create another ecosystem, you are correct, but it would be a wholly unnatural one. Crane Creek is already beautiful. It doesn't need a dam to make it more so. Our argument is substantial enough. The Meramec wasn't dammed because of folks like us in 1978, and I have a fair amount of confidence this will be no different.

If it were built, everytime anyone with any conservation values looked upon it, they would think of what was lost, not what is there.

[Al Agnew]

Hope Dan052 is still reading, at least...

First assertion, that the little guy can't stop a dam if the state wants it. I guarantee you, it won't be just the trout fishermen who would fight these proposed dams. Every environmental organization in the country would join in, and in fact would carry most of the fight. The MO Conservation Federation, I'm sure, will be against the dams. Fact is, there have been, as far as I know, no dams on significant streams built since the late 1970s, and that is mainly because the whole environmental movement got powerful enough to win their battles. And the Meramec Dam had a starring role in that win. It was the first, and perhaps the ONLY, big dam project that actually went to a vote of the people that would be affected...and lost almost 2 to 1. Since then, politicians have seen dam projects as politically risky. Fort Smith has been trying to get a dam going on Lee Creek for more than a decade, and are not any farther along on it than when they first proposed it. Cape Girardeau wanted a dam on the Whitewater...it never had a chance.

There is another reason why these projects are going to face considerable opposition...pure and simple, it will be the money it takes to build a dam. Dam projects have a history of tremendous cost over-runs, due to everything from environmental impact mitigation to lawsuits to simple inflation. Neither Springfield nor any of the other towns in SW MO have enough money lying around to pay out the many millions it will REALLY cost to build these dams. So they will ask for money from the state and federal government. It's gotten to where it's really difficult to get politicians from outside your own area to agree to pay out money just for the benefit of one city or one small region. That's especially true in the current economic climate.

In my opinion, the people who are proposing these dams just might not have any idea of the kind of opposition they will face IF they get far enough along in the process that it really looks like there is a chance they'll be built.

However...there are always economic interests with money and influence that will back these projects. It's far from a foregone conclusion that they WOULD be stopped. Which is why early and vocal opposition is important. Once a project gets momentum, stopping it becomes much more difficult.

Perhaps the thing that Dan said that bugs me the most is his assertion that a new ecosystem (the lake) would be created for the benefit of wildlife and for people to enjoy. The fact is that artificial lakes are artificial ecosystems that are less diverse and inherently less healthy than natural ecosystems in good condition. Artificial lakes are also VERY common, there is nothing special or unique about them. Each Ozark stream is its own unique ecosystem, and losing even one more of them is, in effect, impoverishing ourselves and our children. You can't make a Crane Creek any more than you can make a White River...you can't even get one back after you've screwed it up with a dam.

There will always be people wanting dams, not caring about the streams they would be dooming. I for one will always be one of those fighting them.

[Danoinark]

Hope Dan052 is still reading, at least...

First assertion, that the little guy can't stop a dam if the state wants it. I guarantee you, it won't be just the trout fishermen who would fight these proposed dams. Every environmental organization in the country would join in, and in fact would carry most of the fight.

Perhaps the thing that Dan said that bugs me the most is his assertion that a new ecosystem (the lake) would be created for the benefit of wildlife and for people to enjoy. The fact is that artificial lakes are artificial ecosystems that are less diverse and inherently less healthy than natural ecosystems in good condition.

In my earlier post I cited two Arkansas projects that were in effect stopped by the little guy, the damming of the Buffalo River and the mining of Crooked Creek. I thought of another that is more recent. A water district applied to dam Bear Creek in Searcy County Arkansas near Marshall for the purposes of providing water to the area. A coalition of conservationist, the Arkansas Dept of Water Quality, The National Park Service and yes the locals banned together in opposition. The water district will now join other water associations in building a pipeline from Bull Shoals Lake near Lead Hill.

The other point that mirrors Al somewhat is impoundments become toxic soup bowls. The first dam built on the Norfork has been feeling the effects of years of agrarian runoff from farms, factories, towns and from other sources of pollution. Spend time below the Norfork dam in the late fall when the lake turns over and you can smell the toxicity as water from the bottom of the lake is pumped through the turbines. I have felt for sometime that that lake is dying. I agree with Al that any stream is more healthy than any lake.

Dano

[ozark trout fisher]

Hope Dan052 is still reading, at least...

First assertion, that the little guy can't stop a dam if the state wants it. I guarantee you, it won't be just the trout fishermen who would fight these proposed dams. Every environmental organization in the country would join in, and in fact would carry most of the fight. The MO Conservation Federation, I'm sure, will be against the dams. Fact is, there have been, as far as I know, no dams on significant streams built since the late 1970s, and that is mainly because the whole environmental movement got powerful enough to win their battles. And the Meramec Dam had a starring role in that win. It was the first, and perhaps the ONLY, big dam project that actually went to a vote of the people that would be affected...and lost almost 2 to 1. Since then, politicians have seen dam projects as politically risky. Fort Smith has been trying to get a dam going on Lee Creek for more than a decade, and are not any farther along on it than when they first proposed it. Cape Girardeau wanted a dam on the Whitewater...it never had a chance.

There is another reason why these projects are going to face considerable opposition...pure and simple, it will be the money it takes to build a dam. Dam projects have a history of tremendous cost over-runs, due to everything from environmental impact mitigation to lawsuits to simple inflation. Neither Springfield nor any of the other towns in SW MO have enough money lying around to pay out the many millions it will REALLY cost to build these dams. So they will ask for money from the state and federal government. It's gotten to where it's really difficult to get politicians from outside your own area to agree to pay out money just for the benefit of one city or one small region. That's especially true in the current economic climate.

In my opinion, the people who are proposing these dams just might not have any idea of the kind of opposition they will face IF they get far enough along in the process that it really looks like there is a chance they'll be built.

However...there are always economic interests with money and influence that will back these projects. It's far from a foregone conclusion that they WOULD be stopped. Which is why early and vocal opposition is important. Once a project gets momentum, stopping it becomes much more difficult.

Perhaps the thing that Dan said that bugs me the most is his assertion that a new ecosystem (the lake) would be created for the benefit of wildlife and for people to enjoy. The fact is that artificial lakes are artificial ecosystems that are less diverse and inherently less healthy than natural ecosystems in good condition. Artificial lakes are also VERY common, there is nothing special or unique about them. Each Ozark stream is its own unique ecosystem, and losing even one more of them is, in effect, impoverishing ourselves and our children. You can't make a Crane Creek any more than you can make a White River...you can't even get one back after you've screwed it up with a dam.

There will always be people wanting dams, not caring about the streams they would be dooming. I for one will always be one of those fighting them.

You hit the nail right on the head. No one could have said it better.

We are all honored and excited that you are with us on this one.