Minimum Flow On Lake Taneycomo ?!?!

[Brian K. Shaffer]

So I checked the SWPA projected load today and it read 34 MW.

34 lousy mega watts worth of power. Ho hum. One hour of 'fish water'.

Without any water running out of the 4 units our tailwater only recieves hatchery outflow

water from the 3 chutes and what it takes to run 1 in-house unit. It used to come out to 55cfs.

Anyone know why it certainly doesnt feel like it anymore ? Maybe because chute 3 is now different.

Maybe cause chute 1 seems to only release about half the amount it used to.

Possibly water got diverted to 2.. cause 2 is good enough. But it could be better.

Also, I wonder where the topic of minimum flows is lately. I heard Norfork was a definite GO.

Then I heard the same for Bull. Is it still in the works ? I remember us hoping it would be a

domino effect (if one dam got it we would all soon get it) but I wonder where we stand now ?

55cfs all day... be nice if it was 255cfs. 5 times the flow it is at shutdown currently ?

I guess we can all wish. I'm off to fish the slow water at Taney.

cheers, Brian

[rps]

The minimum flow negotiations for Bull and Norfolk were the result of SWPA, the Corps, and Arkansas negotiations. Missouri must follow Arkansas' aggressive tactics or TR will not follow. BTW the electric company in Springfield is the primary SWPA customer and they initially opposed MDF because it threatened their cheap power acquisition. Hmmmm, politics and money. Always a wonderful combination.

[taxidermist]

Somewhere there is a book much like an EPA study to say the lest, this book tells how much water should be released during slow peroids to keep the trout alive. This was done as the COE developed the plans for the dams. I bet the COE has them and keeps them hidden. FOI may cause them to release a copy. You will have to pay for that copy but I know the studies are there as I had one on BUll Shoals some 35 years ago, before I did my Mititary time.

[Phil Lilley]

MDC is basically waiting to see how it works in Ark before they get aggressive.

[Brian K. Shaffer]

We did a minimum flow study.. I fished during it -- I thought it was grand!

Somewhere around 600cfs is what they ran.. like a kinda dead 1 unit.

Which, as some of you might not know, can cause damage to the unit itself.

Cavitation occurs and causes small explosions inside the tunnel and thats bad news.

So there needs to be a way devised to allow flow that is somehow sold on the grid,

or being used as a freebie to power something. Like the hatchery, Dewey Short Ctr.

I remember guys talking that they would be against any change to the flow.. as if adding 100-200cfs would really make that much of a difference to thier favorite wading spot.

It would make a big difference for the trout. More wetted perimeter means more bugs.

Flows means trout look upstream and act like trout, not 'lake' trout.

There are 2 in-house units, but they only ever run one a time. They alternate them.

I believe they could replace both of them with larger units and increase flow.

Thing is - they do not have anyone to direct that where to go. And it costs $.

This whole topic makes my blood boil. I would venture a guess I never see M/F here.

I hope I do, but I do think there is just to much red tape and funny business to allow it.

Wouldnt it be a better fall brown run if they always had 3-4 times as much water being

released (( talking about 3-4 times the 55cfs )) ?? Wouldnt that also help rainbows,

not that it matters to MDC.. but it would help us up there fishing to them.

What do you think ? Any of you. I want to awaken this topic from the dead.

cheers, Brian

[laker67]

We did a minimum flow study.. I fished during it -- I thought it was grand!

Somewhere around 600cfs is what they ran.. like a kinda dead 1 unit.

I remember guys talking that they would be against any change to the flow.. as if adding 100-200cfs would really make that much of a difference to thier favorite wading spot.

Hi Brian!

You and I had this conversation a couple of years back. I think maybe Darryl and Duffy were there as well. I was one that was opposed to the increase in elevation that MF would add to what we call "water off" at 701. At that time, the 600cfs would increase the " off" elevation to 702.5. You say that you fished during the test. Do you recall the actual elevation?

[mosouthpaw]

the whole minimum flow issue revolves around congress, empire district electric and basically the govt paying for lost power generation revenue to empire district electric which owns lake taneycomo.

as much as min flows is a logical benefit, the whole govt, money and corps of engineers thing makes it a virtual long shot.

[Brian K. Shaffer]

hey Laker - I think I do remembe talking about.. quite a bit really.

I wet waded during it, more on purpose than ever. I believe there are some pics here (on ozarkanglers.com) of me with all the ropes and mumbo jumbo gear the guys had out while they were measuring tapes and jotting notes at the old boat ramp at chute 1. It was rather fun really kinda being a part of it.

First of all, you could easily still wade across right above chute 2. I'll be honest I got more wet than I wanted to if you know what I mean, but I wanted to stand in the flow write in the middle and see if it was easy to pick up my boot and step. No harder than crossing the rebar hole at any time really. Just a touch more water.

I fondly remember watching everyone else more than I actually fished. Talking with Mike Kruse I believe later he said it was actually a release of more water than actually would be a reality when MF takes place. I believe the final number was over 100cfs.. like 130.

A far cry from the 600cfs they were running.

I caught some fish... I talked with the crews.. Someone got some pics. I do believe Arkansas even put dye in the water during the test to monitor it. ?!?!

It really would be a direct benefit to the river. The bug life would increase - and that alone would be huge for that upper end. The spawn would generally more evident by us seeing more redds and more fishing trying to use them (before it all gets blown out).

Red tape cant be cut thru / you can make little holes in it... but SWPA who benefits most from every drop of water that flows thru that thing... they are 100% totally against it.

As were some people who own docks up on the lake. I think they had a valid point because the discussion at the time was the CoE allocating an extra 3 feet of head in the lake above as storage for needed MF water. Thinking that - that would mean not 915 at summer pool - now it would be 918 all the time. Consequently, dock owners were up in arms.

I dont know. Maybe someday. I do sure like fishing a low 1 unit. That's a rarity. Brian

[laker67]

Thanks for the info Brian. I was originally opposed because of the increase in the amount of wading water. Since our disscussion my train of thought has changed. I have witnessed the increase in fishing pressure 10 fold in the past couple of years. With the water levels at 701, every fish that ventures above the big hole is walked on, run off, scared off, and chased around through out the entire length of the upper creek. It is a crying shame that the upper creek has turned into missouri's newest trout park. My thinking now is to add 2 feet of water to the existing 701 and that would at least give the fish a little more sanctuary holding water that could not be trampled through. Minimum flow and santuary could both be accomplished. The increase in depth and increase in current would definately give our fish a little more breathing room.

[strangercreek]

Thanks for the info Brian. I was originally opposed because of the increase in the amount of wading water. Since our disscussion my train of thought has changed. I have witnessed the increase in fishing pressure 10 fold in the past couple of years. With the water levels at 701, every fish that ventures above the big hole is walked on, run off, scared off, and chased around through out the entire length of the upper creek. It is a crying shame that the upper creek has turned into missouri's newest trout park. My thinking now is to add 2 feet of water to the existing 701 and that would at least give the fish a little more sanctuary holding water that could not be trampled through. Minimum flow and santuary could both be accomplished. The increase in depth and increase in current would definately give our fish a little more breathing room.

Taney has become really crowded, crazy sometimes. I haven't fished it much in the last couple of years but when I do it is usually down below the "Rocking Chair hole" I think that is what it's called (the last walk down stairs below the dam). Way to many people in the upper part on weekends. I have found less crowds on the C&R section at Roaring River however I was practically run out of my spot by a father and son last friday. They were casting right on top of me. I could give the sport up about any day at this point. The Smoky Mountains was a completely difference experience. The guide I was with said he would try to stay a couple of hundred yards up or downstream from any fisherman, and that was common, but then again, there is 700 miles of water inside the National Park. We have been looking at relocating and somewhere within driving distance of the Smokie's sounds pretty good, but who knows if it will actually come to pass