Norfork's Issues Continue

[Danoinark]

From the Baxter Bulletin

http://www.baxterbulletinonline.com/apps/p...1/611040313/-1/

[Phil Lilley]

Bowman doesn't look too happy.

I wouldn't either.

It's will be interesting how far AG&F takes this. Could they sue the Corp?

We've had kills on the lake here but none documented.

[Danoinark]

Bowman doesn't look too happy.

I noticed that too. I think AGFC could sue the COE for not providing the necessary indulgence to provide for the constant and proper dissolved oxygen per mil. As a friend of mine says a lawsuit is the only thing the Corps understands. I would also presume that the State of Arkansas would be able to sustain years of litigation to get something done. I doubt individuals would be able to have the deep pockets necessary. Well maybe someone, not anyone I know. Dano

[Crippled Caddis]

I think I may be the friend Dan referred to in reference to suing the COE.

From years of experience at butting my head against the stone wall that is the COE let me interpret the following statement for you:

<Currently, the Corps is working to complete an environmental impact study that evaluates the impact of minimum flow on Norfork and Bull Shoals lakes. The study may be released early next year, after which more public input will be gathered, said P.J. Spaul, spokesman for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Little Rock District.>

Let's word that to understand exactly what he is really telling us, but first let us note that they have already managed to delay that report by several years at this time.

Currently the Corps is working to (NOT) complete an environmental impact study that evaluates the impact of minimum flow on Norfork and Bull Shoals lakes (THAT WILL SUPPORT OUR FOOT-DRAGGING). The study may be released early next year (IF WE CAN COME UP WITH ENOUGH PLAUSIBLE LIES TO SUPPORT DOING NOTHING), after which more (DELAYING TACTICS WILL BE INSTITUTED), said P. J. Spaul, (SPIN DOCTOR & APOLOGIST) for the U. S Army Corps of Engineers Little Rock District.

Allowing the COE to conduct the impact statement is the functional equivilent of giving the keys to the chickenhouse to a pack of coyotes. They have been caught in bald-faced lies so often in impact statements and cost/benefit analysises that it would be extremely disingenuous to consider it as other than official policy. It is endemic with every proposed project. Without exception.

But that is only from personal experience. If you really want the truth get the book, "The River Killers" and read it. Sorry to say I've never been able to finish it. The full picture makes me far too angry for my health.

The relationship between COE and power generating interests is so incestuous once one sees the full picture that there can be little hope of getting anything done in the public interest if it interferes in ANY fashion with the generation and sale of electricity. Asking for water that does not contribute to generating money is THE cardinal sin from the viewpoint of the COE and their masters. Simply stated: without court orders it ain't gonna happen! And even then they'll keep it in appeal in perpetuity if allowed to do so by the court.

Bear in mind: The waters and waterways of the nation are public domain, that is---they belong to the people, yet through federal legislation the power generating entities and their servant, the COE, has been given free rein to use YOUR property to produce a product that they then sell to those from whom it was stolen by Congressional decree for huge profits. Theft by conversion is still theft even if approved by Congress.

If that doesn't make you angry check your blood pressure. You may not have any. Tom

[Ham]

The COE seems to routinely completely ignore the interests of fisherman. We aren't even at the bottom of their list of concerns.

[Snow Fly]

Just received the November/December issue of American Angler and found on page 8 a small article concerning the issues with the "Overlook Estates" development.

[tippett]

I understand that the Environmental impact study was complteted some time ago. In fact they conducted a couple of months ago a town hall meeting for questions and answer period. Congress has approved minimum flows but apparently hadn't alocated any money as of yet. I did hear from Gary Flippin at this years conclave that the money had been appropriated and that minimum flows would go into effect 3rd qtr of 2007. Now after saying this, "I don't beleive in anything I hear and only half of what I see". My guess, It will happen!!

Tippett

[Crippled Caddis]

I understand that the Environmental impact study was complteted some time ago. In fact they conducted a couple of months ago a town hall meeting for questions and answer period. Congress has approved minimum flows but apparently hadn't alocated any money as of yet. I did hear from Gary Flippin at this years conclave that the money had been appropriated and that minimum flows would go into effect 3rd qtr of 2007. Now after saying this, "I don't beleive in anything I hear and only half of what I see". My guess, It will happen!

Steve:

With no intention of being argumentative at all the COE spinmeister quoted in the BB article Dan posted sez: <the Corps is working to complete an environmental impact study>, leaving one to wonder where the truth lies between the two extremes. Anyone know how to find a definitive answer to that?

This also begs the question: If COE does initiate minimun flows just how effective will they prove to be without the aerators that AGFC has offered to purchase but that COE has refused to install? Are the fears of many justified that more oxygen poor waters will be detrimental rather than helpful? I recognize that more water going downstream implies more turbulence which should act to entrain more oxygen as well as release nitrogen and possibly even help to oxidize and nuetralize other undesireable constituents of the lake waters, but will it be sufficient without the aerators to improve the DO and overall water quality?

[Don Allenbaugh]

The corps is using the USGSC to check the DO content. I saw one of their techs below Bull Shoals Dam several weeks ago working on the equipment and had an interesting conversation. According to this gentleman the difference in the DO content with no generation or full generation is insignicant at the present time. He said the only difference they have measured is the temp of the water changes with more generation. ?????????????

[Phil Lilley]

It would be interesting to hear a biologist's take on this issue-- D.O. vs water temp and how it adversely affects fish.