Joplin To Use Stockton Water?

[straw hat]

Here is an article about the fact Joplin is considering using Stockton as a wat source.

http://articles.ky3.com/2012-01-18/stockton-lake_30641581

[Terrierman]

Surface water sources with an impoundment are nearly always a good idea.

The withdrawal rate is normally way way below anything that will draw the lake level below any level that is a problem, and the attention that is paid to existing and potential sources of contaminanats (including more sampling and testing) is definitely a positve, so are all the watershed protective initiations that can and frequently do come too.

Be happy, its a net good thing.

[blue79]

I read somewhere that a lake was gonna be made sw of Jasper all the way to Webb City that was gonna be the water supply for Joplin.I cant remember where i read it but it was the only time i heard about it.Supposed to be in the next 50-75years.

[hknfsh]

Don't see how Stockton could possibly provide Springfield AND Joplin with water and not be strained during the hot dry summer months. Joplin would be better off to pull from Grand Lake wouldn't it ?

[Buzz]

These people have been trying to do something for the past several years. A few years back they wanted to build a reservoir that would encroach on Crane Creek. Apparently that has been shelved for now.

If you want a little reading:

Joplin was also talking about building their own lake for water usage, but that hasn't happened either. With Shoal Creek, which is already a main water source, and Spring River as a possible water source I don't see how it would be feasible to bury a water line from Stockton. But I'm not an engineer either.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I still say we already have a lake at Riverton KS. Empire Lake which I do believe it is owned by Empire Electric. It is at the junction of Spring river, Center creek and Shoal creek. More than enough water in my opinion.

I remember when this first came up and we all were concerned and looking for other viable options. In all of the articles that were posted, none of them ever spoke of this lake as a source.

[ScottK]

Probably because it's in Kansas and Joplin would have to pay about 8 bazillion % tax for the use of it.

[Walcrabass]

Here is something to consider...... You and I know that we always tend to jump into things without truly looking way down the road, Right???? When we started doing "Flood Control Projects" , "City Water Supplies". etc. we surely knew how the liquid life we call water would cause us to prosper and attract tons of people and "MONEY". O.K. then it would appear to me with all the greatly intelligent people we call "ENGINEERS" that they would have thought of using, reusing, and reusing again the water they had trapped. In other words the lakes we have already dammed up are producing Water, Recreation, and Electricity. Why did we not make provisions to build multiple dams one after the other to use and reuse the water. And I don't mean 100 miles apart either. What if Table Rock, Stockton, and many other lakes nationwide had installed several dams in a succession of each other just a few miles apart? 3 dams??? 3 times the Electricity. More water trapping and more water control. The "Lakes" inbetween the dams would obviously have the ability to feed the streams below the final dam and their water levels would fluctuate more than the "Main Lake". But their main purpose would be for producing Electricity and drinking water. The "Main Lake" would then be able to be it's own entity and controlled in it's own way. To me it is just plain simple: We would have more stored water, more hydro-electric power, better control during high water and flooding, more lake fishing, and attract more jobs and MONEY !!!!! Please don't tell me it is because of NItrogen poisoning in the water either. That is controlled by the amount of water you let out and the rate at which you discharge it. I don't want to hear about the cost either because they are paid for with out tax dollars to which we all know the sky is the limit!!! These lakes and dams also create enough revenue to sustain themselves.

Oh Well, I guess that is why people like most of us guys are not Engineers, Politicians, or "Planners for our Society". We just plain think too reasonably.

On a second thought I guess we could just let all the extra water during high water times go through the present dams and end up in the ocean and then just keep on complaining. That would be more "Our Style" here in America......

Don't get me started !!!,

Walcrabass

[Chief Grey Bear]

Probably because it's in Kansas and Joplin would have to pay about 8 bazillion % tax for the use of it.

If that was the case, then those companies, that capture the wind and sell it out-of-state, would be out of business.

[Terrierman]

Here is something to consider...... You and I know that we always tend to jump into things without truly looking way down the road, Right???? When we started doing "Flood Control Projects" , "City Water Supplies". etc. we surely knew how the liquid life we call water would cause us to prosper and attract tons of people and "MONEY". O.K. then it would appear to me with all the greatly intelligent people we call "ENGINEERS" that they would have thought of using, reusing, and reusing again the water they had trapped. In other words the lakes we have already dammed up are producing Water, Recreation, and Electricity. Why did we not make provisions to build multiple dams one after the other to use and reuse the water. And I don't mean 100 miles apart either. What if Table Rock, Stockton, and many other lakes nationwide had installed several dams in a succession of each other just a few miles apart? 3 dams??? 3 times the Electricity. More water trapping and more water control. The "Lakes" inbetween the dams would obviously have the ability to feed the streams below the final dam and their water levels would fluctuate more than the "Main Lake". But their main purpose would be for producing Electricity and drinking water. The "Main Lake" would then be able to be it's own entity and controlled in it's own way. To me it is just plain simple: We would have more stored water, more hydro-electric power, better control during high water and flooding, more lake fishing, and attract more jobs and MONEY !!!!! Please don't tell me it is because of NItrogen poisoning in the water either. That is controlled by the amount of water you let out and the rate at which you discharge it. I don't want to hear about the cost either because they are paid for with out tax dollars to which we all know the sky is the limit!!! These lakes and dams also create enough revenue to sustain themselves.

Oh Well, I guess that is why people like most of us guys are not Engineers, Politicians, or "Planners for our Society". We just plain think too reasonably.

On a second thought I guess we could just let all the extra water during high water times go through the present dams and end up in the ocean and then just keep on complaining. That would be more "Our Style" here in America......

Don't get me started !!!,

Walcrabass

There is this one minor problem with your plan and that is the available head between dams that are only a few miles apart. They wind up being low head dams with very little storage capacity for flood control and also limited generation capacity.