White River Chain of Lakes Balancing Act

[ozark trout fisher]

22 minutes ago, J-Doc said:

Head pressure can be easily explained. Don't know how they were using it in the meeting though. 

 

Take a big water tank.  Tap a hole in the bottom and connect to a pipe. Add a small bucket on the other end. 

 

Fill the big tank fill of water and then open a valve to allow water to drain into small bucket.  Water drains because of head pressure.  Which means water will try to equalize pressure. 

I spent about 20 minutes editing and re-editing a post trying to say what you just said, but mine was gonna be 3 paragraphs long. So well said...

[MickinMO]

Nobody's is wrong so far. Compared to my youth, it seems like they don't draw the lakes down as low in the winter as they used to. Add to that increased moisture efficiency of the atmoshphere which more resembles tropical climates and runoff from all the tree clearing & concrete. The solution to me is the Corps being proactive instead of reactive. 

[Al Agnew]

The Corps' original mission was flood control, pure and simple.  They and the Bureau of Reclamation both discovered they could justify the costs of building dams a lot easier if they added power generation.  Then other uses of the lakes gained more and more importance, including water supplies for municipalities that were springing up around the lakes, and of course recreation.  So now the Corps is caught in a tough spot, because operating these lakes most efficiently for flood control messes up all the other uses for them.  Nobody who uses the lakes for recreation wants drastic winter and early spring drawdowns, and they make power generation more problematical as well.  So the Corps has to keep up this juggling act in managing them.

As I pointed out in another thread about the records that were broken this time, there is absolutely no doubt that "mega-floods" have become far more frequent than they once were, and that includes when these lakes were built.  The one big reason we all can agree upon is the greatly increased development within the watersheds, and that reason alone is not going to change for the better, only for the worse.  The other main possible reason is climate change, and that one is still controversial, and may not be easily predicted, since changing weather patterns could go either toward drought or floods in the future.  Point is, though, that unless we go into a major drought cycle, the increased development will insure that the mega-floods continue in the future.  The unpalatable fact is, that if the Corps is forced to continue to operate these lakes to reduce flooding downstream on the Mississippi while still trying to handle the other uses to which they are put, somebody is gonna suffer.  The flood control system has never been built that can't be overwhelmed by Mother Nature. 

[J-Doc]

Here is the single biggest factor in my mind. 

Ever hear of the term 100yr rain? It's what we design buildings and structures for.  You can design a building around a 100ur rainfall rate for .5hr or 1hr increment or a 24hr increment.  

 

Just this fall Bentonville AT saw a 200yr rainfall rate in about a 40min period!! Up to 9" of rain in just 40mins.  It flooded out portions of Crystal Bridges museum which was designed with FEMA floodplain standards and extreme conditions.  The streets could not divert and drain fast enough and houses were flooded that are not in flood plains. 

 

I have seen at least 10+ rainfall events since 2002 that qualify as "100yr rain event" so.....i think we are seeing a massive influx in rainfall rates and we get larger amounts in shorter time periods.  

 

Times have definitely changed and so have weather patterns.  

[MickinMO]

6 hours ago, J-Doc said:

Here is the single biggest factor in my mind. 

Ever hear of the term 100yr rain? It's what we design buildings and structures for.  You can design a building around a 100ur rainfall rate for .5hr or 1hr increment or a 24hr increment.  

 

Just this fall Bentonville AT saw a 200yr rainfall rate in about a 40min period!! Up to 9" of rain in just 40mins.  It flooded out portions of Crystal Bridges museum which was designed with FEMA floodplain standards and extreme conditions.  The streets could not divert and drain fast enough and houses were flooded that are not in flood plains. 

 

I have seen at least 10+ rainfall events since 2002 that qualify as "100yr rain event" so.....i think we are seeing a massive influx in rainfall rates and we get larger amounts in shorter time periods.  

 

Times have definitely changed and so have weather patterns.  

Jeff City has had the same thing in the last year. Two "100 yr" rain events last August. Two weeks apart got over 6" of rain in just a couple of hours from storm complexes.  Areas that have never flooded got flooded. Local stormwater systems also not designed to handle increased development and moisture. Look at last weeks SGF NWS forecast discussion, this rain event saw PWAT levels never seen before in April by that office. We had a January rain storm in Mid MO that also had record PWAT levels for that month. PWAT measures how much usable moisture is in the atmosphere. The higher they are the more rain/snow a system can wring out as precip. Also, I don't have a problem with keeping levels up more or at least steadier. Drawing TR down too far is hard on infrastructure and wildlife. 

[skeeter]

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 5:37 PM, J-Doc said:

Beaver was only 2ft shy of the record low in 2002.  Lowest its been in quite a while. 

It jumped to full flood pool in only 9 days. So yes, I'd say it matters.  

 

Drought has not been a significant issue in this area since I moved here in 2002.  I don't think it's ever had a severe drought in this area of the nation. 

No Drought around here in previous years ?  Respectfully, you should look back at historic NWS National/Regional drought maps first.  Dry to abnormally dry to full drought on several year's maps.  Includes NW AR, NE OK, SW MO. 

[Riverwhy]

The NWS drought maps indicate drought currently in place in parts of Arkansas and Missouri that are under water.  It is a useless bureaucratic exercise and has no relation to actual drought conditions.  It is in fact classic government incompetence.

[Al Agnew]

If ANNUAL rainfall falls a certain percentage below the historic average, it's considered a drought.  One big rain event doesn't change that unless it's so big that it brings up the annual total above the drought level.  As a practical matter, it doesn't change it, either, because if we now go into a summer of well below average rainfall, the things that depend upon soil moisture, like agriculture, are still going to suffer, and the present flooding will be just a memory. 

[rps]

In 1959 the house my parents built in 1955 in a new development in South Tulsa flooded. Joe Creek, which flows into the Arkansas, could not handle the rain runoff from all the new developments. Tulsa voted on a bond issue and channelized the creek for about 6 miles in 1961. From then until the 1970's, development in the area continued. In 1975 my sister and her husband were living in the house when another mega rain overwhelmed the channel that did not go all the way to the Arkansas. Suburban growth completely changes the very land that water planning during design and building used.

BTW, the family sold that house after the second remodel required by flooding.

[Al Agnew]

9 hours ago, rps said:

In 1959 the house my parents built in 1955 in a new development in South Tulsa flooded. Joe Creek, which flows into the Arkansas, could not handle the rain runoff from all the new developments. Tulsa voted on a bond issue and channelized the creek for about 6 miles in 1961. From then until the 1970's, development in the area continued. In 1975 my sister and her husband were living in the house when another mega rain overwhelmed the channel that did not go all the way to the Arkansas. Suburban growth completely changes the very land that water planning during design and building used.

BTW, the family sold that house after the second remodel required by flooding.

That's a good point. Proper planning must predict what the situation will be in the future, not just how it is now.