River Flows in Arkansas

[RonMT]

For those that like to Trout fish or live in Arkansas and have not herd the news.
[url=http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051125/NEWS01/511250314/1002:80d3b]http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051125/NEWS01/511250314/1002[/url:80d3b]

I wish they would do the same on other rivers in this country. Ron

Unfortunately they aren't going to have the minimum flow on the Little Red River though. Politics got involved (surprise, surprise). Maybe, eventually the Little Red will get past the odd river out stage it always seems to get. The stepchild in the Arkansas fishery.


Mike

------------------
There is no greater fan of flyfishing than the worm.


Patrick McManus

[gonfishn]

I wish the corps would manage Montanas river flows more for the state of Montana than follow unproven theory with the annual salmon flush for the columbia.
We have a local tailwater that ran at 24000
cubic feet per second into September.How about using some common sense and approximating natural flows or at least something that isn't completely out of the natural flow cycle? How can insects and other aquatic life develop a true life cycle
when the whole system is running at cycle that is allmost opposite of nature?
I realize that the intended purpose of a dam is to generate power or provide flood protection but sometimes the Corps really seems to appease the loudest voices.
Sorry about the rant but I live near what used to be some of the beat fishing in the west before the Corps decided we needed a Damn.The tailwater fishery is still impressive but the upstream is still not what it used to be we lost native species
[whitefish] and had them replaced with a non-native [kokanee salmon] our bulltrout population is finally starting to come back.


[

------------------
I have never met a man I didn't like.
will rogers.
will rogers never met you did he.
hawkeye pierce on mash

I wonder why they would need more money to do a minimun flow????

How much can it really cost to throw a switch??

I work in the computer industry and I KNOW it would not cost much to reprogram the computers to lower the flow to x cfs in place of 0 cfs.

I love the governement.

------------------
Ken

"The memory of a fisherman is more like fiction than journalism, that is, it doesn't ignore the facts, but it is not entirely bound by them, either."

John Gierach

[RonMT]

Not to hard to figure that one out. They make money on the "Water". If they let it go to keep water in the stream then they lose money as they are not making electric power with theat water. They only make power when they need it. Not when the river needs the water. Ron

[bubba_orvis]

Ron is right typically..but unless they changed the plan Bull Shoals was going to use the station service to create the additional flow.

At one point I heard that the cost for hardware was $8k, less than round-off for such a plant.

Keep in mind that water used in the night is worth much less than water used during peak times. So different release patterns cost money too, even if the net sum of the electric is the same.

The Norfolk is more expensive and is more typical in cost structure. Lower run rates on generators, tend to come at high conversion rates(more input per output). The lower run levels still have to pay the fixed costs of the unit being on-line(excitor power, friction, winding losses, heat).

Rest assured that folks will sharpen their pens and find all the costs, and bill them.

------------------
bubba_orvis

[brhokla]

I think Arkansas has just figured out how important the fly fishing is to the economy in these areas. They are bringing in a large portion of the states income due to this. I love it and being in Tulsa, OK it's not to far to drive.

[Brian Shaffer]

I have been pushing for minimum flows for Missouri's main tailwater, Lake Taneycomo, for years. I met with Stan Jones, the manager of Table Rock Dam to ask how minimum flow could work. What he told & showed me was not good.

Running 1 unit at Table Rock/Bull Shoals/Norfork or anywhere at lower than designed flows causes cavitation.

Cavitation as defined by dictionary.com :

1. The sudden formation and collapse of low-pressure bubbles in liquids by means of mechanical forces, such as those resulting from rotation of a marine propeller.
2. The pitting of a solid surface.

So without adding money to supplying a new means to allow lower flows - this idea is going to take new $$ from who knows where.

I see Bull Shoals spending the money, if some new bill/law passes. I imagine Lake Taneycomo in Branson, Missouri will take 3-5 years to get this new money to pass thru the 'system'.

The Corp Of Eng. in Missouri have been dragging thier feet on this issue for 8 years at least. Now that something is getting done somewhere else it will stir some interest, but it will take time to make it here.. and new state $$.

I hope I am wrong.

best fishes - Brian Shaffer

[bubba_orvis]

Cavitation based on present design, reducing minimium load typically requires capital investment.

Installing a small pin-stock, or siphon are alternatives to rework on large turbines. A siphon would not provide electric.

We had a meeting last night with some fish and game folks and were told a few things about minimum flow. It has been in the works here for over 20 years so the 8 years that Brian talks of is small potatoes. I also found out why the Little Red didn't get it and I feel a LITTLE better about it... but not much. In order for the White and Norfork to get it, the Little Red couldn't. They need it worse than the Little Red so it is a good compromise if there is such a thing as a "good" compromise. We are still planning on lobbying congress though to get approval for the Red.


Mike

------------------
There is no greater fan of flyfishing than the worm.


Patrick McManus