River Development

Patrick · Senior Member

River Development

CALLUS · Veteran Member

so how does that play into the river front project group that want to develope the Arkansas River for drawing in all the activities mentioned in the article in the travler the other. They mentioned that the Arkansas river is navagitable so where would they get on or off the river around this city, since the city owns most of one side and the other is privately owned. Does this mean that private citizens could profit and the city get nothing out of it unless someone stopped to shop while foating the river? blankstare

S23246G · Senior Member

Having a port (if you will) for canoeing woud be great for this city. I would love to see the plan outlined in the article the other day come to fruition. I could just imagine my family and I driving North a few miles and putting in a canoe to paddle back to Ark City. We have done so in Mo and AR, but never imagined we be able to do so here. Please see what you can do to help make this a reality.

Patrick · Senior Member

I'm sorry I didn't give further details. The information was in answer to a request about being able to build near the levee. There was some discussion about possible restaurants or shops, but they were unsure how close to the levee they could be. This information could be used by anyone that is interested. The city owns much of the land along the levee (both sides), and I think would like to see that kind of development.

Patrick

S23246G · Senior Member

Patrick wrote:

I'm sorry I didn't give further details. The information was in answer to a request about being able to build near the levee. There was some discussion about possible restaurants or shops, but they were unsure how close to the levee they could be. This information could be used by anyone that is interested. The city owns much of the land along the levee (both sides), and I think would like to see that kind of development.

Patrick

You thought the city would like to see a Lowe's come to town too. I think it's less about what the city wants, and more about what a few of your fellow commissioners want... 'cause if THEY don't want it, it won't get done.

Patrick · Senior Member

S23246G wrote:

Having a port (if you will) for canoeing woud be great for this city. I would love to see the plan outlined in the article the other day come to fruition. I could just imagine my family and I driving North a few miles and putting in a canoe to paddle back to Ark City. We have done so in Mo and AR, but never imagined we be able to do so here. Please see what you can do to help make this a reality.

I had a discussion with the City Manager on that subject just a few days ago. The project that Wichita was working on has been shelved for the time being. It is a good idea, and we are looking at possibly doing something similar on West Madison at the river anyway. We will have it here and be able to add on to any other similar project along the river. It will be brought to the entire commission at the goal setting session.

Elee · Veteran Member

SInce the Wichita project has been tabled why not look at the Walnut now, I like the idea of the Winfield/Arkcity canoe paddling route...I know many others would as well. There would be little to do but to create the port and do a little cleaning. Winfield could do the same on the north....Good idea SG!

Patrick · Senior Member

Elee wrote:

SInce the Wichita project has been tabled why not look at the Walnut now, I like the idea of the Winfield/Arkcity canoe paddling route...I know many others would as well. There would be little to do but to create the port and do a little cleaning. Winfield could do the same on the north....Good idea SG!

There are a couple of reasons. The first is that Oxford is going ahead with their river development which provides us with an involved partner. Winfield has not talked about any kind of development yet.

The second reason is we have West Chestnut (the air boat club) and Cottonwood Park (presently closed) on West Madison that can easily be developed. Later on the Walnut could be developed, but most likely only to put in as there is no expectations upriver. I expect Grouse Creek to be a popular spot too as there is already a boat ramp and some minor development.

motherof2 · Senior Member

Is this a potential "small business" opportunity? Could someone provide canoe rentals and transportation from drop off and pick up location? What would a person need to do to get this started? What kind of permission would they need from Winfield and AC?

Patrick · Senior Member

motherof2 wrote:

Is this a potential "small business" opportunity? Could someone provide canoe rentals and transportation from drop off and pick up location? What would a person need to do to get this started? What kind of permission would they need from Winfield and AC?

I couldn't say for Winfield, but for Ark City you just need to get approval from the city. This usually means the city commission but not necessarily. The best way to find out is to bring it to the City manager and have him do the research. He will probably need to know some specifics so he will know exactly what to look for. Depending on what he finds out he will give an answer or pass it on to the commission. I'm sure almost eveyone at the city would be happy to be involved in something like this.

I think the city manager would also help with the City of Winfield if it were an expanded project. I know he could see the benefits of the 2 cities working together on anything like this.

Patrick

motherof2 · Senior Member

Exuse me, I should have said Oxford and Ark City.

S23246G · Senior Member

It would be a nice little business opportunity for a canoe rental place. If you've ever bee to Eureka Springs, there are quite a few different canoe rental places that employ at least two or three people each. Not sure what kind of liabilities/insurance would have to be dealt with though. And if you don't own the access point, you would have to pay the land owner a launching fee each time to use it (unless the city owned it... I wouldn't think they would charge, but who knows.)

For someone who already has property on the river, this wold be a nice business.

Patrick · Senior Member

S23246G wrote:

It would be a nice little business opportunity for a canoe rental place. If you've ever bee to Eureka Springs, there are quite a few different canoe rental places that employ at least two or three people each. Not sure what kind of liabilities/insurance would have to be dealt with though. And if you don't own the access point, you would have to pay the land owner a launching fee each time to use it (unless the city owned it... I wouldn't think they would charge, but who knows.)

For someone who already has property on the river, this wold be a nice business.

Even if the city owned it, it could be contracted out for management. An opportunity for someone to create a new business at very little cost. Similar to what the Rec Center does now.

ksjosh82 · Member

I wanted to renew this discussion. My mom and dad came down for the weekend. They had to stop by Hesston to have work done on their 4 wheeler that we are taking to Colorado in a few weeks. Anyways, they thought since they had it anyways we should look for somewhere to use them down on the river. He also likes to canoe. We spent several hours on Saturday searching for access spots on the river and it was completely fruitless. We (including me an Ark City resident) thought it was a shame that there were two wonderful rivers surrounding the town and neither had any public access. Every time we found an access point we ran into No Trespassing Signs. I do respect property owner rights but it is a public river and the public should have some access to it. I don't care about using it for festivals. I guess it would be cool but it would cost a lot of money. Developing good access to the river might have some costs at the beginning but would be relatively inexpensive to maintain. I don't understand why Chesnut/286th has no access. I understand the problems with people on the levee but there isn't a levee on the west side and the city owns much of the area along the west side. It has been noted that Oxford has developed river access points. Trouble is if you put a canoe in at Oxford, where in the world would you get out at?? Some of this might also be addressed by the county but I would really like to reignite the access issue. How can we call ourselves river city without using the rivers? Our namesake is being ignored.

Biggerstaff · Member

Chestnut is owned privately by an airboat club on the side with the levee...the other side (known to many as avocado) is owned by Myers mining company out of el dorado, i think...(dont quote me on that)...I think that there was a lot of trouble with dumping trash and cutting firewood without permission is why it was closed down...A group of locals contacted the landowner and got permission to put up a fence...i believe they got permission for themselves to be down there and noone else...This also applies to the land south of madison on the non-levee side...same problems...same outcome...(and i think its the same mining company that owns it)...as far as cottonwood park goes (the land south of madison on the levee side) it used to be open and used regularly, but a few ruined it for the masses when the levees was driven on by ATVs and 4wds.

However, Kaw wildlife starts just downriver of Ark City as shown with the link below...the map provides GPS coordinates for public access and parking.

http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/State-Parks/Locations/Map-Page/(location)/13223/(last)/13223

Below are the regulations

http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/KDWP-Info/Locations/Wildlife-Areas/Region-4/Kaw

Now, several of these places could be easily improved on. I would be wary of using a few of them because when I have went to look for them, either the map was wrong, or someone is using it as (or perhaps making it look like it is) private land.

Examples.... the access point by spooky hollow...the access point halfway between the mouth of grouse and the third bridge...

If we could get some of these places opened up for easier public access, I would be all for it...I believe that the local economy could benefit from fishing, hunting, canoeing, moutain biking, hiking, horseback riding, and (with the help and direction of the City, County, and KDWP) maybe even an area for ATVs and Dirtbiking..

There is a lot of land that could be spread amongst all disciplines, while still retaining a large part of it strictly for wildlife.

Who knows, maybe the thing to do is make like the skaters and get an outdoor sports group organized and go to the city/county with a real plan...cause I haven't heard anything about the river development in a while....I figured it was pushed to the back burner when the economy tanked.

ksjosh82 · Member

Thanks for your response. I learned alot from you and will be looking at your links. Personally I think the economy is a poor excuse for not continuing development of river access. Much of the issue here is that private landowners are not giving access to a public river. Some money of course would be needed in order to do everything correctly but this economy has many people doing what has been dubbed a staycation where they just go to the lake instead of taking a trip. Why should we let them all go to the lake when they could stay locally and use the rivers. I am originally from Hutchinson and in Reno & Rice Counties virtually every crossing had some sort of river access and several of them had well developed ATV trails as well. I like both canoeing and ATV riding so if the ATV trails are too much at least the canoeing would be a good addition.