DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Arkansas River Basin Public Water Supply Alternatives Viability Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Arkansas River Basin Public Water Supply Alternatives Viability Analysis Upper Arkansas River Basin Public Water Supply Alternatives Viability Analysis Water Supply Alternatives for Hamilton, Kearny, and Finney Counties, Kansas Great Plains Region, Oklahoma-Texas Area Office Kansas Water Office Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District #3 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2014 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 7 STUDY AUTHORITY .......................................................................................................................... 10 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................... 10 SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................... 10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ..................................................................................................................... 11 PROBLEMS AND NEEDS ............................................................................................................ 11 WATER QUALITY ............................................................................................................................ 11 WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT ISSUES ................................................................................................... 19 PROJECTED DEMANDS ..................................................................................................................... 20 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 22 OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................................................................... 23 DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES IN KANSAS ..................................................................... 23 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ..................................................................................................................... 25 WATER SUPPLY SOURCES ................................................................................................................. 26 Arkansas River / Arkansas River Alluvium ............................................................................. 26 Ogallala Aquifer .................................................................................................................... 27 Dakota Aquifer ...................................................................................................................... 29 Paleo Channel ....................................................................................................................... 29 WHOLESALE WATER PROVIDERS ....................................................................................................... 31 Lakin ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Wheatland Electric Cooperative ........................................................................................... 32 WATER TREATMENT........................................................................................................................ 32 Ion Exchange ......................................................................................................................... 32 Membrane filtration ............................................................................................................. 33 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 36 FORMULATION ............................................................................................................................... 36 INFRASTRUCTURE............................................................................................................................ 37 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA GUIDELINES .................................................................................................... 37 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................... 38 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED ...................................................................................... 38 Arkansas River and Alluvium ................................................................................................. 38 COOLIDGE ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................... 39 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 39 Alternative Comparison ........................................................................................................ 44 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 46 SYRACUSE ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION .................................................................... 47 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 47 Alternatives Comparison ....................................................................................................... 53 iii Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 55 HAMILTON COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 1’S (HAMILTON RWD1) ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................. 57 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 57 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 60 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 62 DEERFIELD ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................... 63 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 63 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 66 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 68 HOLCOMB ALTERNATIVES FORMULATION AND EVALUATION ................................................................... 69 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 69 Alternative Comparison ........................................................................................................ 71 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 73 ALTERNATIVES AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 74 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 74 PAYMENT CAPABILITY THRESHOLDS.................................................................................................... 74 AFFORDABILITY - PAYMENT CAPABILITY COMPARED TO COSTS ................................................................ 75 RISK, UNCERTAINTIES, AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 80 RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES ............................................................................................................... 80 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................ 81 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 83 APPENDIX 1 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ASSESSMENT CRITERIA GUIDELINES Methods Engineering Assumptions and Cost Estimations POINT ALLOCATIONS ASSESSMENT OF COOLIDGE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT OF SYRACUSE ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT OF HAMILTON RWD1 ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT OF DEERFIELD ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT OF HOLCOMB ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX 2- ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATE WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 3 WELL LOGS IN AREA OF PALEO CHANNEL APPENDIX 4 PUBLIC MEETING NOTES iv Figures Figure ES-1. Cities and groundwater resources in the Study Area. .................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notropis Girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis Tetranema)
    Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 Species Status Assessment Report for the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) and Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) Arkansas River shiner (bottom left) and peppered chub (top right - two fish) (Photo credit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 Version 1.0a October 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Albuquerque, NM This document was prepared by Angela Anders, Jennifer Smith-Castro, Peter Burck (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Southwest Regional Office) Robert Allen, Debra Bills, Omar Bocanegra, Sean Edwards, Valerie Morgan (USFWS –Arlington, Texas Field Office), Ken Collins, Patricia Echo-Hawk, Daniel Fenner, Jonathan Fisher, Laurence Levesque, Jonna Polk (USFWS – Oklahoma Field Office), Stephen Davenport (USFWS – New Mexico Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office), Mark Horner, Susan Millsap (USFWS – New Mexico Field Office), Jonathan JaKa (USFWS – Headquarters), Jason Luginbill, and Vernon Tabor (Kansas Field Office). Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Species status assessment report for the Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) and peppered chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), version 1.0, with appendices. October 2018. Albuquerque, NM. 172 pp. Arkansas River Shiner and Peppered Chub SSA, October 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION (CHAPTER 1) The Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) and peppered chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) are restricted primarily to the contiguous river segments of the South Canadian River basin spanning eastern New Mexico downstream to eastern Oklahoma (although the peppered chub is less widespread). Both species have experienced substantial declines in distribution and abundance due to habitat destruction and modification from stream dewatering or depletion from diversion of surface water and groundwater pumping, construction of impoundments, and water quality degradation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Arkansas River – Derby to Ark City
    LOWER ARKANSAS BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Waterbody/Assessment Unit (AU): Lower Arkansas River – Derby to Ark City Water Quality Impairment: Chloride 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Ark River (Derby), Ark River (Oxford), Ark River (Ark City), South Fork Ninnescah River, Ninnescah River, Slate Creek, Unmonitored Basin County: Cowley, Sumner, Sedgwick, Kingman, Pratt, Kiowa HUC 8: 11030013, 11030015, 11030016, 11060001 HUC 11 (HUC 14s): 11030013020(050) 11030013030(010, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090) 11030015010(010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090) 11030015030(010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 11030016010(010, 020, 030, 040, 050) 11030016020(010, 020, 030) 11060001040(010) Ecoregion: Central Great Plains, Wellington-McPherson Lowland (27d) Flint Hills (28) Drainage Area: 1,653 square miles Main Stem Segments: 11030013 (AU Station 528): Slate Cr (17) (AU Station 281): Arkansas R (3-part) (AU Station 527): Arkansas R (2-part, 3-part, 18) (AU Station 218): Arkansas R (1, 2-part) 11030015 (AU Station 036): S.F. Ninnescah R (1,3,4,6) 11030016 (AU Station 280): Ninnescah R (1,3,8) 11060001 (AU Station 218): Arkansas R (14, 18) 1 Main Stem Segments with Tributaries by HUC 8 and Watershed/Station Number: Table 1 (a-f) a. HUC8 11030013 Watershed Slate Creek Station 528 Slate Cr (17) (partial) Winser Cr (32) Antelope Cr (25) Beaver Cr (29)* Hargis Cr (24)* Oak Cr (26)* Spring Cr (27)* * Not impaired b. HUC8 11030013 Watershed Arkansas River (Derby) Station 281 Arkansas R (3 - part) Spring Cr (37) c. HUC8 11030013 Watershed Arkansas River (Oxford) Station 527 Arkansas R (2 -part) Spring Cr (34) Lost Cr (23) Arkansas R (18) Arkansas R (3 - part) Bitter Cr (28) Dog Cr (531) d.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arkansas River Flood of June 3-5, 1921
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE 0ns SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 4$7 THE ARKANSAS RIVER FLOOD OF JUNE 3-5, 1921 BY ROBERT FOLLANS^EE AND EDWARD E. JON^S WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1922 i> CONTENTS. .Page. Introduction________________ ___ 5 Acknowledgments ___ __________ 6 Summary of flood losses-__________ _ 6 Progress of flood crest through Arkansas Valley _____________ 8 Topography of Arkansas basin_______________ _________ 9 Cause of flood______________1___________ ______ 11 Principal areas of intense rainfall____ ___ _ 15 Effect of reservoirs on the flood__________________________ 16 Flood flows_______________________________________ 19 Method of determination________________ ______ _ 19 The flood between Canon City and Pueblo_________________ 23 The flood at Pueblo________________________________ 23 General features_____________________________ 23 Arrival of tributary flood crests _______________ 25 Maximum discharge__________________________ 26 Total discharge_____________________________ 27 The flood below Pueblo_____________________________ 30 General features _________ _______________ 30 Tributary streams_____________________________ 31 Fountain Creek____________________________ 31 St. Charles River___________________________ 33 Chico Creek_______________________________ 34 Previous floods i____________________________________ 35 Flood of Indian legend_____________________________ 35 Floods of authentic record__________________________ 36 Maximum discharges
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 2 from U
    FINAL - Submitted for Approval Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River From U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas © Konrad Schmidt Canadian River Municipal Water Authority June 2005 Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 2 from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas This management plan is a cooperative effort between various local, state, and federal entities. Funding for this plan was provided by the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. Suggested citation: Canadian River Municipal Water Authority – 2005 – Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas Preparation of this Plan was accomplished by John C. Williams, acting as Special Advisor under contract to CRMWA. Technical review was provided by Rod Goodwin, Wildlife Biologist and Head of the Water Quality Division of CRMWA. Editorial review was performed by Jolinda Brumley. Cover photograph: Arkansas River Shiner by Ken Collins, USFWS Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 3 from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith Table of Contents Introduction and Background …………………………………………………………7 Species Biology ...................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Fluvial Sediment in the Little Arkansas River Basin Kansas
    Fluvial Sediment in the Little Arkansas River Basin Kansas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1798-B Prepared in cooperation with the City of fflichita and the Kansas Water Resources Board Fluvial Sediment in the Little Arkansas River Basin Kansas By C. D. ALBERT and G. J. STRAMEL SEDIMENTATION IN SMALL DRAINAGE BASINS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1798-B Prepared in cooperation with the City of ff^ichita and the Kansas ff^ater Resources Board UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1966 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 60 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract__._____________ ___________.__________________________ Bl Introduction._____________________________________________________ 1 Description of the basin.___________________________________________ 2 Geology. __________________________________________ 3 Geomorphology _ ______________________________________________ 4 Soils. ______________________________-_-_-__---___ 5 Land use and vegetation.______________________________________ 7 Climate._____________________________________________________ 7 Runoff ___________________________________________________ 8 Fluvial sediment._________________________________________________ 13 Field investigations and methods._______________________________ 13 Laboratory methods.__________________________________________ 14 Suspended sediment.__________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Arkansas Riverbed from 1830 to 2011
    History of the Arkansas Riverbed from 1830 to 2012 1830--Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek between the U.S. and the Choctaw Nation, Sept. 27, 1830, 7 Stat. 333-334. 1835--Treaty of New Echota between the U.S. and the Cherokee Nation December 29, 1835, 7 Stat. 478 1837--Treaty between the U.S. and the Chickasaw Nation of January 17, 1837, 11 Stat. 573; Treaty of June 22, 1855, 11 Stat. 611. 1893--Act of Congress of March 3, 1893, 27 Stat. 645, The Dawes commission was created to negotiate with the Indian tribes that had been located in Oklahoma on the allotment of land to their individual members in preparation for the final dissolution of the tribes. 1898--General Land Office had completed a survey of all the lands of the Five Civilized Tribes. 1906--Congress provided for the disposition of all Five Civilized Tribes lands with the provision that any remaining tribal property 'be held in trust by the United States for the use and benefit of the Indians.' Act of April 26, 1906, 27, 34 Stat. 148. The Cherokee, Choctaw and Chickasaw claim title to the bed of the Arkansas River by treaty and patent from the United States. Because the land was not individually allotted or otherwise disposed of pursuant to the 1906 Act, title remained in petitioners or passed to the United States to be held in trust for them. 1907—Oklahoma become a state , Oklahoma claimed ownership and for many years the Nations were without resources to pursue their rights. The State of Oklahoma claims to the river was directed to the―equal footing doctrine, and that it was no exception to the rule that newly admitted states acquired legal title to all navigable water within their borders.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian River Basin Bioassessment
    Canadian River Basin Bioassessment Sarah Robertson, Melissa Parker, Gordon Linam, Clinton Robertson, Archis Grubh Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division AND Melissa Casarez University of Texas at Austin, Biodiversity Collections River Studies Report No. 26 Inland Fisheries Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas October 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 2 Survey and Management History .............................................................................. 2 Study Sites .............................................................................................................................. 4 Canadian River .......................................................................................................... 6 Oxbow Lakes ............................................................................................................. 6 Supplemental Fish Collection Sites ........................................................................... 7 Water Quality and Quantity .................................................................................................... 8 Fish Assemblage ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water in the Lower Arkansas River Valley, Arkansas
    Ground Water in the Lower Arkansas River Valley, Arkansas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1669-V Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Ground Water in the Lower Arkansas River Valley, Arkansas By M. S. BEDINGER and H. G. JEFFERY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1669-V Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract____.______________________________.__ VI Introduction_________ ____________________________________ 1 Well-numbering system.________________________________________ _ 3 Geology. ____________________________ ____ ______ ___ 3 Quaternary System____________________________________________ 4 Terrace deposits_________________________________ ___ 4 Alluvium.______________________________________________ 5 Ground-water hydrology _________________________________________ 6 Water table____________________________________ 6 Fluctuations._____________________________________________ 6 Superposed-__-___-____---__-__--___------_---_-__---_ 6 Basic._______________________________________________ 7 Configuration_______ _____________________________________ 9 Recharge.____________________________________________________ 11 Discharge. ______________________________
    [Show full text]
  • WATERWAY FACT SHEET Mcclellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System
    WATERWAY FACT SHEET McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System HISTORICAL INFORMATION BRIDGES Highway bridges across the main waterway are fixed The McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System high level spans. Railroad bridges across the main waterway are (“MKARNS”) is the official name of the waterway. In 1946, lift spans from the mouth through Fort Smith, Ark., and fixed the Rivers and Harbors Act authorized the building of the multi- high level spans from Fort Smith to Catoosa, Okla. The railroad purpose system. Beneficiaries include: navigation, recreation, and highway bridges across the navigable portion of San Bois hydropower, water supply, wildlife conservation, and flood Creek are fixed spans. The 2-percent flow line for each bridge control (when considered as a part of the Arkansas River Basin is the elevation of flows exceeded less than 2-percent of the Project and its upstream reservoirs that control water flows). time. The MKARNS is crossed by 29 highway bridges and 10 Construction of the upstream reservoirs in Oklahoma railroad spans. began in 1950. Construction of the navigation system started with Dardanelle Lock and Dam # 10 @ Russellville, Ark., in GAGES 1957. Clearance gages: All bridges have clearance gages Completed in 1970 at a cost of $1.2 billion, the system installed on the pier protection cells or the navigation span pier is 445-miles long (137 miles in Oklahoma & 308 miles in located on the right side of the channel. The gages indicate the Arkansas) and has 17 locks and dams — 5 in Oklahoma and 12 vertical clearance available under the bridge. th in Arkansas.
    [Show full text]
  • Meanderings of the Arkansas River Since 1833 Near Bent's Old Fort
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESEARCH 1970 MEANDERING OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER SINCE 1833 NEAR BENT'S OLD FORT, COLORADO By FRANK A. SWENSON, Denver, Colo. Abstract.-Bent's Old Fort, constructed on the Santa Fe the fort as lying 300 yards from the river. Other de­ Trail in 1833 in southeastern Colorado, has been established as scriptions indicated that the ford across the river was a National Historical Monument. The U.S. National Park east of the fort. This meager information is all that has Service is interested in determining the relative position of the fort, at the time it was occupied, to the meandering Arkansas been found regarding the Arkansas River at the time River. Available data indicate there has been relatively little the fort was occupied, from 1833 until 1849. No maps shift in the meanders of the river at this location. or other pertinent data are available that date back to the time the fort was occupied. Before 1846 the Arkansas River formed the inter­ CHARACTER OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER national boundary between l\1exico and the United The Arkansas River, in the reach under considera­ States. The Santa Fe Trail, leading from the Missouri tion, is a broadly meandering stream. It flows approxi­ River at Independence, Mo., to Santa Fe, was an im­ mately 6 miles to cover a linear distance of 3 miles. portant commercial artery. The trail led across the dry These meanders are developed on a flood plain that, plains of Kansas to the Great Bend ·of the Arkansas in general, is uniformly less than 31,1 mile wide.
    [Show full text]
  • A Long, Long Time Ago
    a long, long time ago... Elliott West is a professor of history at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Greg Ruark is the director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agroforestry Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. Historical evidence of riparian forests in the Great Plains and how that knowledge can aid with restoration and management. Riparian areas—land adja- transcontinental railroad spur lines in the 1860’s; before the 1859 Denver gold cent to a streambank or rush; and before the Great Westward other water body—filtering Movement of the 1840’s along the nonpoint source pollution. Oregon Trail (Ambrose, 2000; West, Unfortunately the riparian 1998). These defining events drew many people into and through the Great Plains areas of today, include only on their way to seek their fortunes and narrow bands of forests, or build their futures. no woody vegetation. This This, then, is a story of the Great Plains greatly minimizes their eco- and how riparian areas along major rivers and their tributaries were once signifi- logical function. In deciding cantly forested. They came under great how to manage these areas, pressure beginning in the mid 1800’s knowing the natural ripari- from the simultaneous and cumulative an makeup before humans impact of Indians, gold seekers, soldiers, railroad crews, and settlers who all played settled in the area is vital. important roles in determining the way Management essentially is riparian areas look today. then restoration. The Story… The Great Plains as a whole hosted far hile some argue that the Great fewer trees than the Missouri valley to Plains were dominated by the east and the Rocky Mountains to the W grasslands and that riparian west.
    [Show full text]
  • Inch Deep, Mile Wide
    The Arkansas River’s Great Bend Inch Deep, Mile Wide he Arkansas River is one of “Ar-Kansas” America’s iconic rivers, coursing Here in Kansas, we pronounce the T river’s name, “Ar-Kansas.” Ask Kansans 1,469 miles before merging with why, and they might tell you, “Because we don’t live in “Kan-saw!” Our the Mississippi River. Here in central pronunciation sensibly combines the Kansas, its steady east-southeast state’s name with its most prominent feature—the sweeping “arc” the river flow is interrupted by a wide makes through this region. northward sweep called the “great bend.” The city of Great Bend lies at Arkansas River/Jerry Segraves Fording the Arkansas this meander’s northernmost point. As the river crosses this region, a low A wild mountain stream as it surges from the Rockies, limestone bluff lines its north bank. the Arkansas transforms in the Great Plains into a In the 1800s, this limited the places braided river, much like the Platte and Canadian Rivers. where wagons could cross. Just east of Ellinwood, a gap in the bluff became In a braided river, several small channels wander within the region’s first wagon “ford.” a broad, shallow river bed. Indeed, the Arkansas River flood plain widens to nearly eight miles in eastern Barton County! Wagon Crossing/Kansas State Historical Society The Arkansas River carries sediment from the Rockies, Motion and Change which drops out as the river slows along the “great Many hundreds of years ago, drought gripped this region. The Arkansas bend.” Dispersed by floods, these sediments build fertile River ran dry.
    [Show full text]