denjac Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x58990739/Corps-preps-for-levee-blast-as-legal-tussle-looms Dennis Boothe Joplin Mo. For a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." ~ Winston Churchill ~
ollie Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 I would not want to be in the Major's shoes on that issue! I can see the importance from both sides of the issue and it is a catch 22 for either desision that will be made. Man and his infinete wisdom cannot cantain the mighty Miss! "you can always beat the keeper, but you can never beat the post" There are only three things in life that are certain : death, taxes, and the wind blowing at Capps Creek!
flytyer57 Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 All I can say is; "GET OFF THE FLOOD PLAIN!!!!" There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
Al Agnew Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Maybe someday we'll wise up and really will get off the flood plains. The problem with levees and dams is that, as we've been finding out the last few years, there will always be either new record high floods that overtop or put un-designed-for stress on them, or there is always a chance of failure. And the more levees we build, as is the case here, the higher the floods get because the rivers are confined within the levees instead of spreading out over the flood plain. I believe the Birds Point levee and floodway have been a bone of contention for quite a while. This is not the first time it has been proposed to breach the levee and let the river run loose through its former floodway there. Just like the levee and floodwall protected parts of Cairo, the problem is that these areas have been allowed to be developed, and now the choice is either to pay money to buy out the people who live or grow crops there, or pay (through federal flood insurance) periodically to set them right after a flood happens. In the long run, buying them out would probably be cheaper. In this case, nobody is right. The choice is between protecting farmland that would otherwise be susceptible to flooding, or protecting homes that would be susceptible to flooding. Taxpayers spent money to build the levees that protect both, and now taxpayers will foot the bill to protect one and insure the other. Stupid. I found it a little strange that the farmers said it would take a generation to remove the silt. That silt is what made their farmland fertile in the first place, and adding silt should really help fertility now. The silt isn't the problem for them, the problem is the scouring at the levee breaches and probably in channels through their fields. Don't even get me started on the Chesterfield/Earth City levees near St. Louis. We watched that area be wiped out in 1993, and while there was talk of letting it go back to floodplain afterwards, instead the levees were built higher and development behind them went nuts. At some point those levees will fail again, and then it will cost taxpayers untold billions when all that development gets wiped out.
oneshot Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 What always got me is we would be sandbagging the levees on the Missouri have water backing up the Creeks coming in behind us.Didn't make sence and very unnerving. I'm thinking I would rather contend with a controlled Flooding over one in the middle of the night.I know from the Flood of '93 the main problem on some land was the amount of sand which could be several feet thick. oneshot
joeD Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Valley Park built a levee. The Meramec is above flood stage there. I live in Fenton. Guess where the water is going to go? They say 141 and 44 will be closed today. Water always, always, finds a path. On a separate, but similar note, over 200 people have died due to the historic tornado outbreak in the south. In this day and age, it seems like someone somewhere would come up with a way to build basements in that southern soil. As usual, mother nature and money (lack of, because of, bottom line of) win.
ollie Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 Well it's official. The judge has made his ruling- good or bad I just don't know. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_weather_floods_missouri "you can always beat the keeper, but you can never beat the post" There are only three things in life that are certain : death, taxes, and the wind blowing at Capps Creek!
Tim Smith Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 I'm thinking I would rather contend with a controlled Flooding over one in the middle of the night.I know from the Flood of '93 the main problem on some land was the amount of sand which could be several feet thick. oneshot I found it a little strange that the farmers said it would take a generation to remove the silt. That silt is what made their farmland fertile in the first place, and adding silt should really help fertility now. The silt isn't the problem for them, the problem is the scouring at the levee breaches and probably in channels through their fields. I think Oneshot is right about the specific problems here. On average the silt from flooding adds to soil fertility. If you happen to get sand instead of silt in your particular spot...you're screwed.
mic Posted April 29, 2011 Posted April 29, 2011 I think Oneshot is right about the specific problems here. On average the silt from flooding adds to soil fertility. If you happen to get sand instead of silt in your particular spot...you're screwed. That all depends... Back home in the Missouri at the big flood in 93 (I think), there were acres of land with 20 plus feet of river sand. Not all "silt" is good.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now