Cairo Vs. Mississippi County

[hank franklin]

I find this issue fascinating (and fortunately I don't have a personal stake in it) and would love to hear what people think here. My vote is no, don't blow the levee, for reasons I'll get into later. Have to run now. Thanks for voting.

[Kayser]

I vote yes, because that water sink will help protect more towns downstream, not just Cairo, IL. And as far as ruining the farmland- the fields that were flooded from Valmeyer down to Prairie du Rocher in IL in '93 are currently some of the best farmland in the country, and only had maybe one or two off years immediately after the flood. I was only 3 when it happened, but the bottoms have had the best yields for as long as I can remember, which is all after the flood.

Rob

[flytyer57]

I vote no. How can you destroy the lives of others because somone else is hurting?

Why don't they blow the levees around Cairo so that the water there can reclaim the flood plain there and not back up into somone elses yard.

Everyone should just get off the flood plains. Every year the Mississippi rises and floods occur. How stupid can people be to just go on living there? If you don't want to deal with the floods every year, move to higher ground. How can it be any more simple?

[ozark trout fisher]

I voted yes.

It is an incredibly hard decision, and I'm sure glad I don't have to make it. But if you're going to have to flood land, it should be in an area that is not densely populated. And it should also be controlled, so that the flooding is expected and doesn't catch folks off guard.

But I don't think development in flood plains is a good idea at all. I think of all those people that live in say, Chesterfield bottoms, and I wonder what the hell they're thinking. It's only a matter of time. Levees won't keep the river out forever.

[hank franklin]

Yes, Cairo is in decline but it's still a town of some 3,000 people. It also has historic value. On the Missouri side you have 90 or so families. In the simple math of how many people you displace, Cairo wins.

Cairo however literally is a creature of the levees. Yes so is the Missouri bottomland but without levees Cairo would have been swallowed up years ago. From a pure floodplain perspective it has no business being there.

The Missouri bottomland is also valuable however in large part because of levee protection, and secondarily because of federal ag subsidies and price supports. The feds spend money on the levee, and spend money on the crops behind it.

The feds of course to a degree subsidize the poverty behind the levee in Cairo. This is what makes the issue so fascinating to me. Both sides in this debate are basically paupers of the federal government. There's no denying it.

So who then does the federal government choose? The spillway plan dates to 1920s when Cairo was a robust place with even strategic value, and the Mo bottomland farmers were probably subsistence type farmers at best. Clearly today Cairo is in decline, and the Mo bottomland is highly valued. Has the original Corps plan been reviewed over time? If so what does the cost / benefit say? This I'm not sure of.

You also have to consider FEMA. FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program and also of course responds (if you can call it that, sorry) to natural disasters. My point is that the goal of the NFIP is to get people out of the floodplain. So if you have 3,000 people in one floodplain and 90 families in the other, who do you choose? It would seem that FEMA has a lot to gain frankly by wiping out Cairo. It is at odds with the NFIP.

FEMA of course is a federal agency, so you have the Corps responsibility for levee maintenance at direct odds with FEMA and floodplain management. FEMA is calling BS on the Corps through NFIP regulations that is a long story, but the short of it is the missions of the two federal agencies are in direct conflict.

Finally you get to the decision itself, and here you deal with certainty. If you knew with 100% certainty, or even 95% certainty, that blowing the Missouri levee would save Cairo, maybe you do it. I say maybe. But you don't know with 95%+ certainty. All you do know is you've created a huge problem in Missouri. So basically on this point alone I say leave it alone. Why create one disaster to maybe save another.

Of course, which is the bigger disaster? This I don't know, though likely it would be Cairo in my estimation. Yes it's in decline but the cost of making that whole has to be less than the Missouri side. You have to consider future costs however, which might tip the cost / benefit the other way.

So in the end I say without absolute certainty, or very near to it, you don't do it. Since when did we know better than Mother Nature? Who are we to play God? I gotta believe ultimately we lose in that game.

Last point is who, exactly, will make this decision? I'm not sure who the Number 1 guy at the Corps is, but would it be his call? Ultimately I think he would defer to, you guessed it, the President. And what state did the President used to represent? This is not a political statement, just fact. There's an assumption I think that the Corps makes the call, but I understand government and I really doubt that any appointed official, no matter high up, is going to take that one on. He's going to defer and eventually I believe the President will decide.

Missouri, hang on.

[flytyer57]

Last point is who, exactly, will make this decision? I'm not sure who the Number 1 guy at the Corps is, but would it be his call? Ultimately I think he would defer to, you guessed it, the President. And what state did the President used to represent? This is not a political statement, just fact. There's an assumption I think that the Corps makes the call, but I understand government and I really doubt that any appointed official, no matter high up, is going to take that one on. He's going to defer and eventually I believe the President will decide.

Actually it was NOT the President who decided the final outcome of the levee in MO. It was a federal judge in MO that made the decision.

"CARTERVILLE, Ill. -- A federal judge in Cape Girardeau, Mo., has given the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the go ahead to breach a Missouri levee in hopes of saving several other communities along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers."

"The presiding judge, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. is a cousin of conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh, who also hails from Cape Girardeau."

[hank franklin]

No, all Limbaugh said was the Corps had the authority. It's their call. Obviously the decision hasn't been made yet.

At some point somebody, some singular person, is going to have to make the decision. And I say that's going to be the President.

[hank franklin]

Okay, I had to dig a little deeper. The Southeast Missourian is saying it's Major General Michael Walsh's decision.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stands ready to launch a precise, technical -- and hopefully highly effective -- 48-hour operation that will begin with barges of explosives moving upriver and culminate with the ebbing of unforgiving floodwaters through the floodway's reach.

But the 200 or so Corps employees who are stationed in Mississippi County along the levee are waiting for the word from one man -- Maj. Gen. Michael Walsh, president

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1723267.html

Okay then, who is Mr. Walsh?

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 11, 2011

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

•Madelyn R. Creedon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Department of Defense

•Alan F. Estevez, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, Department of Defense

•Lewis A. Lukens, Ambassador to the Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Department of State

•Paul Wohlers, Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, Department of State

•Rear Admiral Jonathan W. Bailey, Commissioner, Mississippi River Commission

•Major General Michael J. Walsh, President, Mississippi River Commission

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/11/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

He's a political appointee. The decision is the President's.

[flytyer57]

Okay, I had to dig a little deeper. The Southeast Missourian is saying it's Major General Michael Walsh's decision.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stands ready to launch a precise, technical -- and hopefully highly effective -- 48-hour operation that will begin with barges of explosives moving upriver and culminate with the ebbing of unforgiving floodwaters through the floodway's reach.

But the 200 or so Corps employees who are stationed in Mississippi County along the levee are waiting for the word from one man -- Maj. Gen. Michael Walsh, president

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1723267.html

Okay then, who is Mr. Walsh?

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 11, 2011

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

•Madelyn R. Creedon, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Department of Defense

•Alan F. Estevez, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, Department of Defense

•Lewis A. Lukens, Ambassador to the Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Department of State

•Paul Wohlers, Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, Department of State

•Rear Admiral Jonathan W. Bailey, Commissioner, Mississippi River Commission

•Major General Michael J. Walsh, President, Mississippi River Commission

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/11/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts

He's a political appointee. The decision is the President's.

You are reading way more into this than what is printed. He was a presidential appointee but does not work for the White House. He works for the US Army Corps of Engineers. If Bush would have appointed him do you think that he would take orders from Bush?

What you are trying to say is like saying that if the president appoints a judge to a federal bench, then all decisions that judge makes are directly from the president. Thats just total BS.

[hank franklin]

If Bush would have appointed him do you think that he would take orders from Bush?

Of course.

Clearly Mr. Walsh can decide on his own. If the President doesn't like his decision Mr. Walsh can be removed. If Mr. Walsh has any second thoughts he will likely consult the President, or at least the President's staff.

A president cannot remove a federal judge. Not without serious cause anyway.

I don't want to argue with you. I am fascinated by the decision-making. If Walsh comes to the president and says, uh, whaddya think? then Obama will not only have to deal with whatever info Walsh gives him, he'll have to consider that it's Illinois, which he represented. So yes of course politics would enter that. I don't know how Obama would act, but the scales clearly would be tipped toward Illinois.

Walsh might choose to deal with the facts independently of the President. If so bully for him. If it's his decision then I gotta believe he's gonna put his faith in the levees and unless he knows with near absolute certainty that Cairo will fail, he won't blow the Mo levee. He's a levee guy, he's a civil engineer and he works for the Corps. His inclination likely would be "trust the levees."

He may opt to do nothing with the facts that he has, and without consulting the President. I highly doubt that he would blow the Mo levee without consulting the President.