Bad Idea, Good Idea?

[MOPanfisher]

Well let me add a couple pennies worth. The levees that were blown in the wyatt area were originally designed to fail at a certain river level, however that didn't happen, so they were blown. The area that was flooded is part of a designated floodway and that is included in the legal instruments of the property owners. Is it wise to live there, maybe as a farmer knowing that I could be flooded and the occurance may be once every 5-15 years or more I would choose to be close to the land I farmed. It would be foolish not to farm those lands when possible due to the quality of the land it produces a lot of grain. It will ALWAYS come down on the side of saving people over land, if for no other reason than people vote and farmland doesn't. The COE didn't come up with the idea of levees, dikes etc. that was mandated by congress and the COE was charged with constructing and operating them. Personally I would love to see the river return to its normal course, no levees, no dikes etc. However there would be a lot of people have to move and cost Billions and Billions of $$. There was a proposal by the Fish and Wildlife Service after the 93 floods that reccomended the COE purchase all the floodable land along the Missouri and allow it flood naturally, unfortunately there are a LOT of folks living in some of those areas and the COE can't purchase land without much higher level authorization and funding (think congressional). There are some places where it would actually be cheaper to purchase the land that is protected and allow it to flood than to rebuild the levees repeatedly. Something along the lines of the 115K acres flooded around Wyatt MO, the Federal Government would purchase the land then rent it back to farmers to farm, there would be some times they could get a full crops other years they wouldn't get a dime. Then you get into everyone yelling about the Federal Gov't buying land from private individuals and there is all starts again.

The land immediately below dams is a little different, while there are those who propose dam removal you will not see that happen for a lot of reasons. I

[Wayne SW/MO]

I suppose one of the problems I have with the issue is that the COE took on a project intended to prevent floods and not make them worse. The problem as I see it is they have made it worse. and the fact that they can lower the flood level by eliminating a levee indicates that the levees increase the water levels. In their failure they create a different flood by creating channels instead of the slow inundation that generally creates better soil rather then washing it away.

Many have mentioned lives at risk, but a cities, in my mind, would be easier to evacuate then a scattered rural area. Economically we would be better off to rebuild cities then to simply pay for losses where an individual can't collect on his crops. There will be some job creation rebuilding some farm structures, but I would think rebuilding a town like Cairo away from danger would do more for them and the economy.

I have to question why they can't protect cities, I would think their perimeters wouldn't come close to the length of a levee protecting farmland.

[flytyer57]

The COE doesn't have to buy out any land, pay to move people or rebuild any city. When these morons living on the flood plains get flooded out every year or so, either their flood insurance or FEMA pays for their damages. That money could be better spent on buying a new home where they wouldn't need to be bailed out year after year.

Give them a warning. They get paid once, and then they're on their own. And any new homes built on the flood plains, after a certain date, get no FEMA flood protection at all. It's that simple.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Do you feel the same way about cities that are below sea level? We aren't just talking about farmers here and in fact the whole point of the discussion isn't about those in flood plains and those that live outside them, it is about who gets spared in the flood prone areas.

[MOPanfisher]

A lot of the levee building and river maintaining is Political, note the capital P. The COE is given a task by congress, then if it gets funded it gets designed and built. Political clout is a major factor. The rivers are supposed to carry away excess water, but not ever flood in the event of huge amounts of rain over the basin. They are supposed to be able to allow barges to pass through and along the entire length regardless of rainfall, and not need to be dredged continuously, (thats what the wing dikes do). They are supposed to protect cities and farmlands regardless of what mother nature has in her plan. Well it can't all happen. Someone complains to their congressman, and if he has enough political clout he inserts into a bill an authorization to raise a levee by say 6 feet so that it protects 100K acres of prime farm ground, even though it may be considered as the first levee to be taken out if the river gets to flood stage. Now that levee is higher than the one across the river or down stream so they begin to lobby for an increase, and the cycle goes on and on. The Corps being a military led organization will when given orders like (go paint all the low lying land so that it looks like crops are planted, (tongue in cheek)) will simply salute and go do it. Depending on the commander they might question it but when push comes to shove they will salute and do what they are told. Don't like it, ask your congressmen why they send down the authorization to do those things.

My opinion and it is worth nothing, is concentrate on the cities as that is where the people are, build good levees around them, and remove the others allowing the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio etc. to have room to spread out, it will leve some silt on the fields and flood prone areas and increase their fertility over time. It is much cheaper to provide crop loss insurance to the farmers than it is to build, repair, blow up, re-build levees. And the cost to rebuild a city is far far far more than what it is to pay farmers for lost crops, its not even close. We as a nation have already gone down the road of building into our floodplains and every so often Mother Nature reminds us that she truly owns them, and sends the rivers to collect the rent. Even with a levee it is not a permanent thing, water will find a way under, through, over or around given any chance whatsoever.

[flytyer57]

Do you feel the same way about cities that are below sea level? We aren't just talking about farmers here and in fact the whole point of the discussion isn't about those in flood plains and those that live outside them, it is about who gets spared in the flood prone areas.

They should have never spent the money to rebuild New Orleans.

If you live in a flood prone area, get out. It's as simple as I've stated earlier in this discussion.

Why should everyone else have to pay for their idiocy? Even if it's the insurance companies who have to pay for the flood damage, it costs all of us because the insurance companies have to make up their losses some how. And they ain't gonna make it up entirely on those who continue to live in the flood planes or areas that are prone to flooding.

[flytyer57]

...Someone complains to their congressman, and if he has enough political clout he inserts into a bill an authorization to raise a levee by say 6 feet so that it protects 100K acres of prime farm ground, even though it may be considered as the first levee to be taken out if the river gets to flood stage. Now that levee is higher than the one across the river or down stream so they begin to lobby for an increase, and the cycle goes on and on.

My opinion and it is worth nothing...

And the point is, when will it stop? Congress is always complaining about cutting spending, yet millions are spent on so few for the simple reason of downright stubborn stupidity.

And everyones opinion counts or this debating, as we are doing here, is a moot point. (Although calling your representatives in government is worth nothing unless you send that fat check along.)

[Wayne SW/MO]

They should have never spent the money to rebuild New Orleans.

If you live in a flood prone area, get out. It's as simple as I've stated earlier in this discussion.

Why should everyone else have to pay for their idiocy? Even if it's the insurance companies who have to pay for the flood damage, it costs all of us because the insurance companies have to make up their losses some how. And they ain't gonna make it up entirely on those who continue to live in the flood planes or areas that are prone to flooding.

I agree that the cost of keeping NO dry has reached the point of being ridiculous. If it were not for the history I doubt that they would.

I may be wrong, but I don't think any private insurance companies offer flood insurance in flood prone areas. I believe the insurance in areas prone to flood is also a federal limb.

[3wt]

No way the economic impact would be less if an urban area flooded. Just no way. A lot more structures, much higher concentration of expesive things like cars.

I feel for anybody loosing their house or property, but let's not pretend like the corps is choosing the greater devastation. Just no way.

That doesn't even take into account the chances for loss of life. I don't have too much sypathy for people that won't heed the warnings and evacuate, but there will be more people to get out of a city than farmland. The traffic might make it impossible in some cases, and there will be a lot more elderly, poor and disabled that will need assistance. One hospital at risk would be a much greater disaster than probably everything in the spillway.

I don't like these situations, but there is just no decision to be made once the water's coming up. You go by the plan that has been in place for years. We should think about these things before it's emergency time if we want change. But since the emergency is on, then these are the right decisions to make, no contest.

[skeeter]

COE is ruled by Politics. Politics are ruled by money. Them that has get's what they want, them that don't get squat. More money comes to politics from Urban areas than from Rural.

Bear in mind the Morganza Spillway project can also be termed the Morganza Diversion project. It was authorized by Congress back in 1928 as part of the "Mississippi River and Tributaries Project" after the floods of 1927 when the River measured 80 miles across in places. The Project was also built, and this is important, to prevent the Mississippi cutting a new channel via "Avulsion" to the Gulf down the Atchafalaya River basin.

The Morganza is tied into (not physically) the "Old River Control Structure" which also has the purpose of stopping/preventing the Missisippi from flowing down the Atchafalaya basin and entering the Gulf at Morgan City. That route to the Gulf is much steeper than the present day route. Studies have shown this channel change has occured about every 1000 years in the past and some researchers believe that despite the COE's best efforts it will happen again.

Due, in part, to the available soils used in construction of these two structures, merely opening the floodgates puts both projects at risk and the flood of 2011 will be a severe test. Failure of these projects would be a severe blow to the U.S. economy.

Bird's Point-New Madrid Floodway, in Missouri, was part of the same 1928 "Mississippi River and Tributaries Project" bill authorizing COE to build projects attempting to control the Mississippi. It was designed to be blown up to relieve flooding pressure if it wasn't over-topped first, and it was previously dynamited in 1937 and was then re-built, the latest in 1983 when the COE installed 11,000 feet of pipe to enable pumping of liquid explosive to open the floodway. Was this a good decision to "save" Cairo, IL ? Depends on your point of view. Cairo is literally surrounded by levees, it's the lowest place in the State of Illinois and saving it cost MO farmers untold millions of dollars that the Feds. have promised to re-pay them !!! ? On the other hand, those farmers and residents knew fully that some day, the floodway could and would be opened again so here is another case of there is no " GOOD" decision.