What Next?

[Al Agnew]

I'm still not getting your point or who the recipients of your demeaning comments are. I believe the vast majority of those building below dams understand the consequences, but they don't make up the whole. There are people for instance who made investments at the Lake of the Ozarks who weren't in any danger of flooding, then they built Truman. While Truman can't dump water like our lakes can, a failure would be catastrophic for the areas downstream. I know there are few who don't think it threw and are surprised, but they aren't dumb either, they just didn't think it would ever happen. There are countless numbers of us who were born here following centuries of ancestors, they survived floods and tornadoes, so I guess the belief that I can is inherited.

I suppose we can assume you live well above the altitude that a dam failure would endanger, but sadly there just isn't room at the top of the hill for everyone or apparently the intelligence level either, at least in your mind.

Wayne, I think the perception is that these people DO choose to live below a dam in the floodplain, whether they realize the possibilities or not. Some do, some don't think it will happen below THEIR dam. And I don't think many of us would have a problem with somebody knowingly living in an at-risk area as long as they accepted the consequences and were able and willing to move out when necessary and use their own money to rebuild. Where many of us have a problem is when those people expect the government (that means all of us) to rescue them, pay to rebuild for them, give them cheap flood insurance, pay for their temporary housing while they're waiting to rebuild...and then go right ahead and rebuild in the same place. And that's on top of the government (us) building the flood protection for them in the first place, and maintaining it. All those people who once lived in floodplains did so knowing the river would flood, not building anything that couldn't be easily replaced, being ready to move out of the way, and expecting only their neighbors in the same "boat" to help each other.

Somebody equated this to living in the Midwest where you can expect tornadoes to happen. Thing is, a tornado is purely a crap shoot, you can live a lifetime in one spot and never be hit by a tornado. But floods happen regularly, and always in...floodplains. Chances are that if you live in a floodplain, at some point you're going to get flooded.

[flytyer57]

Wayne, I think the perception is that these people DO choose to live below a dam in the floodplain, whether they realize the possibilities or not. Some do, some don't think it will happen below THEIR dam. And I don't think many of us would have a problem with somebody knowingly living in an at-risk area as long as they accepted the consequences and were able and willing to move out when necessary and use their own money to rebuild. Where many of us have a problem is when those people expect the government (that means all of us) to rescue them, pay to rebuild for them, give them cheap flood insurance, pay for their temporary housing while they're waiting to rebuild...and then go right ahead and rebuild in the same place. And that's on top of the government (us) building the flood protection for them in the first place, and maintaining it. All those people who once lived in floodplains did so knowing the river would flood, not building anything that couldn't be easily replaced, being ready to move out of the way, and expecting only their neighbors in the same "boat" to help each other.

Somebody equated this to living in the Midwest where you can expect tornadoes to happen. Thing is, a tornado is purely a crap shoot, you can live a lifetime in one spot and never be hit by a tornado. But floods happen regularly, and always in...floodplains. Chances are that if you live in a floodplain, at some point you're going to get flooded.

Thank you Al.

You live on the bank of a river, you're going to get flooded. Could have built somewhere higher and not had to worry about it. To me, building on the river banks just because you can is being dumb.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I realize that Al, but doesn't it fly in the face of the fact that billions have been spent in New Orleans and are ongoing, and approved, for the future? My should a family living on the banks of Taneycomo expect less?

Are you saying that while New Orleans parties, others should look away from other prime areas because they may flood. TR overloads once in a great, great while while we build 24/7 on the levees surrounding NO, have for decades. Notice I didn't make a big thing about them being below sea level, talk about a floodplain!

[Wayne SW/MO]

Thank you Al.

I don't think Al is making the same point you keep trying to make. Note the lack of Dumb or Dummies for instance in referring to people who either ended up below dams, or moved there after man built them..

[Al Agnew]

Actually, although I can see the arguments for rebuilding New Orleans, I thought at the time that the option of moving much of the city should have been explored more carefully. Because there is absolutely no doubt that a similar disaster there will happen again. I didn't ever really research it to know if anything was feasible, but my first thought was that the people in the hard hit residential areas should have been moved out permanently, and the city consolidated to where only a small area that was the most historically and/or economically important could have been protected by new, higher levees.

The nearest town to where I live is an interesting case in point. Ste. Genevieve is probably the most historically important town in Missouri, being the first European settlement west of the Mississippi. It was moved once long ago, but there are still large areas of the town in the floodplain and they WILL flood again. There are levees and a floodwall that protect the historic downtown area, and I doubt that the historic structures could all be moved, or should be moved. But having gone through days on end of filling sandbags trying to protect the town in 1993, I have to wonder whether it's really worth it.

Either you move nearly every town and residential and commercial area out of the floodplains, or you have to "triage" which ones have extra economic or historical significance, and protect them...but you better be able to come up with an ironclad justification for who you pick to try to protect and who you pick to force to move out, no doubt about that.

[jdmidwest]

I honestly thought the main purpose of the White River System Dams were to provide the electricity to the area back in the day. Much like the TVA system, bring cheap electric power to poor areas. Flood control, recreation, and water reservoirs were secondary concerns for the most part. Agriculture along the system was marginal as all "bottoms" in the flood plain were covered by lakes. If flood control for Arkansas downstream was desired, why did they build Beaver, Table Rock, and Powersite? Population areas were sparse at the time the dams were built, the formation of the lakes created the boom towns.

[bronzeback miner]

It's times like these I don't think you could pay me enough to be a COE lake manager.

"I honestly thought the main purpose of the White River System Dams were to provide the electricity to the area back in the day"

Most of the power generated around here is sent 'on the grid' to Oklahoma

[Wayne SW/MO]

I honestly thought the main purpose of the White River System Dams were to provide the electricity to the area back in the day. Much like the TVA system, bring cheap electric power to poor areas. Flood control, recreation, and water reservoirs were secondary concerns for the most part. Agriculture along the system was marginal as all "bottoms" in the flood plain were covered by lakes. If flood control for Arkansas downstream was desired, why did they build Beaver, Table Rock, and Powersite? Population areas were sparse at the time the dams were built, the formation of the lakes created the boom towns.

Powersite was for generation and you're right that the population was sparse. That is why it is small, 1 meg if I remember right, and PRIVATE!

The lower White river has been an important agriculture area for decades and hardly marginal in potential, but it was also prone to flooding. There was little more than small farms in the upper region and their value was small. The sides of hollers didn't have much value then so the area was perfect, at the time, to build flood control lakes. The Buffalo was also in the mix, but it's value was recognized in time.

The success of a project can't be measured by one season and overall the lakes have been successful in their primary purpose and secondary also.

Don't forget JD, we're talking 40's priorities.

I made a quick search and it appears that the authorization for flood control was in the Flood Control Act of 1938. The act states, for the most part that the construction for flood control, and other purposes is under the War Department. This was followed by the Flood Control Act of 1941, for “flood control and hydroelectric power, and other beneficial water uses.”

[skeeter]

Actually, although I can see the arguments for rebuilding New Orleans, I thought at the time that the option of moving much of the city should have been explored more carefully. Because there is absolutely no doubt that a similar disaster there will happen again. I didn't ever really research it to know if anything was feasible, but my first thought was that the people in the hard hit residential areas should have been moved out permanently, and the city consolidated to where only a small area that was the most historically and/or economically important could have been protected by new, higher levees.

The nearest town to where I live is an interesting case in point. Ste. Genevieve is probably the most historically important town in Missouri, being the first European settlement west of the Mississippi. It was moved once long ago, but there are still large areas of the town in the floodplain and they WILL flood again. There are levees and a floodwall that protect the historic downtown area, and I doubt that the historic structures could all be moved, or should be moved. But having gone through days on end of filling sandbags trying to protect the town in 1993, I have to wonder whether it's really worth it.

Either you move nearly every town and residential and commercial area out of the floodplains, or you have to "triage" which ones have extra economic or historical significance, and protect them...but you better be able to come up with an ironclad justification for who you pick to try to protect and who you pick to force to move out, no doubt about that.

Yep, St. Gen. was re-located quite a ways away from the Big River. I have my Great-Grandmother's X2 journal of her journey via flatboat from Pittsburgh to STL in 1803 where she wrote about St. Gen's original cemetery being washed away by the Mississippi and seeing the ends of coffins sticking out of the eroding riverbank.

Pierre Laclede supposedly chose the site of St. Louis because of the protection from flooding the original riverbluffs there offered that were gradually graded down over decades so the draft horse teams could pull loaded wagons up from the steamboats on the levee. The old-timers knew all about living and building in floodplains and what to do and not do. Never could figure out what the French settlers were thinking of placing the first St. Gen. where they did. Must have had something to do with ease of loading the Lead they mined.

[jdmidwest]

Powersite was for generation and you're right that the population was sparse. That is why it is small, 1 meg if I remember right, and PRIVATE!

The lower White river has been an important agriculture area for decades and hardly marginal in potential, but it was also prone to flooding. There was little more than small farms in the upper region and their value was small. The sides of hollers didn't have much value then so the area was perfect, at the time, to build flood control lakes. The Buffalo was also in the mix, but it's value was recognized in time.

The success of a project can't be measured by one season and overall the lakes have been successful in their primary purpose and secondary also.

Don't forget JD, we're talking 40's priorities.

I made a quick search and it appears that the authorization for flood control was in the Flood Control Act of 1938. The act states, for the most part that the construction for flood control, and other purposes is under the War Department. This was followed by the Flood Control Act of 1941, for “flood control and hydroelectric power, and other beneficial water uses.”

Like I said, it was the area below in Arkansas that needed flood control where the farmland was located. What was the justification for Table Rock and Beaver?

Locally, the flood control dams of Wappapello and Clearwater do not generate any electricity, their only main purpose is for flood control of farmland. They do not generate any electric power of any significance.