When the Levee Breaks

This is the URL behind the satellite images link:

http://satellite%20footage%20from%20april%202011%20and%20may%202011%20show%20dramatic%20differences%20in%20the%20lan/

No wonder Firefox can't find the server!

Well, in the interest of giving readers SOMETHING to look at, here's a couple of links. The second one is cool -- shutter/shade effect.

https://feww.wordpress.com/tag/mississippi-river-flooding-satellite-image/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/mississippi-river-floods-satellite-photos_n_860630.html

This makes me think of the "insurance policies" added to projects. Some standards have them written in for certain situations, such as relief valves on piping systems. It didn't take people long to figure out that a $1000 relief valve is a cheap insurance policy in comparison to a boiler blowing up and killing people.

Uncontrolled releases (ie blowing the levee) can scour land, stripping topsoil leaving the area unsuitable for farming; whereas controlled releases will flood the land without scouring it. So I would say, gates are to levees as relief valves are to boilers.

Having served with the USACE (in several Districts), having firsthand knowledge and experience with the levee system along the Old Muddy and Ohio River, I must state that because of the existence of the levees there has been a marked decease flooding of valuable farmlands over the years, in urban areas as well as other rural areas (and hence decreased property and land damage). But there has also not been a deposition of organically rich soils (from floods) to replenish the farmland soils. Before levees were built, the yearly flooding of these rivers provided this.

As stated above, control levee breaches by the USACE will result in the overall lessening of damages for the benefit of all involved, not just the few. Besides, there are Federal and State programs that provide aid to farmers who lands and crops) that have been disturbed by intentional flooding of lands.

I know full well that my comments will be controversial and rumple a few feathers here, but no one forced these people to plop down and settle in the flood plain. The original settlers were taking advantage of the rich soils that were formed and replenished by the yearly floods.

They say that ignorance is bliss....... HAH!!!!!!!!!!

I get the impression that the Army Corps didn't have too many choices.

But who is going to do the planning and design work needed to make future floods less costly and dangerous?

I heard years ago that channelization upstream was part of the flood problem on this river. I haven't heard about that this time, so maybe that's old data. But if you are going to live close to a river subject to periodic flooding, you should not expect an identical life style to people up on high ground. You should be there because you make a living fishing the river or growing crops on the flood plain, not because you're too poor to move to a safer location.

So there could be whole social and planning issues involved in lowering flood damage, along with better engineering solutions.

The river needs to be allowed to flood evenly along its entire length. This will keep the down-river flooding from getting way out of hand. That means keeping ordinary houses and buildings out of the flood plain. It means considering building more elevated roadways. Buildings in the flood plain need to be on stilts and equipped for escape via boat or raft if necessary.

Even more ingenious ways could be invented, I am sure, to reduce risks in the future. If the right people have the determination to make it happen. We are learning gradually to live on friendlier terms with the planet. In the long run we will learn more lessons that way than if we continue trying to force the environment to be the way we think it needs to be.

I think the Army Corps' ratio of 'Got It Right/Got it Wrong' is about 60/40...