“It shouldn’t have been this way,” he said while piling sandbags in front of his neighbor’s house. “For most of the spring there were sandbars over the whole damn river.”
The period between March 20 and May 6 has been difficult for the Army Corps of Engineers to explain. During that span, the Corps’ water managers kept river levels low and stockpiled near-record amounts of water behind the three upper basin dams on the Missouri River, despite evidence that the Rocky Mountains were holding a lot more snow than normal.
The reservoirs were so full by early May that they couldn’t contain the late-spring rainfall that pounded Montana and the Dakotas.
h/t Gary M.
Related - The purposeful flooding of America's heartland;
But after about thirty years of operation, as the environmentalist movement gained strength throughout the seventies and eighties, the Corps received a great deal of pressure to include some specific environmental concerns into their MWCM (Master Water Control Manual, the "bible" for the operation of the dam system). Preservation of habitat for at-risk bird and fish populations soon became a hot issue among the burgeoning environmental lobby. The pressure to satisfy the demands of these groups grew exponentially as politicians eagerly traded their common sense for "green" political support.
Things turned absurd from there.
(h/t Ron in Kelowna)
They must have been listening to Environment Canada that was reporting the snow pack was low and would lead to water shortages.
People always assume that bureaucrats, especially government bureaucrats, just make up red tape and excessive rules and regulations from thin air.
They don't. Red tape is the result of being mandated to balance the needs/interests/requests/demands of multiple, often competing, constituencies -- in this case, recreational boaters, environmentalists, the energy industry, and farmers, all of whom want for their own reasons higher water levels upstream, in addition to downstream homeowners, whose primary interest is obviously flood control.
But sure, blame the government. Easy target, simple narrative.
Delta smelt,cash for clunkers, the stimulus, fast and furious, drilling moratorium, six wars, not necessarily unintended consequences......... makes you think it's all planned for some reason.
I see no harm in any of this.
Nor this: http://randysright.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/feds-buying-up-farmland-the-army-corps-of-engineers-flooded-soros-in-on-it/
I'm sure it's just a coincident. With Executive Order 13575 too, it's nothing.
Lets see, mother nature + man-made alterations = nothing good.
Snow + rain + Corpse of Engineers = flooding and an "oopsie".
Hurricane + Corpse of Engineers crappy dykes + inept politicians = Bush's fault.
btw, the USACE is a federal agency, as in G*d dam government;-)
Flood me now or flood me later.
Intentionally made better for creatures and worse for mankind?
[Things turned absurd from there. An idea to restore the nation's rivers to a natural (pre-dam) state swept through the environmental movement and their allies. Adherents enlisted the aid of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), asking for an updated "Biological Opinion" from the FWS that would make ecosystem restoration an "authorized purpose" of the dam system. The Clinton administration threw its support behind the change, officially shifting the priorities of the Missouri River dam system from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.]
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html
It's all part of the plan to 'restore the river'. Come on people, THINK GREEN! [/sarcasm]
.
Wasn't the Saguenay Flood in '96 caused by a mandate to keep the water behind the dam high for the recreational boaters and anglers during the tourist season? There was no capacity left upstream of the dam when the heavy rains came. Result, $1.5Billion in damage and several deaths.
Flood control has to be the only consideration in water management.
More bureaufats, more apocalyptic floods.
Shut up and pay your taxes.
The snow pack was 140% of normalized averages, but the Master Manual doesn't say "turn your brain off"...
Further, with torrential spring rain the consequent flooding was all but guaranteed due to the low release rates from the Garrison Dam from mid March to mid May, which ensured the resevoir was at 90-95% capacity. Thus the rains had now where to go but downstream or alternately breach the dam; which would have had near to the same effect albeit somewhat more violently.
Saved by the Flood Scene - O Brother, Where Art Thou?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsrIYleq2KY
My my...this is almost as good as the Three Gorges Dam Project in China on how not to manage or build a hydro/electric facility.
Is moral imbecility a condition of employment?
Yep, 'hell or highwater' and it appears the latter. And who is buying up all that flooded farmland at bargain basement prices?
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, C in C
1st St. Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"
So where were the 3 Democratic stooges - Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy - while the Corps incorporated the enviros plan to flood their state into the Master Water Control Manual? Probably taking money from them and enlisting their help in their re-election campaigns.
The tragedy is, a single letter written by any of the 3 stooges to the Corps would probably have been sufficient pressure to force the Corps to lower the pool level behind the dams.
Nice to see that this is another Clinton legacy, as the Corps was ordered by Clinton to put enviro whacko wishes first and foremost in the management of the dam system .
SDA story linked: "Tree huggers flood country folks land"
http://metanoodle.blogspot.com/2011/07/city-tree-huggers-flood-country-folks.html
Same thing happened in Australia where the enviro whackos claimed drought was the biggest problem and forced dam operators to hold back water in the pre cyclone season.
Folks, this just isn't that simple. Where does all the water from the Missouri (MOR) River go? Into the Mississippi (MIR). And what was happening on the MI in late April and May? Major floods. (see for example here: Mississippi flood map)
Now, I'm sure the Corps who control the MIR dams and spillways occasionally have conversations with their counterparts on the MOR. With the Mississippi group having to take drastic measures, like opening the Morganza spillway for the first time in 37 years, flooding over 4,000 square miles of Louisiana, I'm sure they would have gladly told the MOR Corps "You can release more water - no problem!".
With a significant amount of America's oil refining capacity on the lower MIR, and an equally important group of chemical firms, if worse flooding had been allowed on the MIR, the economic consequences to America would have been huge. Think $5/gal gasoline, and greatly increased petrochemical prices. That would have nipped off any chance of an economic recovery (such as it is) for months.
I'm certain politicians were involved in the MOR decisions, as they were in the Morganza decision (Obama reportedly authorized that move). So, what would you have done? 1 - Authorized more releases from the MOR in April and May, making the flooding worse on the lower MIR, and probably incapacitating a large section of America's oil and gas refining? 2 - Hold more water on the MOR, hoping that the spring rains wouldn't be too heavy? 3 - Hold more water on the MOR, knowing that if the spring rains were heavy (as they were) that you would probably have to create floods of thousands of square miles of farm land and homes?
We all know most politicians lack guts. Option 1 was never a consideration; that would have made a bad situation on the lower MIR much worse. Option 3 was a calculated decision that the value to the US economy of the lower MIR was greater than the value of the MOR floodplain. Option 2 was the only choice a sensible politician could take; if God had bailed them out with a warm, dry spring, they'd all be patting themselves on the back for their "prudent" policies. When the rain did come, they chose to sacrifice farmland over cheap gas.
You can call it cold and cynical, and I won't disagree with you. But there are a heck of lot more voters on the MIR, and big campaign contributors, than there are on the MOR. North Dakota never had a chance.
@ Kevin B:
"Significant flooding of the Mississippi Valley in 1927 prompted national discussion of flood control along the Mississippi. Other severe flooding events occurred in 1937, 1965, 1973, 1982, and 1993. The severe flooding in 1993 is considered to be the most devastating in recorded U.S. history. It affected the upper and middle Mississippi Valley from late June until mid-August 1993 with record levels on the Mississippi River and most of its tributaries from Minnesota to Missouri. At St. Louis, the river remained above flood stage for over two months and crested at 49.6 feet (19 feet above flood stage). Industry and transportation along the Mississippi were virtually at a standstill during the summer months of 1993. In all, over 1,000 of the 1,300 levees in the Mississippi River system failed, over 70,000 people were displaced, nearly 50,000 homes were either destroyed or damaged, 12,000 square miles of agricultural land was unable to be farmed, and 52 people died. Fortunately, larger cities along the Mississippi remained protected by floodwalls. The cost of the flood was enormous. Most estimates of total flood damage run to nearly $20 billion. Flood events are certain to remain a part of life along the Mississippi River.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/mississippi-river#ixzz1RGJrGYlZ
Sorry, Kevin B but that doesn't square with the history of the area. As above, in the 1993 flooding 1000 of 1300 levees FAILED. What have the engineering Corps been doing for the last 18 years to mitigate flooding effects, rather than torching another $20 Billion?
Let me guess, like Katrina there is no money to fix the levees...or the politicians decided it is just the price of doing business.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, C in C
1st St. Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"
KevinB - The Corps could have released the water much earlier than the April May window you imply was the only feasible opportunity. The reason they didn't was the environmentalist nuts wanted a very high pool level so that a large release of water could be made in the spring to mimic the traditional pre-dam spring flows in the Missouri. Of course, maintaining the pool level at 90 percent more of the reservoir's capacity to ensure enough water was available for the enviros beloved spring pulse meant they were gambling that only below average rains would fall in the spring.
In light of these facts, efforts to blame the flood on the political influence of lower Mississippi Valley interests, as you do, look like an attempt by environmentalists to shirk responsibility for this massive flood they produced
A 'pitchfork' registry will be coming soon to America's Heartland. Settle down people, Obambi will take care of you....
Hans:
What, exactly, did I write that "doesn't square with the history of the area"? Of course the Mississippi floods every few years. 1927 and 1937 were the worst years recorded, but this year's flood actually had higher crests at some points along the river (all downstream from the Missouri, BTW) than in either of those years.
I posted a link to a long article from the New Yorker here twice in the last few months. If you took the time to read it, you'd understand the challenges of trying to channel Mother Nature. During that time, the Corps had to practically rebuild the entire Old River Control Structure, which now allows the Mississippi to handle even higher flows of water than were recorded in 1927 or 1937. They haven't exactly been sitting on their hands.
Also, you seem to assume that the failure of 1,000 levees in 1993 was deliberate, like the release of water from the MOR dams, or down the Morganza spillway. It was not deliberate "flooding"; it was catastrophic failure. You do realize those are two different things?
Finally, I think what I wrote exactly squares with the history of the area. The 1993 flood (I'll accept your figures) cost about $20 billion; what do you think the cost would be in 2011 dollars if the 2011 flood - already higher than the 1993 one - had been made worse by a deliberate release of MOR water in early May? If the Corps had NOT been on the ball and making changes for the last 18 years, the devastation could have been much worse.
Again, I urge you to read the article; you'll gain more respect for what the Corps does, and the competing interests it faces from industry, agriculture, and the community. Fighting the Mississippi
Man was made for protocals not protocals for man. Especially with the Earth worshippers. Who have for years infiltrated all our institutions.
Mangled real science. Lied their way to a position of power to the point. People are just food.
KevinB: "Again, I urge you to read the article; you'll gain more respect for what the Corps does, and the competing interests it faces from industry, agriculture, and the community."
That's an uphill battle, friend. Neither your points nor the New Yorker article square with the prevailing narrative here, which is this: the "Gov'mint" is to blame, always, full stop.
Just a few of the problems on the river:
On the Atchafalaya, the river attempting to take control of the lower Mississippi, there are two types of crawfish harvesting: swampmen, who travel around in boats going from tree to tree, harvesting wild crawfish, and crawfish farmers, who raise their harvest in pens. The swampmen want more water; the muddier it is, the bigger the crawfish grow. The farmers want less water; it makes it easier to harvest their crop and, not coincidentally, reduces the competing catch from the swampmen. Farther down the river, some oystermen want less water, as wild oysters need brackish water to breed. But oystermen who use seed beds need fresh water, so they want even more water to push the salty waters of the Gulf back.
That's just the fishermen; the soybean farmers want to draw water from the river for irrigation. Boaters and sports fishermen want the water high for their recreation. People in towns like Morgan City want lower water levels; people in Terrebonne Parish want higher water.
The competing interests on both rivers are high. The Corps is not only supposed to control flooding; it has to make sure enough water is there for municipal, agricultural, industrial, and recreation uses. What if, despite the large snowmelt, there had been a hot, dry spring, and the Corps had already released the water? Wouldn't the same farmers complaining about flooding be complaining about the lack of water? (And perhaps someone with more intimate knowledge of western weather can help me here: given the long, cold spring we had (snow in Toronto in May), would the snow melt have begun in February, or even late March? I would have thought at the higher elevations in the Rockies and higher latitudes in general, it would occur much later.)
Oh, and one more point for small c conservative:
Transit time for water from the upper Missouri to the Gulf is about 80 days. So even if water had been released in February, it would have been reaching the Old River Control Structure about sixty days later - April, exactly when the Mississippi flood problems started.
Like I said, nothing is simple on the river.
KevinB
Clinton's, mandate on the Corps to add habitst restoration, and create spring floods (pulses) in the rivers to mimic the historic springtime flows is why the pool levels on the MO were kept at such high levels heading into spring. This policy has been continued by the Obama administration. The demand for higher water by environmentalists , not sport fishermen, and oystermen using seedbeds, is why the reservoirs were not adequately drawn down. The committee that advised the Corps on how best to implement Clinton's environmental mandate had 70 members; all but 4 of them were environmentalists.
Davenport
Government is not to blame here: Environmentalists are,and shame on Obama for putting the demands of environmental nuts ahead of the security of the people living near the Missouri.
Somehow the World Master wanna be's have to bring those bible quoting, gun toting, rednecks, who value independence above money, to their knees. What better way to bring them down than to destroy the property they own, the property that keeps them independent? This would seem very logical to the human hating progressives, IMO. This was done on purpose (it is obvious so why cloak it by pointing out the stupidity?) and we are the stupid ones for allowing it to happen.
Those brave independent souls that the progressives call rednecks are all that stand between Freedom and Communism in America/Canada.