The right-wing noise machine is ramping up its effort to prop up its failing worldview with the Missouri River flooding. Right-wing blogs are moving beyond citing these floods as evidence of government's inherent ineptitude to assert that the floods result from active malevolence on the part of government, environmentalists, higher education, and liberals in general.
Attorney Epp emerges from restful silence to post excerpts from the Army Corps of Engineers operating plan to assist in evaluating the milder claim that poor management may be part of the problem.
But the rabid assignment of blame to the usual bêtes noires of the right-wing shouters sets off my alarm bells. It is natural for humans to seek some intelligent agency behind every action (see also intelligent design, conspiracy theories, various religions). We find comfort in assigning responsibility to specific actors rather than accepting that sometimes stuff just happens.
One would think that, Ã la Occam, it would be easier to posit that the flood damage in South Dakota is a result of (1) unusually heavy rains and (2) folks building big houses too close to the river. Governor Dennis Daugaard, to his credit, at least doesn't dismiss the possibility that the floods could be a result of climate change (oops: but there I go looking for human causes!).
FEMA has declared that the flood is natural, not manmade. Citing that position, Michael Melius offers this observation:
Janklow claims this flood is man-made, blaming the Corps. That is a crucial factor in insurance claims, I would imagine. So I wonder what BJ thinks about FEMA's determination that the flood is natural and insurance applies....
So, if homeowners side with Janklow, they should be glad to forego insurance claims. Have I got the illogic right? [Michael Melius, comment, Madville Times, 2011.06.20]
Blaming bureaucrats and political boogeymen may be easier than accepting the overwhelming power and indifference of nature. But for folks in hip waders looking to make insurance claims, might it not be wise to stop shouting and check the box marked "Act of God"?
Yes the flood was entirely preventable in South Dakota. The catch is that it would have taken out Eppley Field in Omaha, part of the Industrial district in Kansas City, parts of St. Louis, and would have flooded the already damaged city of New Orleans. If you look at what the Conservative blogs cite as their source for their argument, comes from February 4th 2011. If my memory serves me correctly there was ice still on the main stem reservoirs. So the release of water then would have created ice jams, ice jams are dams created by ice when water pushes ice into a dam like structure example would be Vermillion 1881 flood. Another point they forget is the Missouri flows into the Mississippi. Tributaries on the Mississippi usually flood before the snow pack on the Missouri River tributaries can melt. So in March lets say, when maybe ice was gone not to cause damage with the release of water we could have lowered the reservoirs. The problem with that is that they would have had to contend with the run off from the Ohio River and Tennessee River and it would have overloaded the system then. The dams did their jobs they held off the water so people could evacuate and build levees. What ever happen to the Conservative idea that you are responsible for your own business decisions?
The American Thinker article misses at least one important point on purpose: the corps is regular army. Of course the dams should go away. The corps is under orders to generate power and sell it. In a question to Bob Mercer a reader asked, "Any idea what the state’s take is on corps generated power on the Missouri River, Mr. Mercer?"
His reply, "Interesting question… if I correctly understand it. To my knowledge, the State of South Dakota doesn’t receive revenue from power generation from the Missouri River dams. The electricity is marketed through the federal Western Area Power Administration. During George S. Mickelson’s time as governor, people in state government such as Warren Neufeld sought an opportunity for state government to bond to pay for improvements needed in the dams’ hydropower systems, with a portion of hydro revenue in turn to to be used to repay the bonds and to give the state treasury some financial boost. That plan didn’t get far."
During Dakota Midday on Bill Janklow's idea of public radio the corps representative being interviewed repeatedly stated that its primary mission is to generate power. The only way the dams could come out is to replace them with smaller, more efficient hydropower. Recall President Obama's State of the Union speech? The corps has its orders.
The greed of the american population buying power on the energy market is the culprit in 2011. Yep, US. Who benefits in Congress? Roy Blunt.
Cory,
Why ignore did you ignore Greg Pavelka, a wildlife biologist with the Corps of Engineers in Yankton, SD describing the epic flooding as a:
"prolonged headache for small towns and farmers along its path, but a boon for endangered species."
He mentioned nothing about "intelligent design, conspiracy theories, various religions".
"Of course the dams should go away."
Without the system of dams places like Dakota Dunes would flood seasonally and with little warning. Instead of 160,000 CFS possibly drawn out for months, the "former" Oahe area would have 396,000 CFS, tearing houses from foundations instead of saturating them... but only for a week or so. We'd lose cheap power and much of the fishing/recreation industries. We'd also gain a good amount of farmland.
So, I would think the existence of the dams is still a net gain, even if operational plans need to be revised... why do you feel they should "go away?"
This is how you handle a potential flood. http://www.ksfy.com/story/14236085/daugaard-to-tour-state-to-discuss-flood-potential?redirected=true
The Corps may not have been able to hold back the water, but holding back information is inexcusable. They should have seen this coming and warned us.
And Cory, global warming is supposed to dry us up, not flood us out. The deception is now referred to as "climate change". Why do the idol worshippers of Mother Earth not continue to blame "global warming"?
Why do you continue to mock those who refuse to behave as ostriches?
Adam,
To be clear, the point of discussion is not to remove the dams or leave. The point is how should they be operated, for birds and fishes or for humans.
Start here: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/
Buy out the people that built in the floodway and rewild the entire system from Omaha to Three Forks; connect it with corridors to the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative and the Dakota Grasslands Conservation proposal.
I disagree with you completely Steve, Adam's point is very valid. If we did not have the dams in the first place, this conversation would not be happening because no one would want to build in an area where there was possibility of flooding or the dams were ever built. It has been historically shown that towns that have been built by the Missouri River had been moved due to the possibility of flooding. It was not until recently the idea of a riverside home trumped people's good judgment.
Two questions I have are; what is your alternative, and how do you plan to implement it?
Yeah, I got rather sidetracked by that comment. The dams are certainly not going away and I'm glad they're there overall.
Steve - On the one hand, it is a logical leap to say flooding is "a boon to endangered species" and use it to imply that this was an intentional operational motive in the flooding result. The Manual is clear that endangered species are accommodated only if flood control, municipal water sources, irrigation, and navigation are already satisfied to the extent of their defined requirements.
However: "If the Corps only had to take care of navigation and flood control, I guarantee you those levels [in the Missouri River reservoirs] would have been much lower." (Former Corps Head Engineer Mike Parker) That is of course Congress' fault, not the Corps. (I think he exaggerates a bit since quality municipal water is kinda important too, but he's the engineer.)
So, it could in fact be argued that if we ignored species control completely, they could run the river a little differently to possibly save high-risk homes at a potential permanent loss of some species. There's definitely passionate arguments on both sides of that one.
Like you can ensure that the dams aren't capable of going away, Mr. Ellsworth. How many seismic events are you capable of preventing?
I stand corrected. "We are unlikely to choose to remove the dams." :-)
Here, just in case you were still in grade school, Adam: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/article_bf6243d1-ba9f-5690-ac72-0b556ba1d64b.html
Hey I found something that is really interesting. The Capitial Journal article in which the American Thinker takes it's source
http://www.capjournal.com/articles/2011/06/14/news/doc4df6d00c78f8c907147522.txt
Oops,
Capital Journal I can spell, and eighth paragraph in the article.
As was pointed out to me about a month ago, the dams were installed as flood control structures, not flood prevention structures. The general public has no way of knowing how many floods would have damaged the Missouri River area and beyond if the dams hadn't been built 50 years ago; but we can measure the benefit in terms of electric generation that has been provided as a result of these multi-million dollar federal investments.
Just last night there was an interview on KELO with representatives from the corps of engineers, according to officials the snowmelt was on track with previous years and officials were monitoring that situation, but sudden record rainfall in the spring compounded the problem. If we weren't in such saturated conditions right now, maybe the ground could have absorbed some of that rainfall, but the fact is that now it all flows into rivers and other bodies of water and has a more immediate impact.
Adam makes a good point -- would the public rather have water saturated basements that can be fixed or face the prospect of rebuilding their entire home that has been washed downstream with the entire neighborhood. It's a historic event. One we South Dakotans haven't seen. It's also disheartening for homeowners who are displaced in this whole situation.
Things happen that we can't predict. In this instance, homeowners had some warning and were able to prepare. That's not the case in all situations where natural disasters are concerned.
More: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/ftm_snow.htm
Great read: http://bigmuddynews.blogspot.com/2011/06/editorial-flood-blog-by-author-of.html
Larry if you also go ecointheknow there are more works from Dr. Schiedners. I like his June 21st post it is pretty good.
http://ecointheknow.com/news/
Corey,
I wouldn't worry to much because many of those commenting on SDWC (a Republican-leaning blog) are not buying this blaming the Corps either. Even Troy Jones is not blaming the Corps. The noise from Pierre of blaming the Corps I believe is not the majority of opinion in the rest of the state. Most realize this is a law of nature of problem.
Guy,
We are not blaming the Corp. We are blaming the pantheistic New Age Spiritual Pagan Theocracy that is running this country via the United Nations, or in other words, the New World Order or perhaps even the Beast of Revelation. Be careful on what you are riding.
[CAH: Steve, I'm attempting to access the NASPT-UN central computer so I can post the surveillance video of my genuine outburst of laughter upon reading the above comment.]
What? Come on now Steve, are you just mad that someone found a positive aspect with the high water levels in the Missouri River? Rivers need a recharge for them to be healthy. The fishing on the reservoirs are going to be great in the next couple of years due to the spawning habitat created by the high water. Fish bring money and tourists and that is what our economy in South Dakota needs to survive. Until we bring in real jobs that pay a decent wage we are at the mercy of the river.
TCMack,
I am not mad. I just want the truth to be known. Thanks for adding your confirmation.
Steve, ahhhhhhhhhh what...I mean: WHAT?!?
Guy, you reinforced Greg Pavelka. He was the whole point of my criticism.
http://www.omahatattler.com/?p=1746
I bring to you this much lighter look at the flooding courtesy of the Omaha Tattler.
http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2011/06/god-stop-voting-for-republicans-and-the-flooding-will-end/#comments
Another humorous (well depends on your viewpoints I suppose) take on the flooding.
Oh so many here are stuck in the 1940s. We don't need damns and reservoirs to generate electricity - and haven't for years. It's merely the transference of kinetic energy - hydrokinetic power. The dams can go now and the sooner the better - before they completely silt in. As Dr. Schneider wrote silting caused flooding and the relocation of Niobrara, NE; it caused earlier flooding in south Pierre; it causing flooding today in FT & Pierre, FT Yates, and Williston.
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_energy.html
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009127_163138.htm
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/verdant-power-free-flow-underwater-turbines-hydro.php
Robert Reich: "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America" or why South Dakota is a failed state.
Jesus Steve. Should I run out and invest in tin foil?
Intelligent design headed for the dustbin:
http://www.wbez.org/story/chicago-scientist-illuminates-mystery-evolution-95369
The war for the Missouri River just heated up: