It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge says go ahead, blow up that levee!

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Judge says Mississippi levee can be blown up

A federal judge on Friday ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can blow up a Mississippi River levee, which would flood Missouri farmland but prevent flooding an Illinois town.

U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. ruled that the Corps had the right to breach the levee to prevent flooding in Cairo, Illinois, as permitted by a 1928 law.

The levee breach would flood 130,000 acres of Missouri farmland, which contain about 90 homes. Missouri had filed suit to prevent the Corps from carrying out its plan.


Doesn't matter it will bankrupt all those who live there or own those 130 000 acres of farmland... And this is really ridiculous how people can decide who gets flooded and who doesn't...


The Corps plans to decide this weekend whether to blow up the Birds Point levee, depending on the level of the water on the river. It will detonate explosives in the levee if the Cairo river reaches 61 feet. As of Thursday, it was at 58.67 feet.

Both neighboring states of Illinois and Kentucky had protested Missouri's suit. Kentucky has argued that more than $32 million in damage could be suffered in Fulton County alone if the water got too high and the Birds Point levee was not intentionally breached.

edit on 29-4-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
This is a prime example of how people just dont care anymore.

They really couldnt come up with a better solution?

So many families just lost their homes and they want to flood a town?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by WeBrooklyn
 


No, they won't be flooding a town; the breaching of levee is to prevent the town from being flooded. I hate the idea of the flooding of 90 homes and acres of farmland but how many more people would lose everything if it isn't breached? That is an impossible decision; I guess it boils down to the needs of the many...........sad really. Those decisions had to be made when our area was flooding some years back........fortunately it never came to it. However, had it I would have lost my home at the time but better a few then an entire town.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Really?

All of this because of a law written in 1928? They do know that things have changed since then right?

Of course the Army can't build another one. That's just too outrageous to even think about.

Yet they can blow one up?

I hope the explosives detonate prematurely in the truck that is transporting them. Wishful thinking.....



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 


Okay, nice wishing harm on another. How it works in this area is this; The Army Corps of Engineers cannot build or increase the size of dams or levees without the local emergency manager's permission. I would venture to guess it's the same there. For example one of our local dams was in danger of being breached by flood waters; there was a diversion type valve to release the water from the reservoir; however the Corp of Engineers could not by regulation open it until the county asked them to. So, before you blame the Corp of Engineers you might try looking at the local laws and regulations which they are bound by you might just find that it is local officials doing this not the feds.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Oh maybe they should I dont know, dig a trench to start draining the levee onto local land seeing as its a local problem. If my land was flooded to save someone elses azz I'd be angry grabbing a rifle and starting the second American civil war. I have a solution...pump the water into Chicago their "pizza" sucks am I right New York?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by gallopinghordes
 


But it is the TOWNS PROBLEM not the farmers, they can deal with it with out hurting someone else in the process. Its a freakin act of war basically.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Decisions have to be made sometimes. Since I am from the Show-Me State, I will take their side just for general principle, but in all honesty, I don't see any problem with the Corps or the Judge taking the information they have and making the best possible decision.

Sometimes we make hard decisions, do I swerve left and hit an oncoming car, swerve right and take out the bus stop, or continue straight and hit the baby stroller. I don't know who is in the bus stop, or the stroller, but I know my kids are in the backseat and the oncoming car might kill them? Which is it? Straight, left, or right?

There is no correct answer sometimes, we just do what we can with the information available.
*
*
*
(BTW, I would take out the bus stop and hope it was empty, or at least occupied by the elderly and save my own kids and the baby stroller, but thats just me, it isn't necessarily correct.)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
There is a sad part to this entire law suit and with many cities that are flooding in the US. Every year the waters in one state or another ends up overspilling and flooding an area. Part of this is our own doing and that of our forefathers, for trying to tame nature. However, if they were to think a bit before they acted so hastely, they could end up looking like heros, instead of just doing what is easy. The core problem is that the rivers overrun their banks, the solution is to lower the amount of water at those times in those rivers to prevent bigger problems from occuring. However, the solution is not going to be cheap but it would be a permanent solution, and that would be to siphon off the water though various spill ways and start to ship it to areas that are drought ridden or in need of water. Yes it would cost millions and billions of dollars, but a city destroyed or homes destroyed would also run millions and billions of dollars more. After all it would save lives, and homes and farms in different parts of the country, be it preventing them from flooding or by providing much needed water so they can grow. Many ancient peoples, notably the Romans build an entire Aquafer system, that in many parts are still operational. Perhaps taking a page from the history books may be the key.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I think the solution is much simpler than that. Your way is still trying to control mother nature. Why not just let nature take its course? Don't build in known flood plains. Let the rivers overflow their banks, replenish the soil, refill the aquifers. Let the droughts take their natural course, kill off the invasive species, reset the natural boundaries and equilibriums.

I think the best plan is to do nothing. It also happens to be the cheapest plan!

There are repercussions when people ignore history, and build their homes in floodplains, or mortgage their livelihoods for one year's crop. But that is just life. Let it happen.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
This is on the New Madrid Fault Line. And they want to place 265 tons of explosives on this.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

Right out in the open.

I think self preservation must kick in sometime with people surely and then they would rise up enmasse and stop them right?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



This is on the New Madrid Fault Line. And they want to place 265 tons of explosives on this.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

No. 265 tons of explosives is NOTHING... when we are talking about the forces of nature.


I think the solution is much simpler than that. Your way is still trying to control mother nature. Why not just let nature take its course? Don't build in known flood plains. Let the rivers overflow their banks, replenish the soil, refill the aquifers. Let the droughts take their natural course, kill off the invasive species, reset the natural boundaries and equilibriums.

I think the best plan is to do nothing. It also happens to be the cheapest plan!

Yep. Let nature take it's course. Pissed you will be flooded? Oh well, shouldn't have built there then.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
They are on step away from actually doing it..

AP: Corps chief orders levee pipes with explosives

The Army Corps of Engineers officer in charge of deciding whether to destroy a southeast Missouri levee has ordered crews to start filling pipes at the levee with explosives.

Maj. Gen. Michael Walsh instructed crews Sunday to move barges containing explosives to the Missouri side of the Mississippi River in case he decides to blow up the levee.

Walsh says he still hasn’t decided whether to breach a two-mile section of the levee to relieve pressure upriver on the small Illinois community of Cairo. Doing so would put 130,000 acres of Missouri farmland under water but protect the Illinois community of 2,800 residents.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
This is a tough call and I am glad I don't have to make it but from the research I have done I lean toward the flooding of the city rather than the farmland.

However, that is not going to happen because the race and class warfare card had come into play. Cairo is an economically depressed area with little to no industry; with a 69% black minority population of which 50% live below the poverty line.

Honestly what does a city like that contribute to the overall good? What does the impact of the flooding of 130k acres of prime bottom farm land have on the production of food for the area and generation of revenue of the State of Missouri?

It's hard for people to feel sorry for farmers and ranchers who have so much land rather than the poor black people who have so little.

However, most of the city of Cairo is abandoned buildings and run down houses past their prime. At the turn of the century it was a wealthy boom town transporting food and other things down river; however, now it is a money pit that depends on subsidies and many of the residents on public assistance.

I ask you which one would benefit more from total destruction and reconstruction at the appropriate level or a recovery plan.

Besides the negative effects of a major flood of 130k acres of prime land will last two generations or more before the fields reach peak production again. All that production lost along with the tax revenue from it.

The mayor of Cairo invoked the race and class card about 20 seconds into the debate and it all went downhill from there rather than using some logic and common sense. Sad. Score another point for class warfare.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


So in other words, your position is "f'k 'em, they're black."

That's charming.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Golf66
 
So in other words, your position is "f'k 'em, they're black."

That's charming.


I didn't interpret his post that way. And if you don't think the Core is debating those same points right now, you're naive. With food being in such a delicate place right now it seems really short-sighted to put 130,000!! acres of farmland under water to save a town of 2,800. I'd feel the same way regardless of who lives there, including if I had family members in the town.
edit on 2-5-2011 by dontdrinkthewater because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Well it just makes sense it's easier to evacuate 90 farm houses than an entire town! See now once you start thinking like a politician things become so clear


Here's a thought why not take care of this problem BEFORE it happens next time.....I know, I know thinking like a rational human being is not on any politician's agenda that's why things in the world are in such an upheaval now!



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontdrinkthewater

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Golf66
 
So in other words, your position is "f'k 'em, they're black."

That's charming.


I didn't interpret his post that way. And if you don't think the Core is debating those same points right now, you're naive. With food being in such a delicate place right now it seems really short-sighted to put 130,000!! acres of farmland under water to save a town of 2,800. I'd feel the same way regardless of who lives there, including if I had family members in the town.
edit on 2-5-2011 by dontdrinkthewater because: (no reason given)


He's arguing that 2,800 people are worth less than 90, because of the color of their skin. He's arguing that because of the racial makeup of Cairo, BILLIONS of dollars in damage would be more acceptable than millions of dollars of damage to farmland.

That's billions. With a B. Flooded towns are expensive to fix, as I'm sure you could imagine. Ir requires a lot of reconstruction. In many cases, people are permanently displaced from their homes, businesses are permanantly lost, and, in a small town like this, they can just outright die.

Farmland on the other hand, is comparatively cheap to reclaim; this summer's crops will be lost, and that's a hit of several million, and the reclamation of the land will probably tip into the millions neighborhood, too. Of course, much of this monetary loss will be covered by the government.

The two of you are basically arguing that it's okay to make nearly three thousand people homeless, cost the state of Illinois over a billion dollars (if it even fixes the city) and further, flood portions of Kentucky farmland, so you can save a cent or two on your shopping bill. Golf took this position because Cairo has a lot of black people.

The only thing short-sighted here are the posters who think flooding a town is a better idea than spilling the water on a floodplain.
edit on 2/5/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/5/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFoxSo in other words, your position is "f'k 'em, they're black."
That's charming.


No, what I am saying is that I am glad I don’t have to make the decision as it would be a hard one.

I am also saying that any discussion on the issue will be clouded by people’s sympathy toward the people who live in Cairo because of their race and financial status in the lower class and the realtive wealth and success of the farmers.

So thanks for sort of proving and reinforcing my point. The debate was made about race and class before it even started by the Mayor of the town when he invoked the race card rather than what is best for the most people and the public at large.

Now let’s address your obvious lack of understanding of farming practice, land and agriculture in general. I am a dairy farmer by the way…in NW Missouri.

Corps levee plan dismays Bootheel farmers


On Wednesday, April 27, “Probably 80 percent of the farming equipment is out, and all that is left are a few homeowners who need to move their possessions,” said Kevin Mainord, mayor of East Prairie, Mo., who farms over 5,000 acres in, and near, the floodway. “Some homeowners are moving their possessions out but will stay at their residences until it’s evident that the levee will be either overtopped or degraded by the Corps.”


No one feels for this farmer because he’s rich right – he has 5K acres. Likely as not he has it all mortgaged to the hilt to get the crop in this year which he is in the middle of at this time. Meaning all his very expensive equipment is sitting out in the fields along with his fledgling crops.


“A lot of the drainage would be filled with sand and sediment. It would take years to recover. It’s ridiculous during this time and age that we would be sacrificed to save someone else.”


Years of low yields and years to recover some of the best farmland in MO to protect what?

This dead and abandoned city. Cairo, Illinois



That’s a neato video about a rundown abandoned town with a crumbling infrastructure that has 1K jobs for 2800 people based on the above link from city data. It has no industry and generates little to no tax revenue either.

So what about the farmland?


The farm ground that would be put deliberately underwater “is some of the best in Missouri. It’s isn’t poorly drained, swamp ground. This is silt loam soils, the type of ground that normally provides 200- to 250-bushel corn. Farmers typically run 70- to 90-bushel wheat there. They could be growing great cotton but the primary crops are now beans, corn and wheat.

“Basically, if they flood the 130,000-plus acres, it will wipe out half of Mississippi County and a third of New Madrid County. New Madrid County is right behind Mississippi County in agricultural receipts — among the top ag counties in the state.

“Think about it: in just soybeans alone, figure 50-bushel yields on 132,000 acres, and it would be a crop loss of $90 million.”

Most of the sandy loam ground in the floodway has already been planted in corn.

“The corn is in and up,” said McCrate. “Farmers could lose all that.

“There is tremendous acreage in wheat there, too. Many growers go with double-crop beans. In 2009, when there was paltry wheat acreage in the South, Mississippi County had a large wheat crop.


Besides feeding America wonder how many jobs and tax revenue is generated from these 130k acres of land verses the crumbling houses and infrastructure of Cairo and its mostly unemployed residents?


Bootheel farmers “are extremely unhappy. The law (the Corps) is operating off was written in the late 1920s to protect Cairo, Illinois.”

At that time, Cairo "had a population over 40,000" and all the Bootheel floodway ground was in virgin timber. “Today, Cairo is a dying town of barely 3,000 people and the floodway has been cleared and it’s some of the best farm ground in the state of Missouri — flat, 200-, 300-, 400-acre fields. All of it is irrigated, almost all cut to grade, all extremely productive.”


Ok, at one time Cairo was the place to be a booming town with a good economy…now what?




What are farmers being told about possible recompense if their land is flooded?

“Most of the farmers carry insurance,” said McCrate. “Flood insurance is a separate rider, whether crop insurance or insurance to protect things like tanks.

“But farmers have been told by insurance adjustors that for their wheat and any corn that’s already up that, even though they’ve paid a premium, flood insurance will only protect them if it’s a ‘natural disaster.’ If it’s a ‘man-made disaster’ the insurance has no effect. So, all the farmers with flood insurance for their corn, beans, wheat — or grain in tanks — will be unprotected.

“Does the Corps understand that? This is not a good situation.”

And that doesn’t take into account the lost revenue in future years that the deluge would bring. The disastrous effect of the aftermath “is the biggest financial risk for that 130,000-plus acres. That ground normally would bring $4,000 to $6,000 per acre. That land could be decimated. If they allow that flood, a third to a half of that ground may never be farmed again.

“Who’s going to pay for that?”


Wow, so since the ACE blew the levy it’s now a man made event not a natural one… So who will pay – the insurance companies won’t - crop insurance doesn’t work that way. So I guess it will be you and me the tax payers; after the farmers sue the government and probably after 10 years of litigation after which it all won’t matter they will all have been bankrupt long ago…whew thank god we saved the poor people and the rundown buildings and paint peeling tenements of Cairo right?

The bottom line is the whole issue was made on emotion not logic and all because of race and class sensitivity…. Shame!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join