The major problem with the Gavins Point Dam is where it was built downstream from the Niobrara River that has always carried a heavy silt (soil run off) load. Shortly after the Gavins Point Dam was built it began to fill up the lake behind it with silt thus raising the level of the lake. The whole town of Niobrara had to be moved after the dam was built to higher ground at tax payers expense. The Corps originally wanted to build the dam upstream from the Niobrara for that reason but was overwhelmed by political forces that ignored the science (sound familiar) and focused on various business interests instead. Find no fault with Mr. Remus, look to the special interest and politicians that held sway over the placement of the Gavins Point Dam.
14
Look for food prices to go up this summer and a crash in the stock market.
3
King Canute put his throne down on the sea shore during low tide. He sat on the throne, and commanded the rising tide to stay back. Of course, Canute was inundated as the tide reached its maximum high.
Some say that Canute was not so stupid and arrogant to believe he could command the tide to stay back. It is thought he did this as a demonstration that, though his royal powers supposedly came from God, there were limits to his powers. Just as he could not stop the tides, he could not change the weather or stop plagues either.
Yet, we think we can defeat the melting of snow to overflow the banks of our rivers along the Mississippi and Missouri river systems. We build these levees, which just send even more water downstream, and then magnify the harm if a levee breaks, and floods a town that really did not belong there.
The ancient Egyptians welcomed the annual flooding of the Nile, bringing water and fresh soil to their agricultural fields. Maybe we need to learn something from King Canute, and ancient Egypt.
9
Adaptation and Mitigation are the two strategies to reduce damage from weather events. Moving levies or tonnes of soy beans are examples of adaptation -- short term solutions -- or attempts-- to a near term disaster.
Mitigation will be a slow response but a necessary one.
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is the required step, in conjunction with elements of the New Green Deal, infrastructure upgrades and changes, carbon capture technology to name a few.
The bill, Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, HR 763, was introduced to the House in January. It will reduce the air pollution which is driving these extreme weather events. It has 19 bipartisan cosponsors. Call your Congressional representative and ask them to cosponsor the bill.
5
I've always wondered - what, exactly, is the motivation for NOT "believing" in climate change?
Unless you're some oil magnate; what does anyone else stand to lose by investments in renewable energy to make it cheaper, safer and cleaner? Note that first one - CHEAPER. Why WOULDN'T you want more advanced and efficient renewable energy that could cut your own personal power bill into fractions of the current cost?
Not to mention the jobs it'd create - and sustain - in developing these technologies?
Is it simply because, say, sunlight can't be bottled and sold as a commodity? Is that the ultimate fear? And again - if you're not an oil magnate; WHY DO YOU CARE?
I simply don't understand the motivation to *NOT* work towards a cleaner and more efficient energy source; even if climate change is a "hoax." (It's not)
As the relevant cartoon says, "What if we make the world a better place for nothing?"
14
The threat of climate change have been pretty clear for at least 30 years and this flooding in the Midwest certainly appears to be further evidence that the climate models are largely correct. Within the last few months we have seen a couple of responses from the Democrats that suggest they are finally willing to address the problem in all-out manner. One response is the Green New Deal from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey. While it appears to be over the top with regard to a bunch of social welfare state programs, when it comes to climate change it does call for what could be called a WWII-type of response which after years of procrastination is now what is needed, worldwide, to get us off the current track for catastrophic 3C to 4C by the end of this century, and perhaps even higher temperatures next century and a chance to stay below 2C and maybe even 1.5C. The other response is the rather remarkable presidential campaign by the governor of Washington, Jay Inslee. His entire campaign is focused on climate change and he promises to make climate change the number one priority of his administration. So we are finally seeing calls for an all-out effort not just from climate activists but now from those in government. To make it happen it will take something like the effort implied by the Green New Deal and a president who can provide the necessary leadership.
98
@Bob While I believe that global warming is an actual threat, a single flood is not the proof of it.
3
@Roger
There is a mountain of scientific evidence proving global warming is a threat. If scientists find that global warming played a role in this flood then that is more evidence that global warming is presently playing a role in increasing the intensity of extreme weather events. From what I have seen so far, among the extreme weather events analyzed by scientists, about half have been found to be affected by global warming and half have not.
15
@Bob
Your last sentence is at the crux of the matter. A plan is a good place to start, the responsible leadership will hopefully be in place after Nov. 3rd 2020. Pay attention and vote, it may be the last chance the address the ignorance employed increasingly over the last five decades denying climate change.
23
For the last 200 years we have been meticulously destroying wetlands, over a 53% loss of the original acreage.
Wetlands (or what people tend to call swamps, marshes, etc) are natures sponges - they soak and store rain water so it doesn't reach streams all at once. Had our wetlands not been destroyed the effect of a freak weather event like this would be immensely reduced, or not even felt at all.
Farmers and developers have been filling wetlands in for a century, and now we are seeing the results firsthand. Without wetland regulation this will continue to happen, no amount of dams will be able to save us.
Good thing the GOP is fighting wetland protections because it prevents people from "doing what they want with their land". Flooding like this is what happens when people can "do what they want with their land".
125
@Tom, the floods are not so much about wetlands filling as it is about dam-and-levee infrastructure preventing entire floodplains from functioning properly. Dams and levees allowed for folks to settle in former floodplains , begin farming, and even worse build homes and entire communities (except for Native Americans who were forced to leave when their farms and villages—long located in the most sustainable locations to farm—were flooded by reservoirs). The dams and levees were not designed for the floodwater flows that the Missouri River basin has seen repeatedly over recent years.
Solutions? The Iowa farmer has the right idea. Move back the levees wherever possible, dedicate government $$ to buying out floodplain farmers who are willing to sell, and restore the land to natural floodplain habitat (the last part is surprisingly easy to do because these are naturally dynamic ecosystems). Oh, and returning lands taken for reservoirs to their rightful Native owners is long overdue too.
23
@Tom
Regional planning commissions should prepare for the future and pay those who own land that needs to repurposed as spill zones, wetlands, aquifer recharge zones. That would be a better use of individual, local, state and federal money than the Di Blasio plan to increase the landmass of Manhattan in order to damage the nearby islands to protect Manhattan, paid for by federal taxpayers.
If owners of Manhattan land want to preserve their property values, they need to pay for the actions they take as well as compensate those around them who are going to have additional floodwaters directed to them
9
@Tom I would agree with you about the wetlands helping, if this was a summer month. Our 2 feet of snow melted in a day and a half here. It couldn't soak into the ground because it's still frozen. We've had 2 cities (Green Bay and Fond du Lac, with extensive river flooding. Now there's a town, west of here, Omro, with the same problem. The main road through town is closed right now. We still have it better than the folks in Iowa and Nebraska though.
9
Imagine having to make a decision of that magnitude: flood everything down-river or risk destroying a dam. With damages now surpassing $1 billion along the Missouri River ($7 billion in Norther California last fall and 81 dead), our capacity to recover from climate change is reaching its own tipping point.
Resources are thin-spread as victims from other disasters will attest. Faced with hundreds of lawsuits in fire damages from 2017 and 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) declared bankruptcy earlier this year making it even more difficult for victims to be made whole, if ever.
But insurance policies and money can't replace everything: lost lives, precious topsoil, or square miles of charred land.
The costs of climate change are mounting but even more staggering is the not-in-my-backyard denial of people that can do something about it. And that's everyone.
42
@J Milovich-Agreed. For the naysayers who say we can't afford the New Green Deal, consider the alternative:
* Cumulative costs of 16 different weather events in 2017: $306 billion
* Cumulative cost of hurricanes due to catastrophic losses 1986-2015: $515.4 billion
* Estimated costs of 2018 California wildfires: $15+ billion
* Estimated cost for 2017 California wildfire (insurance claims only/not cost of fighting fires): $11.8 billion
* Hurricane Katrina: $161 billion
* Hurricane Harvey: $125 billion
* Hurricane Sandy: $71 billion
* Hurricane Maria: $90 billion
* Hurricane Irma: $50 billion
9
My Dad was an excavating contractor. He owned a 1984 F150 pickup. With 150 horsepower, it accomplished anything we needed, including hauling a giant diesel engine for a dozer.
The base F150 (best selling vehicle in the US, followed closely by other full size pickups) now has 290hp. Do modern contractors do twice the work? Are the people buying the lion's share of these vehicles contractors or farmers? The size of the average home in 1980 was 1600 square feet for 2.7 people, vs. 2400 for 2.5 people today. Does a smaller family really need a bigger house? The population now is 326m, vs 236m in 1980.
We know the problems. We lack the will to engage in the solution: lower resource consumption and stop both pushing and enabling babies. It's either that or suffer more issues with our environment of greater severity in the future. Or who knows? Maybe just go with the thoughts and prayers approach.
73
Learn from Houston’s experience in 2017. Educate the citizens who live in the shadow of the dam so they can adequately prepare and feel heard. The heartbreaking decision to open a dam in Houston which led to many homes flooding after Hurricane Harvey has led to families feeling duped by the city, county, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Lawsuits ensued
16
@Exile In
Houston flatlands/plains were known to flood; there was a history for reference. Developers were allowed to build and sell homes on a flood plain. Unfortunately, it remained a flood plain, and heavy rains did what should have been expected. Developers in CA were allowed to build homes in mudslide areas in the East Bay and Marin County. Homes slid down hillsides in both locations. Perhaps deep foundation pilings would have saved some homes; nothing would have changed the terrain. I lived in Marin near a flooded area; homes were literally split in half with one-half broken at the bottom of the slides. Washington State suffered the same slides which washed homes down hillsides and over roadways. I suppose homeowners could sue developers and engineers who signed off; perhaps some did. Nothing brings your home back. My daughter's home was lost to the fire in Paradise, a total loss. She had purchased a home in Sebastopol 5 weeks prior; that is where we live now. No insurance will recover family antiques, pictures and some clothes. We got one warning from PG&E; we left with pets and what we could put into a car and one pickup. The fire was moving rapidly towards the 2 lane road we used. We made it out, a terrifying trip. PG&E is now bankrupt; AAA homeowners is taking its time to respond to claims. Utilities used to be State owned and managed; we didn't burn down towns, or blow them up with gas explosions.
19
@Exile In
It was silly for the Democrat leaders of Houston city government to allow developers to build houses, and sell them to people who had recently migrated from other states, in areas that were designated as flood control spillways. You plant grasses and put either inexpensive park development in those areas, or rent them cheaply to farmers who understand that every once in a while they are going to lose a crop when flood waters are directed to the spillway.
Although the federal government has deep pockets, which makes the Army Corps an extortion credit, it's hard to fault them when their maps designate an area as a spillway, and they used it as a spillway. It's tough on the individuals who bought houses on land that their lawyers knew was a spillway.
4
Furthermore insurance premiums will increase significantly in areas that insurers will determine are prone to repreated fires or floods. It is therefore probable that some people will no longer be able to afford fire/flood/hurricane insurance at all. Some zones may actually become uninsurable. The public purse will not be able to pick up the tab either as it would prove ruinous - climate change driven extreme weather events are expected to increase in severity and frequency Re-building in the exact same spot is therefore ever less advisable.
6
So here’s how it goes. Either the Republican Party and those that vote them into office get over their denial of climate science pretty dang quick, or they (like the rest of us) can kiss the things they value goodbye. Mother Nature does not care if we continue to pump heat trapping gases into the atmosphere. She’ll adjust. But will we? If recent history is any guide, the answer is probably “not in time.”
We will not be able to bandaid over this. There isn’t enough money in he Treasury to rebuild and rebuild and rebuild. Insurance markets across the country will skyrocket as floods, storms, tornados, fires, etc. wreak havoc again and again. The government will be asked to step in and help, and it may do so for a time. But eventually the money and interest will run out.
The heat energy in our atmosphere (and more significantly in our oceans) will change weather patterns. Get ready. And stop voting Republican until they stop playing politics with science.
86
So here's the root of the matter:
Neither the Republican Party nor those who vote for it value much at all in the world except their own personal advantage.
That's really been the American ethos from the beginning; it's just concentrated in the present-day Republican Party. There *are* millions of Americans who tend to think outside of that ethos, but they are in the minority.
You can predict our future from that.
24
@It’s News Here-Part of overcoming denial is recognizing that we can't continue to live, consume, and generate waste -- time for all of us to make changes in step with reality.
10
I feel badly for Mr. Lueth's loss of property and home. Farming is a noble profession.
4
Heavier rainfall is one of the most common effects of climate change. Humans have loaded so much heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere that, “The real question isn’t, ‘Is climate change playing a role?' It’s, ‘How big a role is climate change playing, and what is the role?'"according to Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/climate/climate-change-flooding.html
4
So the system needs to be updated, probably needed to be done in say the Obama years. When will we understand that adaptation is essential, no matter what other things you do for climate change.
Reading of this kind of flood invariably brings to mind what will transpire in the Mississippi Delta once the flooded Missouri river flows into the Mississippe and overwhelms those dikes ; and William Faulkner's great account in Old Man, the latter being the Mississippi River itself and set around the time of the great floods of 1927. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_man
No global warming? No radical weather? Situation normal? Then why is your head in the sand getting wet?
6
'“Whether it’s global warming, or a tilt in the earth. …” Mr. Lueth said, leaving his thought unfinished.'
There's your Fox News and Republican effect right there. Only 98% of climate scientists agree about climate change so they're probably lying and it's just as likely the Earth has tipped and spilled water on us.
Good article, tho.
18
The whole river system has formed and reformed over and over for thousands of years. I have no doubt that the climate is changing and that human activity has increased the rate, but I doubt that it is possible to "reverse" it in any meaningful way. The mechanisms of climate are just barely beginning to be understood much less how to affect it in a beneficial (to us) way. The idea that humans can build lasting structures that will contain such forces of nature is beyond hubris, it's just downright absurd. The river will decide the fates of those who chose to live along it's banks and they will have to live with whatever comes with it. Sure we can rebuild a lot of what was lost but eventually a new day of reckoning will come. These events aren't called catastrophic for no reason. All the big geological changes happened because of catastrophic events. And when they happen they happen quickly.
9
Here's some interesting data, just taken from climate at a glance, the NOAA official weather site.
here's several states near Nebraska -- and trends for precipitation and max temps
state max temp trend (degrees F per century) precipitation
Nebraska 1.0 1.5"
Iowa .1 4.04"
Missouri .2 2.39"
Kansas 1.1 2.41"
South Dakota 1.3 1.62"
Oklahoma .3 3.57"
wyoming 2.6 .27"
colorado 1.9 ZERO
Note that states that show the most warming show the least increase in precip Hmmm. I thought as it got warmer, clouds could retain more moisture -- therefore more precip...
And Isn't a little concerning that in the center of country in adjacent states we have such variability in trends over a century? A range of 2.5 degrees F? And 4" in precip. Those are huge differences over a century....
@Ralphie " I thought as it got warmer, clouds could retain more moisture -- therefore more precip..."
Okay, finish that thought. More precipitation *where*? Not where temperature is higher, because the clouds can *retain* moisture there. You might expect grater precipitation "downwind," in "cooler" states, when those water-laden clouds cool down slightly.
2
Climate change is not the pertinent issue here.
There are no good choices. However, it seems that controlled flooding with at least a little time to evacuate people and pets would be preferable to a "45-foot wall of water" (think tsunami-like inundation three-fold) here countless lives would be unnecessarily lost. Unfortunately, the determining factors extend beyond the immediate area. I expect the latter scenario would cost a lot more in the end.
3
@Donna Nieckula
How come the fact that CO2 will cause the ground to be frozen stiff in spring time, that there will be huge amounts of snow year after year, etc. was not made clear by the great climatologists BEFORE it happened?
All one could hear was exactly the contrary...
Ski operators "on the front lines of climate change" being told to find something else to do, for lack of future snow,
hundreds if not thousands of papers detailing how under climate change, because the ground will NEVER FREEZE again, all crops will be stunted,
and on and on and on.
1
@novoad it's called post hoc analysis of data. Generally frowned upon in science. You're supposed to state your hypothesis, then see if the results (or events) confirm them or not -- at a statistically significant level. Of course I'm not sure all the true science loving alarmists out there understand what the rules are in science.
Hmmm. Seems to be a lot of this going on. Post hoc analysis, computer models taken as truths, not estimates of possible events in the future. Plus lots of misinformation being spread -- now that climate change is real of course and settled science we don't need facts. Individual extreme weather events are not caused by climate change. They aren't trending up.
Oh, and anecdotal data is just that. Anecdotal.
2
@novoad
I've been reading about climate change for many years. My sources are climate scientists and a lot from the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCSUSA.org.
i've never read anything about the ground never freezing again, no more snow etc. etc.
That sounds more like something you would've heard on Fox news that was "supposedly said" by climatologists or scientists.
please post a link to the articles or videos you're referencing from the past. I'm sorry but I think you've been misled.
if you think about it there's going to be plenty of real estate that's frozen solid when it's raining out in the decades ahead.
I can tell you that in Fairbanks Alaska we can get rain now when the ground temperature is well below freezing. The rain freezes to the driving surface. That makes for a very interesting driving conditions!
my heart goes out to the people suffering directly and immediately from climate change.
How I feel about the liars, the perpetrators of fake news, especially the lowlifes who knowingly distorted the science for their own profit, I'll spare you my un-printable thoughts.
5
@Ralphie, "Of course I'm not sure all the true science loving alarmists out there understand what the rules are in science."
Speaking as a professional research scientist, I'll tell you what the "rules in science" are: Use the very best data you can obtain. For some questions, those data will from investigations that start with a hypothesis, stated up front, that is tested experimentally. But for some questions, like "Does exposure to lead paint reduce children's IQ?", post-hoc analysis of data is the ONLY ethical option, and therefore those data are the BEST data. And when even that isn't possible, the BEST data might instead come from computer modeling.
Science is practical, in other words.
3
I agree with the article. It is the long arm of climate change overwhelming 50-100 year old infrastructure that was never engineered or built for the new normal, let alone maintained and/or reconstructed for the new normal.
The Missouri River above Kansas City is a great example. From satellite imagery, you can still see the old oxbows of the river before it was "straightened" by the U.S. Corps of Engineers decades ago for river traffic that no longer exists.
And why maintain levies any longer? So a few select farmers have more land to farm that is becoming increasingly flooded and polluted? At what cost? Billions and billions of dollars?
Weather extremes are here to stay. Eventually, the Missouri River will find its way back to its natural course - permanently. There are not enough resources to protect people in the flood plains any longer. So why still build, live, and work in a flood plain? The reality is that the old way of life is over.
17
@JohnE
Levies were built to protect populated areas and weaker ones were extended to farmlands. The levies protecting farmlands, as well as spillways, are designed to fail as a relief valve to protect cities.
The bigger issue is the straightening of the rivers. The curvy natural rivers result in slower moving rivers. Silt accumulates at the outermost circumferences and new land accretes. Eventually, the water finds a shortcut and land is converted to a new river channel. But we don't allow that because a curvy slow moving river is less efficient for river transportation.
4
@JohnE It is or should the infrastructure been maintained and updated? Or revised? Or do nothing?
Thank you for this well researched and brilliantly written article. This is a perfect example of why I subscribe to the NYT. The coming years will present incredible challenges to humans and it is journalism of this caliber that helps us to make sense of what is happening. Thank you.
31
@Patricia Veech I agree, loaded with information you won't find anywhere else. And don't forget the photos which are all first rate while enhancing the story.
7
'Before the era of climate change'
Since the climate has been changing since it started being recorded in the 1880's, those damms must be really super old!
But I think they are from this century.
Another contradiction by the global warming folks
@AutumnLeaf
Another cheap shot from a resolute denier of climate science.
I, for one, understood the headline author to mean "before scientists widely recognized that fossil fuel consumption was raising atmospheric CO2, leading to global warming." Historians of Science place its beginnings in the early 1960s, when C. David Keeling showed that global atmospheric CO2 was rising annually. Multiple climate scientists then made the connection with Svante Arrhenius's laboriously hand-calculated, 1898 model of global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. By 1988, James Hansen was sufficiently confident to testify before Congress that humans were changing the climate.
That's right - science has known about global "greenhouse" warming for more than a century. We've known for nearly 70 years that our fossil fuel emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere. The modern consensus of climate science ensues from a working out of simple physics. How hard can that be to understand?
16
@AutumnLeaf
& February was colder than last year so climate change is a hoax!
At some point, you have to blame the voting public for the situation they're in.
Missouri voters would rather put two Republicans in the Senate, neither of whom has any plan for tackling climate change. The state ranks among the lowest in terms of their citizens' belief that climate change is actually happening:
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/?est=happening&type=value&geo=state
I am past the point of empathizing with people who are either in denial and/or refuse to pro-actively devise/support solutions.
43
@Father of One You missed the point. The Missouri River is different from the State of Missouri.
Your cited study involves "global warming," which to some is a loaded term. I wonder the percentage who believe in "climate change."
I encourage you to reconsider empathy for your fellow Americans. Also, many citizens in America's heartland are actually very interested in being responsible stewards of the land. Some around here say farmers were the original environmentalists.
11
@D.E.
Agreed. I'm very liberal in my beliefs, and like many liberals I'm incensed by inaction on climate change. But even so, no one deserves to have their homes and livelihood destroyed or to have their families uprooted, sometimes literally overnight, because of their political convictions. However misguided they may be. We're all in the same boat (pun
not intended), and people on the left might be more appreciative of national solidarity the next time a wildfire or earthquake happens.
5
@Father of One How about a plan that says update the dams etc. instead of say a carbon tax?
This corner of Iowa gave denier Steve King another term in Congress, despite the DesMoines Register, Sioux City Journal and RNC (effectively) endorsing his opponent.
22
The sub-headline re: the fact these dams “were designed before the era of climate change” is misleading and reflects the author’s ignorance of history. If the author would simply review their own newspaper’s archives for the 1920 to 1960 period for weather calamities including floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather, they would see that our current extreme weather is relatively mild by comparison. But it is no surprise that a generation that can’t place the civil war in the correct century let alone decade would be oblivious to the weather/climate related disasters common in the early 20th century—when, by the way, the CO2 concentration was still quite low.
4
@ehillesum
Ah, the ever popular, undead climate-science-denier meme "climate has always changed". This article is about how the costs, in money and tragedy, of anthropogenic climate change since the 1960s are being paid *over and above* those of historic river flooding. What part of "...a roughly 6 percent average annual increase in upper-basin runoff and a bit more than a 10 percent increase in the lower river" do you not understand? Those percentages represent lost homes, livelihoods and lives, that would not have been lost 70 years ago. How much are *you* willing to pay, for weather damages that will mount as long as fossil carbon accumulates in the atmosphere?
4
@ehillesum
World temperature is rising. Heat = energy. Ignorance of physics
Our nation spends its treasure on a lot of things but infrastructure is not among them. Corporate welfare, tax relief for people who don't need tax relief, and a vast military-industrial complex are sucking the money away from where it's really needed. The worst thing about it is that the people who suffer from the lack of public investment (by being flooded for example) don't seem to comprehend this and are stalwart supporters of political forces unwilling to set priorities benefiting them, the people - not the 1%, not big banks, not the lobbyists representing big corporations.
30
@Kas Jaruselsky
The question I would pose is this:
Knowing that states such as Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri often voted for the Democrat running for President in the past, some almost 50% of the time, what happened? Why do they no longer see themselves represented by a candidate with a (D) after their name? Maybe their hope was that a different party would pay attention to the rural needs including infrastructure. Those dams have been aging though quite a few administrations after all, not all of which were Republican.
Besides, it doesn't look like the 'military-industrial' complex you feel is sucking money faired much better than the everyday citizen in this flood event. According to the article: .."one-third of Offutt Air Force Base was inundated, including a runway.".
@Kas Jaruselsky
And one of the things it spends its treasure on is corporate agriculture farm supports.
Trump just took another multi billions out of our pockets, after raising our taxes by double taxing our SALT contributions, to give to the farmers whose market he wrecked with his feckless trade war so they should have plenty to pay the costs of dealing with these floods themselves.
1
This article reminds me of John McPhee’s book, “The Control of Nature,” that chronicles man’s attempts to thwart nature in Iceland, California, and the lower Mississippi basin.
12
Interesting article, but where is the evidence this has anything to do with climate change? There have always been wet years and floods (read about the 1927 Mississippi Valley flood), and there is no evidence they are increasing in frequency.
2
@Jonathan Katz A bomb cyclone on top of a polar vortex winter deep freeze blast are both not exactly the usual weather events for the upper midwest. And that vortex outbreak is directly related to instability in the Arctic due to global warming.
2
Before man exploded onto the scene, beavers were very common all across the northern hemisphere, locking up zillions of acre-feet of water, creating a swampy world we can hardly imagine today. The human response was to consider them pests and kill them off as much as possible to open up the land for farming and roads, and for the pelts. I'm not sure people really understand the gravity of this change.
15
The effects of human caused climate change are global and do not honor any state, national or geographic boundaries. Many argue that the United States should not aggressively begin climate mitigation because other nations of the world will not take similar actions and that put us at an economic disadvantage in the global market place. This amounts to a fatalist attitude, "There's no reason to take a leadership role if the rest of the world doesn't follow. Enjoy the short term economic ride before we hit the cliff."
I prefer to die trying.
15
We will pay the price today or tomorrow. The truth is that our President and our esteemed Senators will not be alive come due date, so an existential crisis of the human race plays second fiddle to maintaining power.
Well, actually the more sordid truth is that very few members of the establishment believe climate change will affect them. Hundreds of millions of lives amount to a hill of beans because they and theirs have the money and influence to ride this all out.
I think their heirs will discover soon enough what happens when millions of their countrymen face starvation. Politics adapts to the time. And in a world of disastrous climate change, there will be hoarse barking and the gnashing of teeth. An American Robespierre before 2100.
And like Robespierre, who will be able to say to him that he is wrong? It will be a righteous fury and we here now will deserve it.
12
NIMBY from top to bottom.
Just had a conversation this morning with a supervisor of a building that reopened last week from Harvey damage.
After congratulating the person on the reopening, I asked if the reconstruction had taken into account that there may be a similar event in the near future.
The answer - "Harvey was a 1000 year flood and it is the county's problem to address the water flow. Not ours".
Refusal to acknowledge disaster even when it planting itself in our faces and our backyards will continue to haunt the States and the citizens for a long time.
45
@Burning in Tx - and Harvey was Houston's third 500+ year flood in three years.
But on the NIMBY side, some good news on wind turbines.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/people-who-live-near-wind-turbines-prefer-them-to-solar-and-fossil-plants/
There are pressure groups against windfarms, and there's the shame on the wealthy Massachusetts liberals fighting what would have been early offshore wind near Cape Cod, but offshore and onshore wind keep getting cheaper.
So, Texas, keep it up with leading the country on wind generation. Your zoning?
Well, I anticipate FEMA fatigue in the next decade or two, so states that don't work to fix their own problems will expect less from others.
8
@b fagan
Of course, blame everything on Northeastern liberals, after all, they were the biggest supporters of Trump and his criminal appointment. Texas had nothing to do with his election or any of the Republicans in the Senate, House or Texan statehouse,
"But it was designed for a different era, a time before climate change and the extreme weather it can bring."
As a scientist, this kind of nonsense statement is what I find so frustrating about the climate change narrative. Climate change has always existed, and always will. Extreme weather events have always existed, and always will.
There's no doubt that human activity is altering the atmosphere, and in turn affecting the climate over time. But this notion that climate change is a new thing and that all current and future disastrous weather events are specifically attributable to this 'new' climate change has to stop if we are to make any progress on dealing with the impact of climate change.
8
@irving
After a moment's reflection, you'll recognize the NYT is *not* claiming that anthropogenic global warming is, not merely a contributing factor, but the sole cause of a specific weather event. To argue otherwise is a classic "straw man" rhetorical tactic.
The article uses "climate change" as an abbreviation for "climate change due to anthropogenic global warming." It does not attribute the recent flooding of the upper Mississippi basin specifically to man-made climate change. Rather, it discuss the *additional* costs, in money and tragedy, that will be paid above historic amounts, for the "roughly 6 percent average annual increase in upper-basin runoff and a bit more than a 10 percent increase in the lower river" expected by the mid-21st century.
6
Floodplains mean just that, plains flood. It is always amazing to me how people try to control natural flows.
10
It's stunning to read through these comments and find how many people, even when confronted with the effects of climate change again and again (increased floods/rain, fires out west, bigger hurricanes, etc.) so many people keep denying it. The key statement in this article is when Mr. Remus says the Army Corps of Engineering has done no planning related to climate change. Good god, why not? Would somebody please smack these people up the side of the head. Maybe it'll shack something frozen loose.
18
@Buzzman69 there haven't been increased floods or rain (and rain is generally a good thing), no increase in hurricanes in number or intensity, no increase in tornadoes, there is no link to climate change and forest fires out west. There have always been major weather events, or weather related. Human population, living near forests or on the coasts, and mismanagement of the environment are the biggest issues as to why some of these events seem so disastorous.
3
@Ralphie
It's not that hard: climate is average weather. Due to the anthropogenic transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere by the petaton, the weather is changing all over the world. That is, all weather is occurring in a changing climate.
Contrary to your claims, there is abundant evidence linking increasing weather extremes to global warming. One way it's changing is that extreme events are more likely than they were 50 years ago. We know the climate is changing because historic records are being repeatedly broken. That confirms a prediction from our understanding of weather and climate, based on multiple lines of evidence. IOW, climate science is just like any natural science. By now, to insist otherwise is simply perverse.
2
@Ralphie - Where are your sources and statistics?
1
A US ACE official, contradicting the Corps' own science, actually expressed doubt about climate change and considered there might be a "tilt in the earth" involved?
Are you kidding me?
8
@Bill Wolfe That was the farmer.
4
John Remus, the decision is clear, open the floodgates. The alternative is much worse.
Welcome to Climate Change 101. It’s only going to get worse.
From my perspective, send the bill to Conservatives, the GOP, and climate deniers like Fox News. And keep billing them until they get the message.
My God. Even our children understand this.
22
@PC please tell us all how this flood was caused or exacerbated by climate change, aka global warming.
3
@Ralphie When warm air meets a cold front, the drop in temperature causes the water collected in the air to fall as rain or snow. This is because cold air can't hold as much water. A common example is we can see the water from our warm breath condensate on a cold winter day.
The warmer the air, the more water can be carried in air, and when they meet a cold front more water will condense, leading to heavier rain.
Also key note, global warming doesn't mean that everything is getting warmer at the same time. Instead there are more extreme temperature differences, but on average the overall temperature is increasing. This large temperature differences exacerbates flooding and hurricanes.
14
@Ralphie You can't really draw lines to single events; you have to look at trends and the underlying changed conditions that result in more extreme events. There is a lot in the UN and many other reports that can get you into it on hyper-nerd level. The best dinner table explanation I have heard: Weather is mood, climate is personality.
9
It is sad that people have had their properties destroyed.
However, riparian farmlands are fertile because rivers flood, carrying silt onto the farmland. It is a natural phenomenon. Instead, the federal government has prioritized navigability, prevented the river from curving and slowing and therefore periodically flooding and replenishing the land. So fertilizer runoff increases, creating dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes as well as algae blooms along the East Coast and Great Lakes.
Meanwhile, aging sewage plants and poor storm water management pollute the Great Lakes and coastal areas.
If CO2 is causing global warming, there is nothing Americans could possibly do to prevent it other than nuking the third world so that they would be unable to rise out of poverty using affordable fossil fuels. China alone, the largest emitter in the world, is on track to add more CO2 to the atmosphere during 2016-2030 than mankind has added since the inception of the industrial revolution. To do otherwise, China would have to condemn their population to poverty.
The green plan to increase energy cost four or fivefold by 2030 impoverishes Americans and does not change the global temperature in 2100.
Better strategy would be to spend a much smaller amount of money expanding spill zones, building and reinforcing dams, modernizing the sewage and storm waster management, relocating people from coastal areas.
Adapt to the changes we cannot avoid.
7
@ebmem I think it is important not to look at the Green New Deal as prescriptive. The scope of it is daunting but the scope of it is what is valuable. It needs to be a big, flexible plan. It actually finally addresses the scope with which we will have to address this. It freaks out a lot of people but makes the conversation happen on the big, all-encompassing level on which it needs to be. A lot of people still are hiding their heads in the sand, and not talking on this level facilitates that. I understand that costs that will have to be borne will be offset (maybe not entirely and not for a while) by the gains. But frankly, for the sake of our progeny, we need to have the guts to be big. Time to lead.
4
@ebmem
You were doing fine until "If CO2 is causing global warming". You may think of yourself as a "skeptic", but genuinely skeptical non-experts accept (though always tentatively and provisionally, as the experts themselves do) the lopsided consensus of thousands of climate experts for anthropogenic climate change. You, OTOH, appear to be a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The costs of the climate change we're currently causing are already being paid in money and tragedy, and they will mount as long as atmospheric CO2 rises. Since we don't pay them at the pump, they are paid instead by involuntary third parties, and disproportionately by the world's poor. Nor is it true that "there is nothing Americans could possibly do to prevent it other than nuking the third world". All the technology needed to replace fossil fuels with carbon-neutral energy globally has been invented. What's required is to internalize a fraction of the marginal climate-change cost of fossil carbon in its market price, as with a carbon tax, harnessing consumer thrift and the profit motive to drive buildout of the carbon-neutral US and global economies, rapidly and at the lowest net cost. Economists recommend (washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/17/this-is-not-controversial-bipartisan-group-economists-calls-carbon-tax/) revenue-neutral carbon taxes such as Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff: See citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend for details.
9
@ebmem
We don't have to go back to the stone age to deal with climate change. "Moderate emissions cuts, roughly in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement, would make a major difference for many locations."
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-climate-pile-up-global-warmings-compounding-dangers
5
On Tuesday I listened to a report on NPR's All Things Considered about the flooding in the midwest. The report mentioned its historic nature and the overwhelming damage it has caused. But the report made absolutely no mention and included absolutely no hint of climate change.
This is the problem that we face: denial of reality. I commend the New York Times for using the opportunity of this article to highlight the reality that change in Earth's hydrosphere is here. I commend the editor of this article for understanding that the public needs to see the connection between a warmer atmosphere and more precipitation and more floods.
I wish that all media organizations, upon which our democracy is so dependent, would stop their reluctance to educate and inform the public about the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced. Our climate is changing very fast and no amount of denial will change that fact.
12
Only the foolish would think they could tame a river as extensive at the Missouri, and only the mondo-foolish would attempt to do so. Levee-ing off the riverbanks and "creating new land" along the floodplain is a fools gambit, and over time you'll always lose. The floodplain, once the yearly inundation ceases, will dry out and subside (sink), creating ever lower land. The course of the river, which is now unable to deposit its silt over the floodplain, deposits its silt along its banked up course, causing it to rise, causing levees to be built even higher. The river should be left alone, the floodplain cleared and no development allowed, EVER.
4
Excellent article. PS: Gavins Point Dam is in both Nebraska and South Dakota, not just in SD as the first caption says.
3
More on the Midwest - flooding in the US from climate change isn't just from more ocean.
"Three of the top five wettest years on record in Chicago have occurred in the last decade, including last year, which ranked fourth with 49.23 inches of precipitation, according to the National Weather Service.
While the United States has seen annual precipitation climb 4 percent between 1901 and 2015, Great Lakes states have experienced a 10 percent rise over this same period, with much of the additional precipitation coming in the form of heavy rainfall.
The boosted precipitation is expected to exacerbate urban flooding and challenge aging infrastructure. Water quality will be diminished as stormwater and sewer systems are overpowered, and as fertilizer from farms is swept into waterways, possibly triggering algae blooms and bacteria. Wetter winters and springs are forecast, but summer precipitation is anticipated to fall by 5 to 15 percent for most of the Great Lakes states by 2100. Corn and soybean production are likely to decline 10 to 30 percent as saturated farm fields delay planting and crops withstand hotter, drier summers, the report says."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-great-lakes-climate-change-report-20190319-story.html
8
@b fagan
Good luck to new generations.
1
Mother Earth does not care that you believe climate science is a hoax, or that science is just another "belief system" like religion. She does not care if you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. She does not care if you want oil companies to keep extracting more crude from the ground, and don't care about investing in renewable fuels. Nor does she care if you think vaccinations cause autism. In short, Mother Earth does not care what you "believe" or don't believe.
But your children and grandchildren will care greatly. They will care that you did nothing to protect the environment. They will care that their countries teeter on bankruptcy because of the costs of increasingly frequent and extreme weather. They will care that problems of immigration and war increase dramatically because of climate destabilization. They will care when they contract deadly or disfiguring diseases once nearly eliminated, because you thought vaccinations were a conspiracy. In short, your children and grandchildren will care that your ignorance and willful blindness meant that they will bear the burden and pay the costs for a greatly impoverished and uninhabitable world.
69
@jrinsc I don't know who you are, but you have stated here exactly what I repeat ad nauseam as if I am a horrible, repetitive Cassandra.
It feels like nobody is listening.
As if nobody wants to listen.
Why is that? Is the news so frightening that seeing, hearing, and doing nothing is preferable?
It's the future for our children and grandchildren. We love them, right?
Bizarre.
11
@jrinsc
The faith based approach to reasoning is the ultimate con and apparently to our detriment widely adhered to despite the overwhelming evidence against it. It is so easy to deceive those who want the easy answers.
9
@jrinsc
An Inconvenient Truth
1
Millenniums? I think you mean millennia.
Climate change is like Type 2 diabetes: You can deny you have it until it's too late.
14
Neither political party built the dams--it has long been a bi-partisan infrastructure policy that perpetuates regardless of who is is power. It has proven to be a failed policy decade after decade, yet the dams persist, levees are expanded and commercial floodplain development is consistently subsidized by taxpayers.
9
The Missouri and Mississippi river systems have been flooding since the last ice age. Flooding is a natural element of these rivers' ecology. Climate change might exacerbate the effects, the problem here is not climate change.
The problem is poor planning: allowing people to build their homes on the flood plain, building critical infrastructure near the river, and repeatedly bailing out property owners who never seem to learn the lesson -- move to higher ground.
13
The same could be said for just about any community. Hurricanes happen along the coast, yet people still build in those locations, when they should just move inland. Why do people live in dry arid climes where forest fires are a hazard? Why do we live in earthquake prone areas? Why do we live where tornadoes occur with some frequency? Eventually, if you look to remove all the dangers from natural disaster, you’ll come to the conclusion we need a new planet.
7
You do make a good point.
@Jack
You have a point, narrowly speaking. However, river floods have multiple layers of causation, most of them with variable effects. Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of flooding at the margins of the historic regime, where the costs in money and tragedy are now being paid. Mitigation of future costs must include both moving development out of flood plains, and capping global warming by decarbonizing the US and global economies.
2
Not every natural disaster is due to "climate change".
5
@WiseGuy, you’re right. Earthquakes aren’t.
3
@WiseGuy
But all are made worst by it
3
@PC
tsunamis
Don’t rebuild...
10
@Bob
They will. Or expect a taxpayer top dollar buyout
I am guessing that none of the Koch brothers numerous residences are affected. Until they there will be no action.
4
@Okbyme
Al Gore alone has more residences than the Koch brothers. That none of his residences have flooded has not prevented him from increasing his wealth by hundreds of millions since he lost the election.
@ebmem
Who cares? Al Gore was one of the first to warn of climate change, and its human causes. He was thought to be a climate nerd. He was correct. How many homes he owns has nothing to do with that, except that he is well educated. He also comes from a wealthy family.
1
@ebmem - Al Gore hasn't tried to prevent anyone from having affordable health care or earning a living wage and Al Gore hasn't poisoned anyone's air or water.
1
"Mr. Remus controls an extraordinary machine — the dams built decades ago to tame a river system that drains parts of 10 states and two Canadian provinces. But it was designed for a different era, a time before climate change and the extreme weather it can bring."
It is hard to really understand the mass hysteria that is consuming the left about climate change, but this article is a testament to just how insane it has all become.
The idea that climate change is now exposing places like Nebraska to new flood dangers is so ridiculous it would be laughable if smart people didn't nod robotically in assent.
The areas that are now flooded in the American midwest are FLOOD PLAINS, and they have been flood plains for millions of years. That means they actually fill with flood waters periodically. The idea that a flood control system was built for an era where there were no such flood events is simple nonsense. The real problem is that our government allowed people to build cities on flood plains, not that flood plains actually flood occasionally, as they have always done. Until recently, environmentalists told us that flooding was a good thing, and taming rivers was not. But when you succumb to hysteria, it's easy to change your opinion.
5
@Chuck French
Is THAT all you got from this article?
What do flood plains have to do with changing climate?
1
Although I'm sure future generations in these red states will say, hey we're drowning, but at least we didn't increase the national debt or hurt the profitability of big oil.
5
@Andy People in blue states will say, hey, we're flooding billions of dollars worth of buildings built in vulnerable areas rather than moving to higher ground, but were still able to coerce the people in flyover country to increase the federal debt in order to preserve the property values in the wealthiest parts of Democrat cities.
@ebmem: I think that after the last round of GOP tax "reforms" it's safe to say that the people in flyover country don't need to be coerced by anybody into increasing the federal debt. It's also becoming very clear that in Republican eyes, debt only becomes a problem if the Democrats are in charge.
2
@ebmem
The increase in the national debt started with Reagan's tax cuts and Star Wars debt. Clinton managed to pay down the debt, create jobs and tax income. He left Bush a surplus which Bush squandered with tax cuts for his cohort, and a war for oil in Iraq. Obama managed to pay down the Bush debt and to bail out the auto industry. He couldn't get funding for infrastructure which needs repair, as well new installations. He left a decent economy for Trump who has now created a huge future debt load with permanent tax gifts to the richest among us. The bill will come due for future generations to pay. The Blue States pay a lot into the Federal treasury, more than TN, KY, Georgia, Alabama, LA et al. Our votes are routinely nullified by the South and flyover country due to the Electoral College. TN receives more in Federal benefits than it pays for. You're welcome.
1
Did anyone ever think that building the dams in the first place was the problem? And while climate change could be a factor here, the climate has been changing ever since there's been a climate. Perhaps our arrogance is first, in building the dams, and second, thinking we can control the climate. Either way, using the tragedy of these floods to push it's climate change agenda clearly illustrates the NY Times continued bias concerning environmental issues.
2
Is every natural disaster that happens now going to be a new thing caused by climate change, because that is both false and unscientific....
I mean seriously....
Also pro-tip for my fellow readers, anytime there is a weasel word in the headline such as "may" the article is either opinion or conjecture, not news.
1
@Emily: you cannot add energy to a system -- any system -- without increasing the intensity of whatever is going on there. Faster cars hit harder, etc, etc. Weather and climate are both a function of heat and humidity, and there is no doubt whatsoever that increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases both. That's basic high school physics. So is every natural disaster going to be a new thing caused by climate change? Yes and no -- no in the sense that weather events are always going to happen, but yes in the sense that their general intensity is going to increase.
5
Robert E. Criss, Professor Emeritus of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Washington University, has been, teaching, writing and speaking for years about misguided public policy toward Missouri-Mississippi River system for years. Just search on his name for articles.
5
Trump: Don't worry Farmers....Just vote for me again !!!!
13
Now, where is that idiot member of Congress with the snowball on the floor? Where is he now? His and their objections to Marshall Plan type programs trying to turn this juggernaut around are increasingly beyond the point. Millennials - you better come and get this cause this is just the beginning of the end.
4
Having experienced the "great flood" of 2011, I can testify that when the Corps opened the dams, the result was amazing. It was a flood of Biblical proportions. Water as far as the eye could see, even from a high vantage point. People in the region hated the Corps, which is probably why Mr. Remus' predecessor declined to be interviewed.
4
@Total Socialist
Yes 2011 was awesome flood. They worried then whether the earthen dam would hold and opened floodgates to prevent it. The floodwaters surrounded the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant (since decommissioned) near Omaha. I wonder how many other nuclear power plants are downstream of dams that are poised to fail under the weight of unprecedented flooding?
1
The dams+levee infrastructure is a good first approximation to mediating between moderate human/agricultural needs, and the chaotic weather regime, which extremes trend toward the fractal. Most farmers since ancient Egypt (from whence Benoit Mandelbrot studied drought records) rail against both floods and drought, since their enterprise benefits from moderate/intermittent precipitation.
One next step would be to widen the plain between the levees (as noted in article). Another relevant policy involves avoiding corrupting the Engineers projects by politicians/contractors.
However, the predominant, paradigmatic issue, nationwide, is that our society has largely abandoned any substantial investments in public infrastructure. The stunning recent doubling of U.S. natural gas and oil production is the fantastic exception!
Given the fat that that most aquifers beneath the plains' agriculture have been sinking for decades, we might consider engineered structures along the rivers, with intent to fill the aquifers while moderating floods.
1
@Tom Mcinerney
The Central Valley is sinking in CA due to acres of cotton farming which requires a lot of water. We were able to grow almond orchards, grape orchards and large produce farming; we managed our water usage, even with acres of rice farming. The hopsack quality of the cotton being grown is ridiculous; I don't know how much money Indian farmers had to spend in Sacramento to be allowed to squander water on this crop.
It's "comforting" that Vice President Mike Pence went to the Midwest to offer his thoughts and prayers, while the Trump administration has put forward no plan to rebuild this country's increasingly vulnerable infrastructure.
23
While I'm sorry for the losses suffered it remains legitimate to note that this is exactly what the people in the affected areas have been voting for.
Voting against climate change is like voting against shorter days during winter.
And voting yourselves unreasonably low tax bills means your federal, state and local governments aren't going to be able to give you the infrastructure you need.
It really is that simple.
58
@Paul’52
New York residents vote themselves high taxes and receive little value. Sandy caused more monetary damages than the current flooding of the Missouri.
No Republicans have voted against global warming. To the extent there have been any votes, Republicans have opposed ineffective Democrat proposals. Quadrupling energy costs in America does not reduce global warming and also makes us too poor to adapt to change.
Isn't it disingenuous to attribute to recent "climate change" the failure to "tame" the Missouri, which according to the article "was a wide, sinuous...treacherous...river" that "for millenniums" "flooded in the spring" and dried out in the fall? So we expected to overcome massive. long-lived natural forces with a few dams, and in perpetuity?
The simpler explanation is that arrogant humans failed in their response to past climate events, including at least the "devastating dust bowl years of the 1930s" and "severe floods in the early 1940s". We tamed nothing, and instead created different problems (e.g., inundation of newly created farmland and residences in what was once a vast flood plain) as our designs failed to anticipate natural variety. Now as the article illustrates we have created a lot of human losers, portending how things will go as we legislate responses to 21st century climate events.
Words describing past responses that we should be wary of today: "Congress decided to do something."
5
@Gerard
The dust bowl was not a"climate event" but a man made disaster. When you try to alter the ecosystem to suit your needs, this is what you wind up. Over farming, destruction of wetlands, deforestation and futile attempts at taming rivers will continue to cause problems as real climate change, also a man made disaster, continues to wreak havoc on our coastal communities and the heartland of America.
No place is immune from the arrogance of man.
8
We live in a nation where evangelicals see the hand of God at work when terrorists attack (punishment), or when tornadoes are survived (reward). Last year, following a successful lawsuit by 372 plaintiffs, river flow management changed and three out of four plover nests were destroyed to protect farms in floodplains. This year the farms are inundated. It's nice that people who care about plovers are not scolds who would claim divine retribution.
11
@John Walker
It's obvious that you have never even spoken to an evangelical because that is not what they believe.
It's funny, the believers in AGW blame every weather event on the sinful activities of mankind and then project their own mysticism on others.
What makes you believe that the people who care about plovers are not evangelicals?
Something you are missing is that when the farms were inundated, the plovers suffered greater losses than the year before.
Saw a PBS Nova? 20 years ago that told the story of the Missouri from the old days until the present. (late 90s) It showed the weaknesses and the possible disasters the ACE meddling could cause and indeed failed to prevent. This was produced post '95 epic flooding I believe. They even touched on the future by mentioning GW could make things much worse.
No wonder Trump wants to defund PBS. To much truth telling.
28
@Chris Morris 'too' much truth telling... Correction.
Percival and Hamburg Iowa both are in Fremont County.
67% of Fremont county's voters voted for the present administration in '16. And it is the Republican mantra that climate change is not real. These are just the facts as well.
20
@Jo Read the article ,please ,it's concerning manipulation of the river and its forces,not if the weather is changing.
4
@Alan Einstoss
it's BOTH
1
And here I used to think my job entailed stress! Nothing compared with the decisions Mr Remus faces.
7
Why should we worry about climate change impacts on states that voted for trump and deny climate science. Maybe they should have a prayer circle around the flooded area or conduct an exorcism? It's probably because God is punishing them for voting for trump.
12
“It’s human nature to think we are masters of our environment, the lords of creation,”
No! This is not human nature!
This is the thinking of the modern humans of the western world in general, and in particular the thinking of modern day US Americans, who - on average - follow this thinking even more blinkered than we Europeans do.
2
In all this, where is our president, with his signature paper towels? He could do much to assuage the pain, by telling the afflicted: Look at the bright side. Nobody was going to buy all those soybeans anyway, thanks to my new tariffs. Now we can blame it all on an act of God.
22
@Cornstalk Bob The other source of beans is Brazil ,the Amazon region,where the entire rainforest is pretty much 95% gone,due to deforestation for agribusiness.So have your way,which ever that is.
3
Perhaps it's time for Americans to realize climate change is real. And they should vote responsibly.
11
"Something's changing," Mr Remus said. What's changing is that the Republican party has become a party of science deniers. They denied climate change was real from the get go and now we are caught hog-tied in the face of unprecedented, but not unpredicted, flooding. Why did the party turn against science that warned us to cut carbon pollution else overheat the planet? Why did they throw caution to the wind and fail prevent and prepare for these extremes of climate change? It's because their most trusted news source out in Nebraska and South Dakota and all the other Missouri river basin states is Fox News which gave 70% of its airtime to science deniers, depriving a whole generation of Republicans of simple facts. It's a pity; by nature Republicans are guardians. They could have protected us from harm. But instead because of their refusal to act we will face unprecedented and catastrophic flooding, etc, instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
10
It is beginning to increasingly appear that it time for mankind to move on, as the dinosaurs did. We've had our time here, and made a mess of it. Perhaps God can design another better species than man, as He did with the animal kingdom.
3
We converted floodplains to farmland and we built communities in them. How could we be so arrogant as to think that we could tame Mother Nature. We can tame our consumption of oil and coal by investing in green technologies not more dams and levees.
5
We build expensive homes along our coasts and rivers. Everyone wants the pristine view. Predictably the floods and hurricanes come. We, the taxpayers will spend billions and billions to rebuild and rebuild and rebuild. I say if you want to build in these areas then you should be self insured and you must provide your own infrastructure, roads, water, sewage. Enough is enough.
6
I would be hesitant to spend any money helping these folks. I suggest you let it drag out in the courts that way you don’t create precedent for future climate losers.
If you think your place could flood in the next few years you’re probably correct and should sell now while it has some value. Just don’t move towards the ocean, forests, large cities or other areas prone to avalanche, fires, over population or extreme heat.
@R. Koreman
I just saw a news bit that an ever increasing number of people in Florida are quietly selling their houses and moving up to North/South Carolina. The number does not equal the number moving to FL, but it is getting larger every year. They can see how things are going and are selling while they can find somebody who will still buy.
4
Please. The Times needs to stop linking every major weather event to climate change. I direct your attention to the following article:
https://www.history.com/news/the-superstorm-that-flooded-america-100-years-ago
Was that climate change? I doubt it.
My mother lived through the Ohio river flood of 1937 in KY -- doubt if having to canoe up and down mainstreet in her town was due to climate change.
Here's what we have now when it comes to "evidence" for climate change.
- A very iffy historical temp record. I've spent some time looking at the raw data for long term temp stations across the globe -- and on average -- these seem to show little if any warming. The great warming trend is a result of adjustments to raw data AS well as the likely overweighting of more recent stations which takes advantage of any more recent uptick in temps (as temps are cyclical).
-- Computer models -- which rely in great part on projecting this questionable data
-- Anecdotal evidence -- such as this -- which purports with no evidence to link this flood to climate change when the more likely explanation is hard pack snow, an unusual but not unprecedented rainfall. Yet there is little if any evidence that major storms have increased in severity or frequency.
-- Does climate change? Yes. But has there been unprecedented warming since 1880? I think the evidence is weak & that temps vary year to year and are cyclical.
But this type of article is merely alarmist propaganda.
1
@Ralphie
Regardless of your thoughts on climate change, we've destroyed almost 60% of the wetlands in this country, and subsequently increased runoff in urban and agricultural centers. It makes major weather events turn into weather catastrophes. Here in Texas, Houston has been disregarding floodplain data for years and filling in marshes with homes, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of homes being flooded during Harvey. Believe what you want about climate change, but humans are really making these freak weather events worse due to deregulation and removal of environmental protections. That's something that isn't iffy.
5
@Ralphie
Too much Fox News Ralphie.
5
@Bill no question. Climate change is a different issue than the way we treat the environment. I've lived in Houston -- the way the developers develop is a joke. It is our population growth and devastation of marshlands, putting concrete over everything that causes these rain events to be problematic.
Sherry
actually not. They don't talk about climate change much on fox news. But as noted I've dug into the climate data -- unlike the vast majority of those who opine on climate change. I know the data well enough that I've had one refereed professional journal article to be corrected because of errors in how they used the temp data. But please enlighten me as to your knowledge -- other than what you read in the Times?
Maybe don't build houses in natural food zones.
The Missouri River has well-defined boundaries to it's flood plain - cliffs, in fact.
You really have no right to be surprised by floods if you live below the cliffs. Farm the bottom land, don't live on it.
6
No one wants to be the one to accept the losses, which is human nature. Folks in Malibu, CA have, at public meetings, DEMANDED that the government protect them from future wildfires, for instance. It's past time for everyone to start accepting personal responsibility.
1
Trump/GOP/Right Wing is doing everything they can do deny Climate Change and actually accelerate it. They refuse to believe facts and science. We have not been able to change any of their minds; about anything. They would much rather believe in loony conspiracy theories ; facts; not at all.They are pulling us back into 1860 as hard as they can; we are pulling for the future. We may end up not making any progress at all in this tug of war. Ray Sipe
2
What is this "climate change" you speak of. Wouldn't the President warn his people of something threatening their homes and families?
3
All I can think of is Senator Feinstein's remarks about how many years she's been in control of this while children who will be having children after she's no longer lively to the planet beg for understanding.
1
Another infostructure project! But how do we pay for them when our national savings is loosing 1 trillion dollars a year with the new Trump tax rates?
1
Instead of building the “Wall” why not use “Wall” funds to rebuild levees?
2
I disagree with climate scientists about one detail.
They are still saying that we can turn this catastrophe around.
I acknowledge existing evidence is not enough yet , however I believe we past point of no return.
I can only advice to people living on this planet,
Brace for Impact.
We are going down and going down fast.
2
@su I don't think anyone is saying we can "turn it around." They are saying we still have an opportunity to limit emissions such that worst case scenarios and disastrous feedback loops can be avoided. We aren’t going to “fix” it but we still have choices between bad and worse.
1
@Joe Bob the III
Bob That is not fixing, that is what you call is inflicting no further damage.
However , do you see any sign of emission reduction.
No , zilch
this is going down, and going down fast.
as I said
Breach for impact.
These people, on the whole, have voted for the Republicans who deny climate change. They have voted against new or increased taxes to pay for infrastructure. They have voted against the “elite intellectuals” and against their recommendations.
I am sorry for their losses. But the choices they made—the votes they cast—contributed equally to Mother Nature to them. And the supreme irony is their desire/demand for the rest of us to bail them out financially.
17
I just had by homeowner’s insurance declined for renewal by Liberty Mutual due to Fire Risk. 2 month’s notice. No actual on site review of my property, appeal process much longer than 2 months.
One major problem noted in the article, a legal and corporate system designed to protect stakeholders and profit. We do not have the luxury of time.I do not know what the answer is, but our current sysytem is not it.
At the very least make the farmer’s whole and widen the river - the response to repeated floods in Napa, California is instructive.
The status quo is death. My prsyers and best wishes to all those killed or otherwise affected by these horrific, and repetitive, floods.
5
We need to start working on long term projects
To store water from these years of bounty as the years of drought are not going to be far away. It should be in underground cisterns not open air reservoirs.
Reforestation and making sure they grow as rainfall in these areas decreases in the years to come.
There is a lot we can learn by looking back at India and the middle east about what will start to happen here that will very suddenly make what is not verdant land unusable.
Start thinking about helping people and stop looking for a way to profiteer off the problem.
3
@magicisnotreal
That should read "what is now verdant land..."
While I agree with some of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's ideas on the "Green New Deal" I don't see any solid lists of how to enact her proposed ideas and measure the success or failure of each program. As a manager told me as a young man, “Don't come to me with a problem without at least two doable solutions and be ready to resign if you fail.”
I don’t see and plans to implement the “Green New Deal”, I don’t see any plans to implement “Medicare for All”. All I see is politicians trying to get reelected every two or six years talk about ephemeral ideas when they have no clue about implementation.
So, let’s not talk about how wonderful these new progressive politicians are until we’ve held their feet to the fire and made them deliver on their promises.
I’m no fan of the sitting President, but I do admire his devotion to the implementation of the basics of his campaign platform.
We need to tell Mr. Sanders and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez to get out of the slogan business and into the project management business – or shut-up and get out of office.
3
I don't disagree with you about the specificity of the Green New Deal. I view it more as an affirmation that we agree to begin turning the ship around, which we don't have now.
But do you mean you admire the stubborn tenacity of the sitting President to continue pursuing failing strategies like Mexico Will pay for the Wall, his flailing scattershot tariffs, and self-dealing international diplomacy? How about his promises to rebuild our infrastructure and give us a better and cheaper health care system? We didn't hear too many specifics about those ideas and even less after the election.
Hillary published reams of very specific policy proposals and nobody was interested in them. Apparently we elect presidents because of their arm-waving and twitter insults. I would dearly love to see a project manager president myself.
2
Bridges washed out, roads washed away, levees breached, farms under water, livestock drowned.
Is it worth rebuilding?
Harris County TX has had 3 FEMA events in the last 4 years, southeast NC has had 2 massive flood events in the last 3 years.
We need to decide what gets repaired and what is returned -to nature. Otherwise, nature will decide for us, as the folks who put a con man in the White House are learning daily. Their entire infrastructure was built with Federal Dollars - roads, bridges, dams, levees - and it is no obsolete. How are those tax cuts working for you now?
28
As a retired atmospheric scientist, after reading some of these comments regarding weather and climate, please allow me to help with how they are connected quantitatively.
Contemplate the following seven-word definition of climate:
"Climate is accumulated and sorted weather variables."
Weather variables are, for instance, temperature, humidity, precipitation, wind velocity. There are several more like visibility, cloud cover, tropospheric wave amplitude & wavelength, etc.
So the word "climate" needs an adjective such as Temperature Climate, much discussed presently or Precipitation Climate, the focus of this article.
The sorted variables can be displayed as a table or a graph, similar to the "stars" one sees depicting the reviews of a product on the internet. You see the average number of stars and note that "partial" stars appear, like 4.2 stars. However, if you clik on the stars a graphical depiction appears showing how many 5s, 4s, 3s, 2s, and 1s make up that 4.2 average. Note that depiction is in whole numbers, no decimal. The graph is called a frequency distribution.
Climate change is when that frequency distribution changes significantly (not enough space to discuss). The fastest way to change that distribution (and the average) is major changes in the extremes. That is why climate scientists, especially Attribution Science (google it) is focused upon the extremes.
And, of course, it is the extremes (varibility) not the average, that most affect mankind.
23
Thank you for clarifying the basis of this conversation. It’s become obvious over my lifetime that as a culture we aren’t discussing climate change with a shared language, in that scientists, the general public, politicians, businesses, etc... focus on different aspects of what climate change is and develop their own interpretation of what the concept means. This is a framework that takes a bit of education to digest (i.e. frequency distribution and variability), but having a shared language around what we’re trying to discuss in conversations around climate change is crucial for meaningful progress in the broader cultural dialogue.
5
@RLG - I'll argue that your last statement isn't really true. We're going to be affected by shifts in extremes, but we'll be affected as well by shifts in averages in each locale, for each component of "climate".
If Midwest springs become, on average, more muddy, that affects planting even if the temperature might support earlier planting.
If Northwest summers average less rainfall, that affects fire conditions, dependable streamflows and those impacts on fish as well as hydro generation.
If the Southwest averages drier each year, their reservoirs fail.
So the BIG events will make the news, but the long pileup of new averages will have long effects - especially as we have to realize that there won't be a new "normal" for any area until the overall climate reaches equilibrium with the energy we're adding to it. We're talking about a minimum of hundreds of years of not having a fixed "average" to plan for.
4
@b fagan
You are correct (and so am I, :)). Alas, for this set of comments, I must move on into the day but what you have highlighted, and I had no time to discuss, was scale. Scale in time and space.
The distribution discussed earlier is dependent upon the two most fundamental aspects of information theory: sampling time (time between observations) and period of record (the time interval over which the set of observations takes place). And, of course, WHERE the observations are made!!
You can have short-term (5 years), regional climate (like the Missouri River Basin) or long-term (30,1000, 1,000,000 years) global climate. It is up to the analyzer to choose (and the reviewers to criticize, :)).
As you discuss the average does reflect the long-term (period of record), while variability reflects the short-term (short-term).
AND!! The distribution need not be famous, symmetrical, "bell-shaped" version. It can assume any shape.
"Basic Statistics" is the exploration of the frequency distribution and uses certain "parameters" for that purpose. Chief among them, along with the average, are: variance (standard deviation), skewness (tilt, in the current case of temperature, positive toward warmer temperatures), and kurtosis (the extremes).
I must leave the rest to those interested enough to pick up a high school (I hope) statistics book.
I hope this helps with understanding a growing global problem that puts US on the endangered species list.
7
Many many years ago the whole Missouri river region was an ocean. Every few years (and now more often) miles around the river would flood. Thousands of people effected. Then, they would rebuild and then soon another flood and another rebuild. Lets face it, these areas are under natures control and now we have helped nature get even more stronger and more often out of control. Yes, NOW, not 75 years from now. Time to reevaluate how we build along these obviously dangerous regions.
5
Our newly appointed Environmental Protection Agency Director, Andrew Wheeler, recently stated that the "threat of climate change is 50 to 75 years out", and that his agency should be concentrating on assuring the quality of drinking water instead of wasting time on Climate Change. This must be another one of Trump's "best people" appointments, a former coal lobbyist.
Not to be alarmist, but at the current rate of climate change parts of the Midwest may not be inhabitable in 50 to 75 years, between the flooding, fires, drought and summer heat waves.
It would charitable to hope Mr. Wheeler's "what me worry?" attitude on climate change was due to ignorance, but mounting evidence indicates that the current administration's climate policy is suicidally negligent for America's future.
44
I recognize that it would be a HUGE, multi-decade undertaking, but it would be nice if some of that water could be diverted to the west/southwest where there is desperate need of water.
2
@Scott Ummm. First you need to train water to go uphill over the Rockies.
3
"Bomb cyclones," epic tornados, massive hurricanes, storms with baseball-sized hailstones, unprecedented droughts and heat waves, rising sea level flooding coastal cities, forests ravaged by insects once unable to survive the once cooler temperatures now proliferate in a warmer climate, melting permafrost releasing vast oceans of methane into the atmosphere which warm the air and speed this "positive feedback loop," and more. So much more. The ecosystem is really upset and we caused it. We are clearly worsening the situation by doing so little about it. The dominant political party and its climate change denier in The White House are under the thrall of big oil, big coal, big gas, big auto and electric utilities industries. Many of us are painfully aware of these realities but there seems not to be enough of us at the moment to enable the breakthrough needed if we have any hope of correcting the imbalance. Even children are taking to the streets around the world to cry out for action. Can reason prevail over greed? History suggests its a losing battle. Of course we must try. Heroism is needed now more than ever. Where are the heroes among us? History is calling.
31
@East End
And all the deplorables and third party voters responsible for putting these criminals like Trump and the Republican Senators and Representatives (and some Democrats as well) into office.
We will have problems from problem pests moving north, but we are also in the midst of an insect apocalypse which will have a devastating impact on all ecosystems.
1
Rather than having one vague "Green New Deal" bill, we need MULTIPLE bills that collectively comprise a green New Deal.
The very first bill should address infrastructure and include refurbishing/ improving our water supply networks and their associated hydropower station.
10
If you have read the New Green Deal you would see that it is not vague at all.
1
if you choose to live near a river or the ocean you have to expect problems. this is exacerbated by the unwillingness of people to properly protect themselves from damages - it's called insurance. and if insurance is unavailable then it's on you for taking the chance. i'm tired of literally and figuratively bailing these uninsured people out while they do next to nothing to help themselves prior to flooding.
13
Well that is going to happen more frequently as climate change continues to be ignored—and previously unaffected areas become disaster areas.
2
Let the Green New Deal be the beginning of the conversation to fight climate change. It's not without its flaws, but at least it's a starting point for dialogue and hopefully action.
57
I am just glad that we saw all of these dams and reservoirs on our Lewis & Clark Bicentennial trips in 2004-2006. That was before the Republicans had a chance to take them out.
6
I'd be interested to know how this farmer figured the 'fair' market value of acreage in a flood plain. Water is going to move to the low spots no matter how much humans try to stop it.
28
@bill
So, other flooded land? That's my point. I doubt it's going to be worth 6 to 9,000 dollars per acre anymore.
15
The effects of the damage are dismaying, but so too is the apparent inability of some of those affected to confront the key role of climate change caused by human activity.
58
We human beings are strange animals. We deny facts of science that are in our faces, not in the future. We abuse our home with so many kinds of pollution the list is unpublishable. While the oceans rise steadily potable water, desertification and flooding of cities will become the next giant conflict sparks. We must, as E. O. Wilson's vision has seen, save huge areas of our land and oceans from human intervention to protect the future for mankind. We must use all our knowledge to provide fresh water for all living things where it is needed. Of course we could just pray for an ice age, but that would not be a great alternative either.
40
One wonders if we will ever know the costs of sitting around with our finger in our ears pretending climate change wasn't happening. 10,000 years of human tradition preparing us with the lesson, transmitted through fairy tales, about being prepared, planning ahead, not goofing around, and of course we do nothing because we believe our newfound wealth will allow us to ignore reality.
64
Is this another case for reparations? Or have we become so dependent on agribusiness that we have passed a point of no return? We cannot afford to repay the Native tribes, nor restore the flood plains, nor grasslands. It is no comfort to recall Aldo Leopold, who did not need climate change to make the points.
9
The rain fell onto frozen soil which acted like concrete because it was so cold. The solution to this would seem to be to emit CO2 until the soil warms up a bit and absorbs water again, like it used to. Or is the claim that global warming makes soil colder than it should be?
4
@Bob
The point is that human-induced climate change is bringing more extreme weather-- extreme heat, extreme cold, extreme precipitation, extreme drought, extreme winds. Our infrastructure was planned for a different climate. As the guy in the article says, we're moving toward a new normal and it's causing a lot of loss and suffering.
38
@Bob
Actually Bob if you had read anything about the science of climate change you would know that the record breaking increase cold and freezing temperatures is happening exactly because of the warming of the Earth due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere put there by human activity. The result is that the warming air in the Arctic is now seeping much lower into the United States even though that air is still cold enough to freeze the ground and rivers. The barrier that used to keep that air from seeping so low is now being breached by that warming Arctic air. So that phenomena coupled with a wetter atmosphere (because warmer air holds more water) is causing what happened to these mid-western States. Here's something you might want to read to educate yourself about the affects of a warming planet.
http://www.saurageresearch.com/global-warming-dangerous-cold-polar-vortex/
64
@Bill Q. I see. Don't forget extremely religious faith in extremely pseudoscientific and contrary ideas with an extreme lack of evidence to back any of it up. This seems to be a significant result as well.
Being a person of extreme ignorance, I still fail to see how warming from CO2 is causing extreme cold in the ground, and I get extremely confused when I think about whether my CO2 emissions and associated heat increase will lead to the ground getting colder, warmer, or ping-ponging back and forth between the two in whichever extreme direction I hope doesn't happen most. But perhaps this is simply because I am not a man of science.
The grandparents who bought protected land behind these new dams and levees back in the 50’s didn’t get it cheaply. They just deferred the cost until now. I hope my tax dollars don’t have to continue to prop up their bad investment.
42
How were they to know the dams wouldn’t hold? We are going to pay a lot now and in the future for ignoring climate change.
1
The costs of accommodation are just starting to be understood. This article discusses our flood control systems, but it focuses on just one river. FEMA and the Army Corps have built thousands of levee and dam systems across the country. The numbers in this article are just a fraction of the total cost we are facing to protect property bordering rivers.
Now go to our coastlines. Costs of accommodation in New Orleans, Miami, New York, and other major cities top $100 Billion EACH. Our Naval bases will cost more than each city.
Now go to our forests and wild lands: costs of recovery, relocation, and rebuilding top hundreds of Billions EACH.
Now go to our Agricultural food production.
Now go to our seafood industries.
The USA does not have the ability to pay for these costs of accommodating climate change. Decisions will be made to protect the most important assets, and ABANDON the rest. Just like the flood official in this article had to decide.
We must put a price on carbon emissions. It will be the foundation of our policy changes that will eventually avoid these astronomical costs.
With enactment of HR763 Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act we can begin to avoid the economic death of the USA within 30 years.
Imagine 2050. It can be one way, or the other. Our choice.
204
@Imagine 2050
Thank you Imagine, many people scream that we (and the economy) can't afford a carbon fee.
To your point, we cannot afford NOT to price pollution and fossil fuels. A price on carbon is a bargain in comparison.
34
We need to be taxing any greenhouse gas. Yes, CarbonDioxide gets a lot of press, but cows emit Methane which is an even stronger greenhouse gas. (If you think you can’t live without beef, try a beyond burger.)
12
@Imagine 2050
It would have to start with ignoring the bleating ignorant crowd of in the MAGA crowd who just want to go back to 1950 who can't see that NOT addressing climate change is NOT an option. Vote out the people who enable and promote the continued destruction of the eco-systems that sustain all life. Do this now and there maybe a viable eco-system to leave your children to reside in.
19
Agriculture can be tailored to the environment. California is moving away from irrigation and planting olive trees. Floodplains can support native berries, hazelnuts and pecans that can handle being swamped for extended periods. Perennials such as these also hold the soil and soak up water, verses field crops that can do neither. Another possibility is grazing with escape routes or high islands for livestock. Long grass can hold 4 times the amount of water as short grass. Work with nature, stop trying to dominate it.
47
@Epicurus with all due respect, California ag is built on irrigation and the massive infrastructure to support it. Olive trees require water as well; please don't confuse increased efficiencies with a move away from irrigation.
The problem is illustrated well in this piece: no one wants to be governed in a responsible manner. Each party wants the benefit of the river, but without enduring any of the externalities that those benefits produce. This is the perennial problem of Western water management: those in place imagine themselves fearless and rugged individualists who don't want or need gov't help- all the while using gov't controlled water flowing through gov't controlled infrastructure.
156
@M. Collom Though I am no fan of Israel, that country has proven that maximum efficiency of irrigation systems can save incredible amounts of water, a precious resource. They grow crops that in much of California-style irrigation would require 10 times as much water.
1
The original plan for the Basin was, in the Corps own words, "but a framework." Since the early 1970s the amount of water in the system has been increasing. to the point at which dams can no longer manage high water without pushing out into the adjacent floodplain.
Since the 19702 farmlands which previously absorbed and held-back snow melt and rains have been underlain with drainage systems which accelerate runoff. The vast natural grasslands that covered the larger parts of the Basin in the 1940s have been plowed in order to grow more corn and soy, resulting ina steady increase in runoff. From 2015-16, more than 2.5 million acres of native grasses were lost to crops. The present rate of grassland conversion adds about 4% to the runoff. The elimination of water absorbing wetlands throughout the Basin was, after the 2011 flood, identified as a source of significant additional runoff.
To top things off, the Dep't of Interior has recognized that climate change will increase mean annual runoff by 9.7%. The recent National Climate Assessment recognized that most of the Basin is seeing an increase in precipitation. To further complicate the Corps' mission, there is a steady trend of increased variability in flows, often associated with more intense precipitation events.
86
@John davidson I was hoping to see more comments from people who know the area as you seem to. I come from there, and it has always been clear to me that more of the land between the bluffs should be given back to the river. Some time ago there was a proposal to make the river corridor a national park. It may be time to revisit that notion.
Without some bold action, I see the rural areas affected by the recent flooding falling deeper into poverty.
7
@John davidson
We have to reclaim our wetlands. Support legislation that protects wetlands as a natural resource like our air and water. A connected patchwork of natural wetlands does way more for flood control than a patchwork of dams ever could.
8
Any attempt to correlate a single weather event to climate change is a fool's errand. Apparently Tyler J. Kelley, the author of this piece, is a court jester. This is where the mass media fails time after time. Weather and climate are vastly different. Educate yourselves.
4
@Mike What it your point? Weather and climate ARE different, but climate obviously affects weather. If the climate is warmer with greater amounts of energy in the atmosphere, ie more water vapor- then you get stronger storms. It isn't too terribly complicated.
76
@Mike I agree there should, in general, be more discrimination in journalistic coverage of climate change. All severe weather is often chalked up to climate change, and in fact we don't know where the lines of causation should be drawn. But the article also clearly says that seven of the ten highest runoff years have occurred since 1970. That's a data point that is difficult to ignore.
15
@riellee
Actually it is easy to ignore since it is true for the vast majority of the US. The reason, as demonstrated by science, is that as areas develop, the level of impervious cover increase, and so does run off.
So now you are back to square one.
3
"“It’s human nature to think we are masters of our environment, the lords of creation,” said Mr. Remus, who works for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. But there are limits, he said. "
No, it is not "human nature". It is Abrahamic religious "nature" that man, whatever that means, "inherited the Earth" from God, whatever that is.
It is such a flawed idea, not embraced by most Asian populations, who see "man" as part of the Earth, not separate, and certainly not in control.
Yet, when Nature drops its hammer on the "believers", you see all sorts of twisted logic saying that was "God's way".
Working against Nature, as Western civilization has, since the rise of Abraham, will inevitably lead to its downfall.
Nature is far too complex and non-linear (feedback loops, some yet to be discovered, some never to be discovered) for Western technology to "master" it.
This story is a poster child for how wrong that philosophy is.
Sorry, but those who thought they could master Nature, "reclaim" a floodplain for agriculture and commerce, force the original inhabitants off of their land, deserve the fruits of their misguided labors.
123
@RLG I agree about the flawed thinking about human nature. There are many ways to be human. However, whatever their beliefs regarding the human place in the universe, societies are not so different across space and time in the ways they modify nature for human ends. Irrigation agriculture, requiring massive dams and large canal networks, was independently developed in ancient China, India, Mesopotamia, and the American Southwest. Reclamation is as old as agriculture, was practiced by Native Americans before white Americans took it up, and there is something to be said for that.
12
@riellee
You are correct. The culprit is irrigation. The far-reaching effects of irrigation are brilliantly discussed by Prof. Donald Woster in an eye-opening book, as good or better than "Cadillac Desert"...."Rivers of Empire".
However, many Asian and Native American cultures used water much more responsibly and, with few exceptions (that almost always caused stress and decline) had relatively small populations.
That is not the case now.
4
@RLG
"It is such a flawed idea, not embraced by most Asian populations, who see "man" as part of the Earth, not separate, and certainly not in control."
Not sure Asians can be excepted. The environmental degradation of China and India, for example, is profound.
12
The recommendation for Californians in the aftermath of wildfire tragedies has been for them to groom their forests. That is, the fires are their fault. I wonder what similarly unhelpful reasoning our president might have for flooding in the midwest.
22
@Jim Greenwood
Actually, It turns out several of the catastrophic wildfires were due to powerline negligence.
@Jim Greenwood - He wants to divest billions from other vital programs and services to build his moronic wall. Don't look to him for intelligent response on any crisis or situation that America or the world faces. There is no capacity or ability there.
4
They shouldn’t have built their homes there.
2
So the reporter believes the climate wasn’t changing before the dams were built?
3
@Chad Brisbane the gov't that built it certainly didn't. There's a great book called "Cadillac Desert" that chronicles the building of the West's water infrastructure. The people that built these things had a very different environmental outlook than today.
21
Yes, the earth's climate is getting warmer; has been since the last ice age. Unfortunately, humans assume they can build and live where they wish. They are learning that ain't necessarily true.
The liberals blame the warming trend to industrialization and the attendant pollution. That is a very short sighted way of saying I want my cake and eat it too.
Bottom line is if you don't want to be flooded, don't build near water. Hurricanes and bomb cyclones serve to illustrate that nature will rule now as it has in the past.
2
Army Corps of Engineers = Historical Human Hubris institutionalized!
2
@Miss Anne Thrope The Corps has recommended for decades that levees be moved back from the river's edge, but it's the levee districts, of private landowners that fight that decision. Hubris vs. selfishness.
37
“Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do”. Wendell Berry
72
Seems there are only two tools to control the river, praying and denial. While they have failed elsewhere with some tinkering maybe they will work here.
14
“‘It’s human nature to think we are masters of our own environment, the lords of creation.’”
Those who do think they are the “lords of creation” are the ones who have brought this small, fragile, blue planet of ours — our only true homeland — to degradation.
We are part of the creation, not lords of it. Let’s control ourselves instead.
32
@ST
There is no Plan(et) B.
2
If you choose to live or farm adjacent to a river, especially in the upper midwest, you have to expect spring flooding. This is a fact of life along a river.
The construction of dams in the 1930-1940's helped control the river's flow rate, but these were not designed for the so-called 500- or 1,000-year flood rates.
4
This is a bit of over reach. In 1927 there was a flood of historic proportions on the River system. The delta wasn't built on normal river flows but on floods.
Since that flood the Corp has built many defenses against 10 year floods but not 100 or 300 year floods.
Rule of thumb: the river rules.
9
Everest known that there was lots of snow pack this winter. They should have been Lowering The Level of water in Gavins point in advance. And there are always spring rains.
2
My upstate NY hometown was flooded in '72. Witnessing the power of water is something you will not easily forget, or temp in the future. Fires here, flood there, incredible frequency of hurricanes, drought & a 500 year storm annually and we feel bad for those suffering and we move on. It is like mass shootings. Shucks, if only we could do something!
20
Maybe we shouldn’t try to control nature in the first place. Dams aren’t good for ecosystems.
27
@Dr. Trey
They are good for people who like 1) drinking water 2) food and 3) energy.
8
@M U
You forgot flood control... oh geez, looks like that didn't work. Large dams as a technology are outdated and irresponsible.
You can get plenty of drinking/irrigation water from natural sources (aquifers, lakes, desalination, etc), and there are a lot more ways to make energy now than the 1930's.
3
@Tom, not true about water supplies. Once an aquifer is depleted, it’s gone for the rest of human time. Thousands of lakes that today provide water for drinking/irrigation exist because of dams. Desalination only works where there is an abundant supply of seawater.