My recollections may be foggy, but in the '70s there was a proposal to dam the lovely Kickapoo River in Wisconsin in order to build a recreational lake and prevent flooding to small communities along the river. After a protracted battle, a different solution was reached when studies showed that it was much cheaper to buy out the homeowners who lived along the river and move them to higher ground than it would be to build a dam. Now the very fertile agricultural land is renewed by periodic flooding and is leased to local farmers. The Kickapoo River is still lovely and thriving. It would be expensive to start the same process along the Mississippi, but it would be cheaper over the long run.
10
Flood control has to be multijurisdictional. The river doesn't care where the city and state lines are. Give the river a lot of slack. Don't totally shield farmland, that's how the soil gets replenished. And there's no such thing as complete protection. Quit trying to beat nature, be happy with a draw.
4
In 2014 the U.S. government published its first report on global climate change (https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report) and the effects such change would have on our communities and the regions of the country in which we live. The flooding now happening in the Midwest was predicted in this report. The question now confronting us is if we as a nation of individuals are ready or even capable of beginning to make the necessary changes to our collective and personal lives to try and offset the effects of climate change? The empirical evidence is in front of us the answers on how to solve the problems don’t yet exist, in part because the change required of each of us is difficult.
6
Republicans have been running on massive infrastructure spending for how many years now? The minute the election is over all is forgotten. Until the next election cycle. The only legislation Republicans have been able to pass is a tax cut for the already wealthy and businesses. They actually REMOVED the money from the countries bank account that could be used to rebuild our infrastructure. And yet, people keep believing their lies and voting Repub. Oh well.
4
It's a zero-sum game. The more levies one area builds means the more water another area downstream receives. A not-in-my-backyard mentality applies to flood waters as well as other objectionable things.
2
Well, duh! Anyone building in a flood plain deserves what they get. Let the river have its flood plain, build outside it, and enjoy what nature is trying to give you - a natural bird and wildlife sanctuary. That's the only thing that actually makes sense.
8
@Tom Cotner. If it were that easy. 'Duh' seels like the knee jerk response, but is, for lack of a better word, ignorant. Some of these people have lived in their community for generations, and have their livelihood and families in the community. So easy to uproot and make your home a wildlife sanctuary! How simple! Say that to everyone living on the coast of FL, Georgia, the Carolinas, Alabama, and Texas, because, 'duh', that's where Hurricanes hit. The point of the article is that the the flooding, present for years, is worsening and also changing in nature and scope when those communities upwater build levees, driving the water further towards downstream communities. Perhaps a better comment would be to change building codes to allow for floodwater to pass under homes instead of into basements. At least a start.
3
Record setting floods-and forest fires- surprise, surprise! Yet rather than invest tax dollars in programs to combat global climate change or to come up with solutions for dealing with flooding in areas that never flooded before the Trump administration insists on pouring billions of dollars into an absurd border wall. As seems to be the case these days, ignorance prevails.
14
The Mississippi FLOODS. It has done that since before there were people. A quick look by a geologist will tell you that it frequently changes its course. In several small areas it has done so within historical memory, and it has done so in major ways hundreds of times before. I am from south Louisiana and I have seen many other examples of flooding - Gulf hurricanes for example.
And climate change makes this worse.
Either a community in a flood-prone area plans and prepares or it should expect to be flooded. Or in some cases planning and preparing will not even be enough.
In either event, the federal government should quit offering subsidized flood insurance to those living where it frequently floods. Let them pay a business a fair rate for insurance.
14
I lived in Davenport for 8 years and have always thought that their flood management made a lot of sense. It did mean effort for the city. The church I pastored was on one of the main arteries running down to the river, so some years I saw dump trucks running up and down as the temporary levee was build (one year it was built twice) behind the river front park. In those 8 years there were no breaches of that levee.
Although it is hard (and expensive) I hope that this year's flood does not change how Davenport and other towns handle the river. Rivers naturally flood when water rises. More and more levees will create rushing channels with more water with nowhere to go creating havoc downstream, breaking through levees, and, at non-flood times cutting people off from the river they love.
That said, if our leaders continue to fail in the area of climate change more and more people will be at risk, property damage will rise, crop costs will soar (many Midwestern farmers will not be able to plant this year), and livelihoods and lives will be lost.
7
I just came back from New Orleans where the Mississippi River level is incredibly high. The spillway upriver has already been opened twice to relieve the pressure downriver in New Orleans and it's expected that it will have to be opened a record third time before the impact of all of the melting snow and spring rains up north is felt.
I've also had the opportunity to visit Grafton during apple season and it's a lovely place. Very charming and relaxing.
It's very sobering to read this article and the article about the negative impact humans are having on so many species which ran earlier this week.
I worry about the mental health of our young people. Adults can't get their act together to work on solutions to these problems and it's now far too ordinary to have to deal with gun violence in schools. How can we expect kids to feel secure enough to behave responsibly when we our actions tell them they don't matter? Will they ever have the chance to ride the ferry in New Orleans or Grafton?
8
As intense precipitation is already increasing, it probably doesn't make sense to maintain levees that protect miles of farm fields. Maybe spend less, but spend it in building up the grounds where the farm buildings are to allow home, barns, storage, etc. to ride out even long-duration floods. Maintain more protection for towns and cities, but also keep in mind that the heat we're adding is going to start these big rivers moving again on their plains. So some places will end up gone. It's happened before, the original capital of Illinois is currently on the opposite side of the Mississippi.
With intensity increasing, the rivers will be carrying lots of soil, lots of fertilizer and other chemicals. Throwing that into the Gulf is damaging to the life in the Gulf and the livelihoods that depend on that.
Letting floodplains get flooded means all of that soil will be replenishing agricultural land, not polluting the Gulf. We'll have to figure out programs to aid farms that are on the lowest land - if maintaining them makes sense - and farms elsewhere will have to increase their shift to practices that keep the soil in place, instead of the edge-to-edge practices that can end up removing soil in every heavy storm.
Check figure 7.1 in the National Climate Assessment chapter about precipitation changes - annual as well as seasonal.
People to the east should check the maps, too. You're getting bigger storms, too.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/7/
8
We experienced flooding of homes when I was a child, and it was frightening. My heart goes out to the people in these river towns. They are competing with each other to save their communities by building newer and higher levees. Could these floods be related to Republican warming?
1
You can fight a war with nature but we live in it. Perhaps move back from the rivers and coasts. If not accept your costs gracefully and stop blaming everything except yourself. Did it not occur to you that rivers flood?
12
@Chris Did you not read the article? Grafton has been around for longer than the surrounding levees. Flooding of populated areas around here has become the norm because levees are built too high. Towns that thrived for 150+ years are becoming desolate because other communities & states want to build a commercial area in a floodplain. It's all about who has the most money to bend the politician's ear.
7
I'm sorry, but the arms race isn't against Mother Nature.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
35
@C. Whiting
You are dead on correct. So refreshing to see Pogo invoked exactly as intended.
Unfortunately, most of us will find all sorts of reasons for what our climate has become. Denial coupled with hubris is a dangerous cocktail.
Hopefully, people will take climate change seriously and replace our do nothing self serving politicians with people who will help us deal with all the issues associated climate change.
11
Everyone in the Midwest is going to look back on this period as the good ol' days, when things were bad maybe only 10% of the time. Within a generation, the flooding will be so constant and so bad that many of those areas now experiencing flooding will be considered permanently uninhabitable, making that land effectively worthless.
Think the Midwest is getting emptied out now? This is only the beginning. Don't tell anyone no one warned you.
15
Hmmm maybe folks in the middle of the country should take a break from sticking it to the libs and vote for candidates who believe in climate change and are willing to invest their tax dollars in something other than tax breaks for the wealthy and the military.
53
@Deirdre...or fight Gerrymandering that doesn't allow their sensible vote to actually count.
1
Two words.......Climate Change
I hope the folks that voted for Trump understand his policies are impacting the climate in a very negative way.
27
Something about bootstraps, self reliance, real Americans, taxes, big government is bad, blah blah blah, victim blaming, and denial of reality.
21
So sorry to hear about all of this.
Hopefully these nice people will vote for politicians that believe Climate Change is REAL and not a HOAX.
23
They can do that, or they can drown. Totally up to them.
9
"Midwestern Floods Lead to ‘Arms Race Against Mother Nature’"
Only city slickers and the poorly read would think this is news. Humans have been fighting for their lives against untamed nature for a couple hundred thousand years. Go read the Epic of Gilgamesh.
6
The River will always win. Start by taking out Bird's Point Levee ( https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/01flood.html ) Buyouts of anyone who has already been flooded out more than once. Insuring crops for farmers in the floodplain is ridiculous. Taxpayers need to stop subsidizing those who choose to live and or work in a known flood plain. Let the River run.
10
It's going to take a lot of paper towels to clean up that mess.
16
The Mississippi River has been flooding and going over its banks long before anyone settled in the area. This flooding produces the rich, fertile soil from Iowa and Illinois down to Louisiana that so many generations of farmers have depended on to grow their crops. Put enough levees up, and the water will simply empty into the Gulf of Mexico, carrying with it valuable nutrients and a lot of agricultural runoff.
Living near the Mississippi is like dancing with the devil. A watery game of Russian roulette. More often than not, you stay high and dry, but when a flood comes, it is devastating.
So it's an interesting choice to remain in these flood-prone areas, knowing that you're going to be chased out again...and again...and again. I'm sure most of these folks have no flood insurance. Who would underwrite such policies, given the near-certain risk?
9
The Mississippi River only happens to be one of the major rivers of the world. And when every corner of this major waterway is developed, well Mother Nature reacts. Doesn't she?
8
And soon one town, one state will be suing the other because of the levees. It will go all the way to the Supreme Court. I know of where I speak: I remember when CT sued MA because it was going to divert water from the Connecticut River for Boston. The Supreme Court ruled they couldn't which forced MA to spend billions for fixing the water system around and in Boston.
7
River water sounds a lot like city traffic. When it’s restricted from flowing over some areas it just inundates and floods others. Levees are just another form of NIMBYism, I guess.
10
The administration is not going to fix anything or come up with any kind of coherent policy for dealing with this problem. For crying out loud, the Repubs are going to block any kind of infrastructure bill. They don't even want to fix roads and bridges. Because it means that: 1) it will show that government can be a force for good by maintaining needed infrastructure, and 2) there would be less money for tax cuts for their wealthy donors. As an aside, anyone who moves to or lives in a flood plain needs to have their head examined.
19
Antebellum plantation house along the Mississippi were built in anticipation of annual floods.
The brick first floor was bare business offices. The family lived above in some splendor of carpets and upholstered seating furniture and other fine furniture. The water did not come near.
That is the sensible way for persons to design their homes along rivers. The government should insist on only insuring home so constructed, which could ride out floods.
13
When I was a kid, my uncle lived in Grafton, and we visited often. His house was right on the river, built up on stilts on the river side. The basement would flood sometimes, but it was more of a nuisance than a disaster. There was really nothing better than than spending the night on the screened sleeping porch, watching the moon's reflection on the water and hearing the low moan of barges making their way down the river. I understand the appeal of living on the untamed river.
6
Climate change does not discriminate. I believe we can come together with action and compassion for all regardless of belief system, political affiliation, financial status, whatever. This is definitely not a time to cast stones.
9
@Jackie I won’t cast stones, if the people who have been denying climate science for *multiple decades* accept their responsibility in making the mess that we’re in. Sorry, but when your political beliefs are actively responsible for the current dire situation we’re in, I hardly think the rest of us should overlook them.
13
I feel sorry for these people. I do. But many if not most of them live in states led by climate change-deniers, and therefore their tenuous situation vis a vis Nature is only going to worsen - with humans on the losing end. I’m vehemently opposed to further Federal aid to rebuild or pay them for their losses. Emergency assistance is a must, but footing the bill to rebuild, knowing that this will occur again and again, is a waste of money urgently needed for education, health care, infrastructure. Help them to relocate, not to squander more of the nation’s tax revenue.
And the same goes for people who choose to live and invest in resort towns along the coasts and face more devastating storms every year. If you can’t afford to rebuild out of your own wallet, then you can’t afford to live there.
34
Do you have a solution for every region with a risk of natural disasters? Tornadoes are a risk for a broad swath of the nation, hurricanes, another. Earthquakes, wildfires ....maybe we can all live in Maine.
1
“Every time they build a levee or raise one, it hurts everybody without a levee,”
That's the problem with dreams of adaption to climate change:
"We're all in this together" is quickly replaced with "I got mine."
Using the same logic that guides the building of a levy--knowing full well that doing so will make the flooding of neighboring communities worse--we've wrecked the planet for every other species and will now go to war with ourselves.
In a war of attrition over climate change, there are no winners. The planet will melt, flood, and fry until it has shaken us off. Not because of anything the natural world has done to us, but simply because we took millions of years of stored carbon and threw it into the air so that we could drive around and buy more stuff, and when we found out how damaging that was to the planet, we threw even more.
Unimaginably sad, but not surprising.
21
The article is ok, as far as it goes. But why didn't the author ask people about their thoughts about climate change and whether it influences their voting at all? That would seem to be central to any discussion of this flooding.
21
This is so American. Identify a huge problem, then attack it in the wrong, most expensive way possible for 8 decades, then when it's a lost cause declare victory.
13
The year 1993 was an awesome one. Never forget! But this year, I hope the rains and flooding stops. It has been much, too much. A drought would not be bad, right about now.
1
Why isn't anyone talking about the National Flood Insurance Program that protects these properties and costs the American taxpayers a fortune? These properties flood regularly and these property owners rely on flood insurance checks. I'd rather pay to move folks up on a bluff instead of the ongoing annual or biannual payout.
25
The National Flood Insurance Program is broke from New Orleans and Houston and many others. It takes years to get paid flood damages- if you are lucky.
7
In many of these areas natural protections, like prairies and wetlands were destroyed for agriculture. Dredging and levies and detours changed the rivers Most people rejected efforts to fix the natural landscape and farm in a more environmentally-friendly manner, and most reject climate change.
People continued on (with the help of federal subsidies) until now when climate change and the resulting weather have proven too much.
I wonder how many of them still reject climate change or undoing the damage caused to the rivers and the adjacent farm lands- probably many of them.
28
The conflicts over the climate today were determined when the Republicans blocked the Kyoto Protocol twenty years ago.
The decisions being made today will determine the conflicts twenty years from now.
62
@Jim1648
What decisions are you making today to prevent conflicts twenty years from now?
@William Smith
Without leadership telling us that we live in a finite world where growth—economic and population—is not sustainable and sacrifices must be made, Jim himself can't do much.
We need leaders to tell us the unvarnished truth.
8
Sooner or later, these towns are just going to have to cease to exist. The same goes for a lot of coastal cities, like New Orleans. Climate change is happening, the effects cannot be prevented, and people are going to have to change where and how they live to adapt to the new reality.
As for Trump believers who cannot accept climate change, it is fitting for nature to roll over them. Adapt or perish has always been the way of the world.
76
@Dan Stackhouse
Some of these people don't have the resources to live elsewhere. That's why most trailer parks are in lowlands - cheaper real estate.
There should be a one-time federal buyout for flood victims and a ban on building in flood prone areas. This includes the wealthy coastal areas. Stop building unless you're willing to foot the bill yourself, and quit with the floodwalls etc., they're temporary solutions.
Let the water pool naturally, no more futile efforts to contain it.
19
@nom de guerre
I don't think we can afford it - after Sandy NY paid over 100 million to buy out and move about 600 families from Staten Island. How can/who can afford to buy out and move entire cities?
7
@sjs - long-term it's probably helpful to look at the cost of buyouts after flooding rather than repair, reflood, repeat....
Consider that the projections of sea level rise at different coastal areas around the world are projecting that - for a variety of reasons - the US East and Gulf Coast areas are expected to be on the high end of rising waters.
Part of it is slowing of the Gulf Stream - so water flowing north will spread out a bit when it's slowed.
Then consider that the mean elevation in Delaware is 60 feet, the mean elevation of Florida and Louisiana are 100, and consider how much of the population in the eastern states live within miles of the coasts or river plains.
6
I feel like the answer to this is to divert these flood water to some man made reservoirs near the Mississippi and then let the SW buy the water for their crops. If the government is spending billions to buy out peoples homes and flood insurance, they could spend billions building reservoirs/ floodplains to keep this precious freshwater that half the country needs. Or maybe the farmers should just switch to growing rice in their fields, and just let them all flood and keep the water there.
4
@Arthur P. I take it you haven't actually experienced flooding of the Missouri or Mississippi rivers. Yours is a thoughtful point but not so easy given the amount of land required to hold this amount of water. But I agree. It seems a shame to let all of the flood water flow off when it could be used later for crops & communities.
4
Maybe if their election donations to Pvt. Bonespurs were higher he would tweet about it and the water will recede.
Deplorable conditions for god fearing people
27
Climate change? What's that? Infrastructure repair/maintenance investment? What's that?
Shoveling against the tide? Sign me up!
40
"The water is rising more often, and to heights rarely seen before."
The thing about global warming is, you don't have to believe in it for it to be true. For decades, people in the middle states have laughed in sneering contempt at the 'coastal elites' who peddled in global gobbledegook. So, here you have it, people losing their homes to a fake phenomena. We always said the river would rise. . .
warm water expands, so you can have the same volume of water, but it takes up more space, therefore overflowing its previous boundaries. That's science, not science fiction. And no, levees aren't the ultimate solution. People are going to have to pack up and move. Millions already have the world over as our greedy gobbling up of fossil fuels have emitted ever more carbon into the atmosphere. Whatever pain we climate changing Americans are experience, millions are feeling much worse.
I'm still pretty sure most people in America believe climate change is a Chinese hoax, but again, you can't fool Mother Nature.
55
@Regina Valdez
For the record, tens of millions of us in the "middle states" believe in man-made climate change. Making incorrect assumptions about large swaths of the country doesn't help our cause.
11
@Regina Valdez
and as they are treading water...they still won't see the connection...they still won't see the consequences of policies by those they support...and they still will call on Jesus to save them from a completely man-made phenomena based in industrialization with ready solutions based in science and societal behavior.
6
In the meantime, mental giants like Pompeo claiming the catastrophic Arctic ice melt is opportunistic. Be careful how you cast your vote - the world literally depends on it.
98
Ah yes - the war of the levees. Whoever has the highest levee wins. What all those farmers seem to forget is how all that land got fertile in the first place. The floods are deposits in the bank account. Keeping farmland dry may get you in the field quicker, but its like taking money out of the bank and never putting any in. Sooner or later.....
I grew up in MO right across the river - VERY good piece!
20
I'm sure that news of flooding is as fake as Global Warming. /sarc
That said, it's tragic that many people affected continue to support their own demise by supporting Trump and the other deniers. I would think it karma if the rest of us were not also affected.
36
Voters, especially those in the most afflicted areas, need to make their voices heard, and prioritize climate issues - or nothing will change and it will only get worse, as long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by immigration, foreign wars, and other emotional hot-button topics that are not actual or imminent threats to their well-being
29
Arms race against mother nature is a defeat to start with.It will be better to cooperate with nature as it is part of the ultimate authority of all. Do not create obstacles to nature but learn to help; controlling of pollution-use more of sun heat and light,,use of minimum resources for personal use such as coal-use wind and sea power, cut down nuclear use of materials for destruction of animate and inanimate life,Cut down killing of animals for eating to control green house effects and so on.
11
Trump say there isn’t climate change
Next years may be droughts
8
I am so sorry for these people with their fight against the flooding. We never know when it will be our area next. Due to over building an area, aging sewer pipes, or whatever leads to floods.
My only quibble with the headline is that it's Mother Nature's fault. Why is it that "she" gets the blame for all the bad stuff that happens while God "the father" gets credit for all the beautiful stuff?
I'm an old Latin teacher who knows all of the myths and still I want to know. Why does the woman get criticized? It makes my blood boil each time I see that.
49
@gredwine
Why is nature referred to at all as "Mother nature"? It's Nature, period.
Quo vadis?
1
@Slipping Glimpser
I understand the " Mother Nature" title. That holdover from Rhea/Gaia and the other gods. Old religions take a long time to be changed. It's just why does the "woman" still get blame for the bad stuff that Nature does to us whereas the God of today created everything. He is always the one who saved people or created the beauty of Nature.
His eye may be on the sparrow from that song, but he really is not watching out for us. Most of us. If I sound bitter, I have reasons.
3
It is a Fool's Errand to keep building levees and such structures to combat the flood levels from yesterday's weather without taking a serious look at where the climate is going. Politicians and deniers can rail against global warming and climate change as being a hoax all they want. That is not going to change the reality of the situation. The Federal Government must mobilize all its resources to put together a comprehensive Master Plan for Water Management along all the nations rivers and coastlines. We will need to concentrate more on managing our people and where we build our infrastructure and buildings with an eye on working with nature instead of the notion that we should battle nature. Mother Nature did a marvelous job managing the nation's waterways and coastlines until European settlers came along and upset the balance of natural systems. Learn from that.
14
I lived in the St. Louis area for 25 years starting in the early 80's. In the first 10 years there I witnessed a 100 year flood, a 500 year flood and a 1000 year flood. I always wondered how that was possible.
24
@Ronald Stone
There was not a 1,000 year flood in the St. Louis area.
2
The frequency and severity of floods is attributed to global warming. If this is true, is likely irreversible for good and bad reasons. If that is indeed the cause, the effect will be felt likely for the end of time - because we are not interesting even acknowledging the problem. Even if we did, a few decades of hand wringing followed by experiments with proposed solutions could last a hundred years.
In the meantime, what are the solutions - now that levees are pitting one against the other? Are their plausible, implementable solutions to help real people?
2
I am very sorry for our midwestern neighbors and friends who have lost so much to flooding. Regrettably, all of us can expect more of this as climatic change is altering our landscape as I write this. Next will be a permanent shift in agriculture and insect populations that present an ever greater threat.
80
More extreme weather events such as very heavy, prolonged rains are only the first of what will become an accelerating cascade of climate change issues. Meanwhile, at the biannual meeting of the Arctic Council, which represents the eight member nation-states experiencing the most immediate impacts of climate change, the United States unilaterally blocked a declaration prioritizing climate change as a Council focus. Because the Council operates on a consensus basis, the US was able to prohibit the declaration.
This is a huge travesty, especially considering that the only reason the US is an 'arctic nation' is Alaska, which at the moment appears to only be valued by the administration for its military.
130
@irene
The United States acting under the Trump Administration acts in a manor that will only bring more discredit and dishonor on the nation.
28
Perhaps the government should consider instituting a levee tax. Whenever a jurisdiction builds a levee or raises one or repairs one, it should pay a tax, a significant one, with all proceeds going to places like Grafton and Davenport that have foregone such flood control measures. The money could be used to help in flood recovery efforts or, really, anything the receiving jurisdiction decides. "Hey, how'd you pay for those new fire engines and cop cars without raising taxes?" "Folks down the river did it for us." Sounds good to me.
24