Sinking Missouri River
"Erosion" Apparently New
Concept For Corp of Engineers

I'm no geologist. Most of the geology knowledge I possess came from Earth science classes I was required to take back when I was being schooled.

I'm also no engineer although I probably have the technical aptitude to have pursued that profession if I had so desired.

While I am neither of those things, I do think I possess a fair amount of common sense.

That's why I was completely befuddled by an article I read in the January 29 Southeast Missourian reporting that some utilities and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers have spent millions of dollars trying to figure out why parts of the Missouri River are washing away.

This article so dumbfounded me that I actually read it twice while eating my Cheerios that morning.

Perhaps, the "experts" at the Corps of Engineers are not aware of a little concept I learned from my Earth science classes long ago.

It's called "erosion."

It usually happens when a liquid -- in this case, "water" -- washes against another surface -- in this case, "the bottom of the river" -- causing particles of that surface to break off and float downstream.

If it goes on for several million years, you get a tourist attraction like the Grand Canyon.

Apparently, what is bothering the Corp is the fact that parts of the river bottom are eroding faster than others. In some cases, they've recorded 12 feet of erosion in 50 years. They're afraid that if this continues, it could undermine bridges and levees protecting billions of dollars in development.

Here's another concept the Corp may not be aware of.

The earth is composed of 6 different types of rock -- sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic, gravel, sand and mud. Some of those rocks -- sedimentary, gravel, sand and mud -- are more susceptible to erosion than the other two. If the bottom of the riverbed has areas composed mainly of those four types of rock, then those areas could erode faster causing parts of the river to be deeper.

Since erosion is apparently a far-fetched explanation of this problem, the Corp is also looking into possible man-made reasons for this predicament.

I guess dredging could be a contributor to this problem. Gee, I wonder what nefarious organization could possibly be doing that on the Missouri River?

I think it's pretty safe to say that fishing is not to blame.

But maybe, the problem is not the fishing, but the fish themselves.

I checked an atlas and found that the Calloway Nuclear Power Plant is about an inch from the Missouri River. It doesn't get much closer than that.

What if, radioactivity from the power plant managed to leak into the river, killing some fish.

And then, what if some catfish -- which everyone knows are the garbage-men of the aquatic world -- ate some of those dead radioactive fish causing them to grow to monstrous proportions.

Let's say, the size and weight of a Buick from the 1950s.

And since catfish like to live in "honey holes," or pits at the bottom of the river, maybe these Buick-sized nuclear monsters couldn't find any comfortable place in the depths of the Missouri so they just dug out their own "honey holes," thus causing this dilemma that the Corp of Engineers is so concerned about.

This sounds like more of an opportunity rather than a problem to me.

If the word got out that our fair state had car-sized radioactive catfish lurking about at the bottom of the Missouri River, fisherman from all over the world would want to come here to try their luck at reeling one in. They'd stay in hotel rooms. Buy tons of bait. Eat at restaurants. The economic benefits would be enormous.

Missouri would have a giant tourist attraction.

And, we wouldn't have to wait several million years.