Floodway raises concerns

By Alan Journet

Prior to European settlement, Southeast Missouri's lowlands supported millions of acres of wetland forest. Drainage and forest clearing have reduced these to just a few thousand acres. As profitable agriculture expanded into the rich floodplain, many wildlife populations were reduced to threatened and endangered-species status.

In the 1920s, a levee system was constructed with a frontline levee generally following the river bank and a setback levee cutting across land from Bird's Point to New Madrid. This enclosed the New Madrid Floodway. Near New Madrid, a 1,500-foot gap was left to serve a critical flood-control purpose: in the event of high floodwaters at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, the frontline levee would be blown at Bird's Point allowing water to flow through the floodway, relieving flooding in Illinois and Kentucky.

This feature was successfully employed in 1937. Despite frequent flooding, land in the floodway was purchased and farmed in full knowledge of this plan.

Since backwater floods annually inundate adjacent lands, the gap allows floodplain connection with the river, providing nursery habitat for river fish and habitat for aquatic species. Combined with the frequent flooding of lowland depressions, where local rainfall accumulates, these floods maintain the few remaining patches of wetland forest habitat.

To reduce cropland flooding, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local residents developed an $85 million plan to close the levee gap and install pumps to eliminate accumulated local floodwaters. Conservationists, however, remain concerned about the project. The project threatens the few forested wetland acres remaining along with the wildlife habitat and species they support. Although wetland forest creation is promised, the historic record of corps failure in this regard leaves opponents unconvinced. Meanwhile, closure of the gap will separate river fish from their nursery habitat and thus will threaten many species.

Although the project will benefit farmers adjacent to the gap by extending their growing season, local landowners already profit so much from the flooded nutrient-rich soils that they refuse to sell any land to create a wetland refuge. Interestingly, the major project beneficiary would be the family of one New Madrid resident and landowner who serves with unconscionable conflict of interest on the body that oversees Mississippi River management, the Mississippi River Commission.

Although one objective is to increase local crop production, current national crop surpluses and low commodity prices mean that new cropland will simply reduce crop profitability to farmers across the nation. Since local gain must come at the expense of farmers elsewhere, the project does not contribute to national economic development as proponents claim.

Proponents claim it will reduce flooding in local communities and thus promote economic development, but this is doubtful. East Prairie, for example, suffers from frequent local floods resulting from heavy local rainfall. The levee gap, however, is blameless. The city's problem is that it is in the lowlands and possesses an inadequate storm drain system. The project does not address this issue. Even after project completion, East Prairie will still suffer floods one year in 10. Flood problems in neighboring Pinhook, meanwhile, could largely be solved by raising the roads a few inches. Urban flood problems require a different, less costly solution.

While providing local flood control, levees ultimately enhance flooding. Combined with upstream deforestation, levees are probably the greatest cause of flooding. Inevitably the water must go somewhere, and this is usually onto downstream floodplains. More creative solutions are needed to address flood problems, solutions that recognize and balance human needs with the needs of the environmental life support system upon which we rely.

While threatening the valuable natural resources of Southeast Missouri and allowing a few wealthy landowners to become wealthier, the project is destined not to achieve its urban flood-control objective. Since it pits residents of Southeast Missouri against their neighbors across the river in the search for flood protection and comes when national budget deficits are ballooning, this project does not warrant millions of taxpayer dollars.

Although the corps is charged with environmental protection, it has come under scrutiny recently for promoting projects with dubiously optimistic economic benefit/environmental cost analyses. This is another such project.

Alan Journet of Cape Girardeau is a professor in the Department of Biology and the Environmental Science Program at Southeast Missouri State University and serves as conservation chair of the Southeast Missouri Trail of Tears Group of the Sierra Club.