Waiting for the next big study

By NewsPress Now

Those who live or work near the Missouri River will never forget the years of 1993, 2011 and 2019. That’s when the surging river overtopped levees, causing massive flooding that destroyed crops and property and left major highways impassable for months. Those years are memorialized in government data on the Missouri River level at St. Joseph. In fact, if you’re over the age of 31, you’ve lived through the three worst flood years since data collection began in the 19th century.

But there’s another way of ranking floods beyond the measurement of 32.07 feet in 2019 and 1993 vs. 29.97 in 2011. In terms of frustration, the later flood years brought a sense of “here-we-go-again” weariness. Farmers and communities experienced the frustration of knowing that the devastation could be attributed to something more than just a force majeure.

A federal judge agreed in a ruling that the U.S. government’s river management policies contributed to the massive flooding between 2007 and 2014. This was a victory for plaintiffs, but the ruling rings hollow if it doesn’t lead to long-term changes to current policies that prioritize wildlife and habitat restoration over flood control and navigation. That is the real source of frustration, even in years when river levels are low.

Now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a significant study to identify the causes of these past floods. This comes after considerable pressure from down-river governors and other officials to do something to prevent repeated flooding.

U.S. Rep. Sam Graves, whose district covers those parts of Northwest Missouri that experienced major flooding, says it’s critical to begin taking preventative measures in the years when flooding does not present an immediate threat.

Graves is no fan of what he calls “super-sized science experiments,” a reference either to the glacial pace of action or the considerable government ink devoted to accommodating the pallid sturgeon and piping plover in the management of the Missouri River.

He is right to express skepticism.

A study can bring meaningful change. It can also set policies in the wrong direction (see the piping plover and pallid sturgeon) or collect dust on a shelf.

So the wait continues. For those whose livelihood is closely tied to the river, word of this study should raise hope that Missouri River communities could see meaningful action to prevent future flooding.

Hope won’t stop the next big one, but maybe this study will be a step in the right direction.