Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, July 21, 1993 TAG: 9307210316
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JUSTIN ASKINS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
I recently returned from a tour of the Midwest flooding, walking along downtown Des Moines as the Des Moines river flowed over bridges normally 20 feet above the water, strolling through the new Davenport shoreline nearly a half mile inland and standing on threatened levees near New Boston, Ill.
It was dramatic and tragic. But I don't mean because of the loss of human life or the tremendous hardships so many people are experiencing out there. For me, the tragedy was that the Mississippi was being blamed for the effects of human arrogance and greed.
The Des Moines paper spoke of "cruel nature"; more appropriately, I thought it should headline "stupid humans." The central problem is that the dam and levee situation on the upper Mississippi and its tributaries was a mistake from the start. It ignores the natural boundaries of the river. Why is it cruel that a rain-swollen river, forced to run between 25-foot levees, gains swiftness and height? It's not cruel, it's simple physics. Instead of spreading out over its original territory, the river must do something terribly unnatural. Where do we want the river to go: straight to heaven?
Actually some people in Des Moines wanted exactly that. They organized a prayer service to help the river drop more rapidly. One person said, "God can do it quicker if he wants." God is telling us to leave the river alone, to retreat back to safety and live comfortably and sanely.
As an editorial in the July 14 Roanoke Times World-News made clear ("Next comes a flood of bills"), there will be a tremendous cost to all taxpayers at a time when the deficit is out of control and the economy is stagnant. I agree wholeheartedly with the editorial's conclusion concerning those with the temerity to build within the flood-plain: "If they want to defy nature, let them bear - alone - the price of their folly."
We must make people act responsibly or leave ourselves open to astronomical costs from the next major flooding. And if we don't abandon our plans to control the Mississippi, that disaster will eventually occur. The Weather Service misread the severeity and, I think, the probability of this flood because it had no precedent to follow. How is it possible we will have precedent the next time, particularly if we engage in rebuilding and expanding the present containment system? Such a project will radically change the so-called one-in-500-years figure, an estimate that I think is without any scientific merit. If some of the levees upstream of St. Louis had not broken, the crest at St. Louis, where the river narrows significantly, could have been even higher, possibly even going past the 52-foot crest the city is supposedly protected from. If we decide to go back and spend hundreds of millions, or perhaps billions, of dollars to enlarge the levee system, are we not just setting ourselves up for an almost incalculable disaster 10, 20 or 30 years from now? I think we are.
The Mississippi is a wild and wonderful river. Its inevitable tendency to change its course is celebrated in Mark Twain's "Life on the Mississippi" and in "Huck Finn." The river also is a powerful presence in William Faulkner's "The Old Man," and it prompted T.S. Eliot to call it "a strong, brown god." It is good to have wild things near you, as I have learned in my years of hiking near grizzly bears, wolves and cougars. The closeness of these creatures help define another world - one of beauty, strength and purity, one far removed from the endless development of civilization.
Our own New River floods, and Radford University's attitude, is an interesting microcosm of the present situation in the Midwest. Regularly, and I'm sure at significant cost, the university has to have its soccer field renewed and the levee near the river strengthened and enlarged. Yet almost every year now, the river disregards human intentions and takes back its natural bed.
We must stop and carefully reassess the present policy toward the Mississippi and toward rivers across America. We may lose some towns and a very small percentage of our overall farmland, but if we change we will gain an environmentally sane and responsible practice. When we have that, floods such as the present one will still come, even though they may be much less destructive to a human race that has respected the river. But we can all look out at these amazing rivers and marvel at their natural breadth and power. Bravo the New! Bravo the Des Moines! Bravo the great and lovely Mississippi!
Justin Askins is associate professor in the English Department at Radford University.
by CNB