EricHaley wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2019 10:20 pm
Think about it this way next time you’re driving up I-29 between Iowa and Nebraska: Look at the bluffs to your east. Look at the bluffs to your west. The Missouri made all the flat area in between. Maybe not all at once, but over time, but make no mistake, the mighty Mo could come back and claim it at any time (barring proper channelization procedures),
In 2011, it was bluff to bluff. It caused ground water flooding north of Ft Calhoun. It turned off the Platte forcing the Platte to vear north along Hwy 75.
This is bad, but there were reasons that geologists called 2011 the worst flood the Mo experienced in 10,000 years. Keeping in mind that the Mo is about 120,000 years old, that was saying something.
Check out the map of the Bertrand sinking. It was in a straight part of the river and the boat was found turned toward the Nebraska bank going straight. The entire DeSoto Bend formed after it sank. Then reformed when the river left it’s channel dug out by the Corps.
To ammend my comment, I mean elevate the river crossing areas that commonly flood. Not, elevate I-29 all the way from South Dakota to Missouri.
My main concern is that if the flooding got even worse, Omaha could become an island and we would literally have to be airlifted food/water. Basically, like what happened in Fremont a few months ago.
I drove to KC and back this past weekend. During the drive, (I know it sounds obvious) it was apparent the areas of I-29 that did not flood were the stretches where the interstate was tucked-up close to the bluffs on ground that was about 4-8 ft. or more higher than the flood plain to the west. The next time a complete resurface or re-build is necessary, a new right-of-way on the higher ground along the base of the bluffs should be acquired so the interstate can be re-routed accordingly. The property owners will have to cooperate, but $$$ talks.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings" ...and then they were gone.
No disrespect to the farmer but I think it's really unfortunate that he think the weather is just going to change when these flood events are going to happen more and more often because of climate change. Very sad.
In the almost 100 years between Lewis and Clark and the turn of the 20th century, the Mo changed its course many times. The river that was at the base of the Nebraska bluffs and would have made Ft Calhoun a port city was 3 miles east into Iowa. There are maps of Omaha where the first three blocks of downtown are drawn in the river. The river floods caused the stretch of straight flowing river by DeSoto to move east and then form DeSoto Bend, then flood out of it, and when the COE tried to put it straight again, it flooded back into the bend. It took redesigning the wall of the straight channel to keep it straight and every time the river floods, it tries to reconnect to the bend.
Hamburg IA was a port city on the river till the late 1800's when the river moved west several miles, landlocking the town and closing it's port. The point of all this is that the river will do what it wants to do.
If this is something we're going to be dealing with regularly, we really need to move people and the out of the floodplain areas, not help them rebuild. Let the river do what it will.
Busguy2010 wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 pm
If this is something we're going to be dealing with regularly, we really need to move people and the out of the floodplain areas, not help them rebuild. Let the river do what it will.
Busguy2010 wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 pm
If this is something we're going to be dealing with regularly, we really need to move people and the out of the floodplain areas, not help them rebuild. Let the river do what it will.
Exactly.
That would be nice, but it would be a difficult proposition particularly since it would essentially kill a couple small towns. It should be easier to do and probably should be done. Look at Texas, particularly Houston. People have been flooded out of there homes a few times this past decade. Flood insurance keeps paying out with every new owner that takes a chance in living in a area with a history of flooding. So, for a $400,000 home, flood insurance may have paid two or three times that value.
Busguy2010 wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 pm
If this is something we're going to be dealing with regularly, we really need to move people and the out of the floodplain areas, not help them rebuild. Let the river do what it will.
Exactly.
That would be nice, but it would be a difficult proposition particularly since it would essentially kill a couple small towns. It should be easier to do and probably should be done. Look at Texas, particularly Houston. People have been flooded out of there homes a few times this past decade. Flood insurance keeps paying out with every new owner that takes a chance in living in a area with a history of flooding. So, for a $400,000 home, flood insurance may have paid two or three times that value.
Time for the easy path to repetitive damage not be taken. Is Pac Junction going to go away? Yep. Should it have gone away after 1993, 1998, 2011, and so on? Yes. Sorry those people will have to move, but the MO is not a random stream that floods once in while, it is a large river with a hx since it's very origin of flooding It was flooding the year that Pac Junction came into being and has done so regularly ever since. When your house is a foot and half above flood stage, you don't worry about floods, you accept it and plan for it. The rest of us should not be bailing you out again and again. Same with hurricane damage. Want to buy an 8 figure house 10 meters away from the high tide line? You are a fool. The rest of us rightfully should not be on the hook for rebuilding your dream house after every storm.
Busguy2010 wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:22 pm
If this is something we're going to be dealing with regularly, we really need to move people and the out of the floodplain areas, not help them rebuild. Let the river do what it will.
Exactly.
That would be nice, but it would be a difficult proposition particularly since it would essentially kill a couple small towns. It should be easier to do and probably should be done. Look at Texas, particularly Houston. People have been flooded out of there homes a few times this past decade. Flood insurance keeps paying out with every new owner that takes a chance in living in a area with a history of flooding. So, for a $400,000 home, flood insurance may have paid two or three times that value.
Time for the easy path to repetitive damage not be taken. Is Pac Junction going to go away? Yep. Should it have gone away after 1993, 1998, 2011, and so on? Yes. Sorry those people will have to move, but the MO is not a random stream that floods once in while, it is a large river with a hx since it's very origin of flooding It was flooding the year that Pac Junction came into being and has done so regularly ever since. When your house is a foot and half above flood stage, you don't worry about floods, you accept it and plan for it. The rest of us should not be bailing you out again and again. Same with hurricane damage. Want to buy an 8 figure house 10 meters away from the high tide line? You are a fool. The rest of us rightfully should not be on the hook for rebuilding your dream house after every storm.
I Agree with you on this subject. In the long run, it will be far less expensive to encourage, help, and even pay for people to move out of flood-prone areas now, rather than bail them out every time floods increasingly happen or to keep rebuilding and raising the breach-prone levies ever higher. This may not apply to critical areas such as Offutt, although even they are probably not going to be rebuilding mission critical buildings in the areas that flooded, even with the planned levy upgrades.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings" ...and then they were gone.
Yep. The Army was way too desperate at the end of ww2 to get out of Nebraska. They should have been more thoughtful about dumping Ft Omaha and the QM corps buildings in downtown as well as Ft Robinson. Now they are stuck with flood prone areas of an old Calvary base that didn’t care if the river flooded the SE corner. Today, it matters.
There will always be devastating floods, especially during years of unpredictable weather patters such as those which occur after a large volcanic eruption. Floods like 1993, 2011, and 2019 however, are different because they're occurring with more regularity due to climate change.
I got an idea. Instead of relocating all of the pitiful people whose homes and farms are being flooded more often, we should instead support policies which eliminate or radically decrease the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Progress is being made, but perhaps not fast enough to save the farmers and small town residents of the Missouri river floodplain.
daveoma wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:53 am
There will always be devastating floods, especially during years of unpredictable weather patters such as those which occur after a large volcanic eruption. Floods like 1993, 2011, and 2019 however, are different because they're occurring with more regularity due to climate change.
I got an idea. Instead of relocating all of the pitiful people whose homes and farms are being flooded more often, we should instead support policies which eliminate or radically decrease the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Progress is being made, but perhaps not fast enough to save the farmers and small town residents of the Missouri river floodplain.
The obvious hole in your theory is that global warming happens so fast. There is no way that global warming suddenly caused the river to flood like it has in the past few years and in the same tone there is no way that a sudden reduction in carbon emissions is going to suddenly stop the river from flooding in the next 10 years. This flooding problem can be fixed but it is going to take a lot of money and a competent government. Right now we seem to be in a shortage of both.
I'm going to submit that we should, as a society, figure out how to encourage the continued development of agricultural use of river floodplains. Flooded land can be some of the richest, best growing land in a geographical area, and as we have the continued potential for shortages from the Ogallala and other acquifers, retaining those growing areas would obviously seem to be very important. Discouraging future building along of traditional residential/commerical developments along flood plains and taking advantage of natural opportunities to discourage rebuilding of flooded communities (possibly by subsidizing relocation for property owners below a certain income threshold) while encouraging responsible agricultural use seems a win for all.
This necessarily involves reducing residential and mercantile commerical/industrial uses, but as our commercial trafficways have largely shifted away from a dependence on the rivers and are now much more dependent on roads and rails, this just makes sense. We should, as an agricultural state with a functioning society, figure out how to get this done.
daveoma wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:53 am
There will always be devastating floods, especially during years of unpredictable weather patters such as those which occur after a large volcanic eruption. Floods like 1993, 2011, and 2019 however, are different because they're occurring with more regularity due to climate change.
I got an idea. Instead of relocating all of the pitiful people whose homes and farms are being flooded more often, we should instead support policies which eliminate or radically decrease the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Progress is being made, but perhaps not fast enough to save the farmers and small town residents of the Missouri river floodplain.
Pitiful people? Maybe you should look at yourself.
daveoma wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:53 am
There will always be devastating floods, especially during years of unpredictable weather patters such as those which occur after a large volcanic eruption. Floods like 1993, 2011, and 2019 however, are different because they're occurring with more regularity due to climate change.
I got an idea. Instead of relocating all of the pitiful people whose homes and farms are being flooded more often, we should instead support policies which eliminate or radically decrease the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Progress is being made, but perhaps not fast enough to save the farmers and small town residents of the Missouri river floodplain.
The obvious hole in your theory is that global warming happens so fast. There is no way that global warming suddenly caused the river to flood like it has in the past few years and in the same tone there is no way that a sudden reduction in carbon emissions is going to suddenly stop the river from flooding in the next 10 years. This flooding problem can be fixed but it is going to take a lot of money and a competent government. Right now we seem to be in a shortage of both.
I agree grandpa, and if climate change is suddenly causing our river to flood, then nothing short of profound and swift reduction to our carbon output will keep the river from flooding in the next 20 or 30 or even more years (if it were caused by climate change). If the river is to keep flooding every year, or even every 5 years, then resistance is futile. The obvious solution then is to quickly move people out and reduce the financial burden. If they want to stay, then then the burden will be on them. I would much rather make a large initial public investment to move people out and move our critical highways out of the flood risk, than keep rebuilding every year.
I know a guy that was flooded out in Pacific Junction in the spring, and he just had things cleaned out and ready to put the pieces back together. And now he is dealing with another flood. Real good guy, but the stress is clear. If I could afford to help him personally. The obvious answer in my eye, to help him out, would be to help him move out.
daveoma wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:53 am
There will always be devastating floods, especially during years of unpredictable weather patters such as those which occur after a large volcanic eruption. Floods like 1993, 2011, and 2019 however, are different because they're occurring with more regularity due to climate change.
I got an idea. Instead of relocating all of the pitiful people whose homes and farms are being flooded more often, we should instead support policies which eliminate or radically decrease the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Progress is being made, but perhaps not fast enough to save the farmers and small town residents of the Missouri river floodplain.
Pitiful people? Maybe you should look at yourself.
Pity is an expression of empathy for people who have experienced something tragic. I don't see how my empathy for people who have experienced the hardship from the floods is offensive.
Although I didn't agree with his point, I personally didn't read his use of the word pitiful as an intent to offend those who are being affected by the floods.
Just looks like someone read into it wrong. I read it as "people deserving of pity". Where I suppose depending on your view, it could be read as "inadequate people".
His point was directed at climate change and not the people who are affected by the flood anyway. I call no foul.
Honestly, the entire park needs raised 3 to 5 feet or it's just going to be decimated (AGAIN) by the next heavy flood. Though, I can't imagine that's particularly cost effective. Perhaps just raise the level of the improvements.
This is article already a month old, but there is renewed interest in looking into how to alleviate future catastrophic flooding events by doing something along the Platte. Sorry, no Lake Ashland, however, a few smaller lakes might be a solution.
Omaha State Sen. Mike McDonnell wants to make one thing clear: He has no interest in turning Ashland, Nebraska, into a lake.
He’s not trying to revive grand plans to replace cropland and historic towns with a 25-mile-long lake between Lincoln and Omaha where water skiers could zoom past luxury homes, resorts, high-tech campuses and a private airstrip.
But he does want to take a new look at some old ideas in hopes of staving off future flooding damage in eastern Nebraska.
Toward that end, McDonnell introduced Legislative Resolution 333 during the session just ended. It calls for an interim study of the possibility of putting one or more reservoirs on the Platte River and its tributaries for flood control.
The study also would look at reservoirs’ potential for hydroelectric energy, recreation, economic development and environmental stewardship.
...
He said he supports planning to prevent future flooding but plans to focus on a statewide flood mitigation planning effort required under Legislative Bill 632, which was passed by the Legislature this month.
Discussions about damming the Platte come up about every decade or two, usually driven by recent experiences of flood or drought, said John Winkler, general manager of the Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District. The most recent push was in 2012, the earliest was in 1896. None has progressed beyond the talking stage.
...
Preliminary work by the NRD found that damage along the Missouri River last year could have been prevented by reducing water flows from the Platte by about 25%. That’s about the size of the previously proposed lakes, Winkler said.
The new study will be different because it will look at a series of smaller reservoirs instead of just one big one, he said.
I think that cutting and dredging operations along the whole channel to open up the braids would do well in controlling most of the mere mortal normal floods facing the Platte. The Venice bridge towards Yutan is a good example. The whole west channel is a sandbar. Dig that out, sell the sand for road beds, and you double the volume of the river and have cheap access to road material.
Yoda is the teacher, and this is the Legislature's STAR WARS Committee — and it is thinking big with construction of a large reservoir between Omaha and Lincoln funded by federal coronavirus recovery assistance on the table for possible consideration now.
That potential project, with its strong recreation, tourism, flood control, economic development and water sustainability aspects, joins water development opportunities already identified at Lake McConaughy near Ogallala, and at Lewis and Clark Lake and Niobrara State Park along the border with South Dakota, all of which are on the legislative study committee's project list.
"It's a concept now, not a proposal," Speaker of the Legislature Mike Hilgers of Lincoln stressed during an interview. He is chairman of the Statewide Tourism and Recreational Water Access and Resources Sustainability, or STAR WARS, Committee.
"It's one of many projects we're looking at," he said, and it's under review by the committee's engineering and financial consultants now.
...
The study committee has held public hearings at Mahoney State Park, in Ogallala and at Niobrara State Park.
Ideas pitched for Lake McConaughy, which already draws 1.9 million visitors a year, include a marina, destination resort, a new master planned community and other improvements.
A fishing village might be created at Lewis and Clark Lake, along with boat landings.
The article made clear; no dam on the Platte, no flooding of Ashland for any future lake. Darn.
Yoda is the teacher, and this is the Legislature's STAR WARS Committee — and it is thinking big with construction of a large reservoir between Omaha and Lincoln funded by federal coronavirus recovery assistance on the table for possible consideration now.
That potential project, with its strong recreation, tourism, flood control, economic development and water sustainability aspects, joins water development opportunities already identified at Lake McConaughy near Ogallala, and at Lewis and Clark Lake and Niobrara State Park along the border with South Dakota, all of which are on the legislative study committee's project list.
"It's a concept now, not a proposal," Speaker of the Legislature Mike Hilgers of Lincoln stressed during an interview. He is chairman of the Statewide Tourism and Recreational Water Access and Resources Sustainability, or STAR WARS, Committee.
"It's one of many projects we're looking at," he said, and it's under review by the committee's engineering and financial consultants now.
...
The study committee has held public hearings at Mahoney State Park, in Ogallala and at Niobrara State Park.
Ideas pitched for Lake McConaughy, which already draws 1.9 million visitors a year, include a marina, destination resort, a new master planned community and other improvements.
A fishing village might be created at Lewis and Clark Lake, along with boat landings.
The article made clear; no dam on the Platte, no flooding of Ashland for any future lake. Darn.
I am very curious as to the location they'd be looking at. If it is a reservoir, then it would be a dam on a creek somewhere.
Yoda is the teacher, and this is the Legislature's STAR WARS Committee — and it is thinking big with construction of a large reservoir between Omaha and Lincoln funded by federal coronavirus recovery assistance on the table for possible consideration now.
That potential project, with its strong recreation, tourism, flood control, economic development and water sustainability aspects, joins water development opportunities already identified at Lake McConaughy near Ogallala, and at Lewis and Clark Lake and Niobrara State Park along the border with South Dakota, all of which are on the legislative study committee's project list.
"It's a concept now, not a proposal," Speaker of the Legislature Mike Hilgers of Lincoln stressed during an interview. He is chairman of the Statewide Tourism and Recreational Water Access and Resources Sustainability, or STAR WARS, Committee.
"It's one of many projects we're looking at," he said, and it's under review by the committee's engineering and financial consultants now.
...
The study committee has held public hearings at Mahoney State Park, in Ogallala and at Niobrara State Park.
Ideas pitched for Lake McConaughy, which already draws 1.9 million visitors a year, include a marina, destination resort, a new master planned community and other improvements.
A fishing village might be created at Lewis and Clark Lake, along with boat landings.
The article made clear; no dam on the Platte, no flooding of Ashland for any future lake. Darn.
I am very curious as to the location they'd be looking at. If it is a reservoir, then it would be a dam on a creek somewhere.
It sounds like they are trying to get a proposal completed by the next legislative session in January, so we will have to wait until then. I am also really interested about where they are looking to do this new large reservoir. It would be amazing to have a McConaughy-sized reservoir here, I just don't know where it would go.
What if they were to dredge out the lower reach of the Todd valley up towards Ithaca? It’s a superfund site , going to need dug up soon as the Platte demonstrated in 2019, that it could reclaim it. Between Silver creek and the other streams flowing into the Platte through that old channel, you could get enough water into it, esp if you did a canal from the Platte south easterly.
It would blow away the NU ag ground, but it would give a double hit for cleaning up the ammo dump and building a nice rec area that would extend from Mead to Ashland and not flood either.
