DuckSouth.com

And here are just a few of the problems with the data and effect/bennifit analysis put forth by the COE, as reported by the EPA

"The keystone of the Corps hydrology analyses is the elevation area curves depicted on Plates 4-7 to 4-10. The text (page 6-30) implies that data points from ten satellite images were used to generate these Plates. The Corps has not, however, documented any of the data points on these elevation-area curves. Additionally, the method used for "fitting" the data points to the curves was not given (page 6-31 only states that "a best fit curve routine was used"). While we assume that a composite elevation-area curve for the four reaches was developed and used in the analyses, this was not stated in the Draft EIS. This information is needed in order for the technical reviewer to verify the shape of the curve as currently assigned. Since all other analyses depend on the data generated from these curves, its documentation is important. These ten data points and the curves generated by these data points are the basis for the hydrological analyses, including the stage-frequency and stage area data (Table 6-9), stage-frequency curves (Plate 4-22- 4-23), elevation-area curves (Plates 4-7-4-10, elevation storage curves (Plate 4-11), and elevation-duration curves (Plates 4-24 - 4-25), as well as the hydrology analysis done for the economics evaluation. Minor differences in the shape of the curve, particularly given the total number of points (10) and the cluster of data points (nine are at 91.9 feet or below, one is at 100.3 feet), could result in significant differences in the reported number of flooded acres.


It is stated that the "satellite scenes were classified with an unsupervised classifier," (page 6-30). This apparently means that there was no validation of the GIS technique used by either photo-interpretation or ground-truthing.


There is a gap in data points from the satellite imagery between 91.9 feet (nine points at 91.9 feet and below) and 100.3 feet (one point at 100.3 feet). This gap results in lower confidence in assessing the less frequent flood stage events.


Ten satellite images were used, five of which were outside of the growing season when many of the wetland impacts and claimed cropland flood reduction are considered to be most critical to project assessment.


Accurate flood profiles can only be established by basinwide channel cross-section data. The Corps has only two cross-sections in the connecting channel between Steele Bayou and Little Sunflower), and no basinwide cross-section data.


The land use classification data used are out-dated (over ten years old).


Additionally, spatially explicit data were apparently not used in the environmental assessments; therefore, specific geographic locations of impacts cannot be determined.


There is insufficient detail about how the pump will be operated (see discussion in section B below).


The only hydrograph presented is for the l00-year flood (Plate 4-21). However, the pumping project will have more impacts on the more frequent flood events (such as the 2-year flood). Therefore, including the hydrographs for the more frequent events would allow for more confidence in results interpretation.


The Corps' analysis apparently assumes a static channel system throughout the project area with no changes due to channel filling by sedimentation. This would affect the analysis of storage curves and rate of delivery of water."

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: M.B.Waters ]

Gosh, I was hoping to keep this one going. What happened? Now I am left wondering if you folk even bothered to read the information?
Have a good holiday.

M.B.

The bottom line is that this fiasco makes no economic sense and it's horrible for ducks and other wildlife. Do we really need more cropland when the only way farming is economically feasible at the present is via subsidies? The Corps is so hung up on its "mission" of stopping floods that it cannot bring itself to consider, as it calls them, "non-structural" solutions, such as purchasing flooodplain easements. I will state (without substantiation) that it would make more financial sense for the government to purchase the affected property outright than to keep dumping your and my tax dollars into this catastrophe! Yes, I feel strongly about this and I am not ashamed of my views.

I would not be so quick to conclude the sump pumps would only lessen the duration and extent of flooding when the EPA concludes that:

"There is insufficient detail about how the pump will be operated (see discussion in section B below)."


Hambone, I'm with ya, It makes no environmental sense to me, except they might buy some hunting land (Uncle Walt's), which is possibly bad for him and possibly good for someone else. For instance, somebody got to hunt Mahannah before it was public, now it benefits me and maybe you and some snowbirds. The most pursuasive argument in my mind is that it is MUCH cheaper to buy/lease the effected property than to dredge and pump. Whether the purchase or lease the property with conservation easements, somebody gets to keep hunting it.

I don't get it when a duck hunter complains about too much water. That situation is obviously good for the ducks. If it is not good for your particular method of hunting in your particular spot . . . . then adapt.

My 3 cents.

There is so much bad data in the COE report that I can not see how this project ever got approved. Junk science like this is just plain bad for everyone.
I began to be aware of the figh tagainst this porject back in the early eighties. My father, a former member of the legislature and lifelong hunter of the south delta had been butiing heads with the corp over this one, and it was even causing some strife in my family, some of my inlaws worked for the corp.
It was through them that we learned of some of the flaws in this project. Much of the data used to calculate the flood level effects, as I remember it, came from records taken before much of the main line levee project was completed.
Its like the simple, oft quoted computer saying, "Garbage In Garbage Out"
Now if some might think that this is all easy for a non delta resident to talk about I would like to point out that my family has a house and land in the area this project claims to help. It was flooded in 73 and 79 came close, but as we chose to buy land on an old bend of the river we knew that flooding was part of that, and we accept it.

Let's not let this "somebody owes me" mentality that has so gripped our nation make the call on this. If you CHOOSE to live in or try to make a living in a KNOWN FLOOD PLAIN it is your CHOICE and YOUR RISK. Not the responsibility of the rest of the public.

M.B.

I see the Miss River at Vburg is at 44.6 today and will be at 45.5 Thursday. The record was 56 feet in 1927.

The Little Sunflower and Steele Bayou levels are 87.4 and 87.5 and 92.4. I think that means not much change from when I was up there 10 days ago.

Can anyone tell me what the "R" and "L" mean in the designations for Little Sunflower and Steele Bayou? See
http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/offices/ed/edh/docs/bullet.txt

River side (R)
Levee Side (L)

I do believe. Funny terms though, isn't the levee between the river and the rest of the delta? But you get the idea.

M.B.

This is some great discussion. I am finishing up a book, Rising Tide, about the 1927 flood and how the corps and other political figures factored into it. If you havn't read this book, do yourself a favor and read it. This is only the second book that I have ever read which was not related to my schooling, just to let you know that I am not one of those book club types.

I read Rising Tide several years ago and thought it was great and extremely informative. It should be required reading if you are interested in the Delta. Like MB Waters said, if you buy land in a floodplain, expect to endure flooding. My Delta property on the wet side of the Mississippi River levee has been under water for over a week and will be until the River falls, but that is hardly a surprise and it wasn't something I was unaware of when we acquired it. We didn't buy it for farming, but if that was our purpose, we would have bought land that doesn't flood. It's not fair to expect my tax dollars to fix a problem that you walked into with your eyes wide open. I certainly don't expect (or want) the government to step in when I have a problem that I knew about on the front end.