DuckSouth.com

Seems to be a lot of misleading information on both sides - who knows the truth? https://amp.clarionledger.com/amp/93071 ... ssion=true

Those that have a little insight probably wont talk . Its to sensitive and to easy to get your head cut off.

Thad's last hurrah?

The truth is evident if you spend any time in the area of interest. I’m all for it and would invite any dissenting professional to come put boots on the ground to hash it out. Which of course is the problem as most naysayers have no experience or stake in the game.

The yazoo flood project was a two prong approach from my understanding. Flood control reservoirs in the hills and pumps at the end of the line to pump the water out. Reservoirs got built, still waiting on pumps.

Here is the question if I have. How does it destroy wetlands? My understanding is the pumps will only run when the steele bayou gates are closed due to the MS river being high. It seems like it would only pump flood water and only run when the flood water can't get out. This flood water would naturally drain out over days/weeks once the gates are opened and the MS river goes down.

Refresh my memory. Who benefits from these pumps?

If the intent was to "Drain Wetlands" all the Corps would have to do is leave the gates open during low water periods, rather than closing them in order to hold water in the backwater area, I think it is something like 70' they try to hold back. IF they left the gates open, steele bayou would be a dry ditch during the summer, along wihth all the "adjacent" wetlands. The pumps would only be used to, like Drake said, when the River is too high to open the gates and the backwater area is filled up. Most years the pumps would never be turned on. I like Dan, am all for it, and my job is wetlands. Until a person has a full understanding of the entire drainage system of the MS Delta, they really have no business commenting either way.

But this whole ATCO land deal being talked about with the State may help get things rolling, the land that would benefit the most is what is being talked about as expanding the unnamed WMA.

Spent many a day/hour this yr down there. Like dan said, boots on the ground opens ones eyes

stang67 wrote:Refresh my memory. Who benefits from these pumps?

Everybody who lives in the lower delta counties.

There is a nice range above the proposed "pumps on" level that makes the duck hunting great. However when it gets rediculously high it gets bad (roads shut down Etc. ) So from a duck hunting perspective I would be against the pumps for where I hunt to get the occasional opportunities to hunt high water.

JMitch wrote:

stang67 wrote:Refresh my memory. Who benefits from these pumps?

Everybody who lives in the lower delta counties.

Well a few posts above, my boy says undeveloped and “undevelopable” land would benefit “the most.” That doesn’t sound like a good investment of tax dollars.

I suppose in some ways I’d benefit from it. I’ve been known to spend some nights in those woods. And spend money in that area. But that don’t mean it’s cost justified. What cause or causes DO justify it? That was my querstion. Ag? Is that it?

This country has less money to burn now than at previous times in the life of this debate (40 yrs?). Seems like a bad time.

DuckBoat wrote:There is a nice range above the proposed "pumps on" level that makes the duck hunting great. However when it gets rediculously high it gets bad (roads shut down Etc. ) So from a duck hunting perspective I would be against the pumps for where I hunt to get the occasional opportunities to hunt high water.

Yeah I see that argument for it, but if the water ever gets that high where the pumps are needed during a hunting season, the good ole boys at the state will shut down hunting and boating in that area anyway.

Also agree that the area/people that would benefit from it the most are the areas surrounding the unnamed WMA and the guys that currently hunt that land, I think the thing that will cause the most delta flooding is if the backwater levee overtops like it damn near did in 2011. But just from a flood reduction standpoint, the pumps will be beneficial, to whom is the question and to what extent

If memory serves me,I recall agriculture benefit was NOT allowed in the Cost/Benefit analysis. But i may be wrong since my memory is fading.............

novacaine wrote:If memory serves me,I recall agriculture benefit was NOT allowed in the Cost/Benefit analysis. But i may be wrong since my memory is fading.............

Interesting that the region's number 1 economy was not a consideration...

JaMak84 wrote:

novacaine wrote:If memory serves me,I recall agriculture benefit was NOT allowed in the Cost/Benefit analysis. But i may be wrong since my memory is fading.............

Interesting that the region's number 1 economy was not a consideration...

I think its a USACE planning and civil works issue. Im not sure if its allowed on any civil works project. Ag can be disguised in other ways though by lumping it under general commerce as in river and port projects. Its all fuzzy to me now and i may be misremembering but i have read a lot of the Backwater Pump report and that issue caught my eye.