Congress needs a river plan

  • Article by: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial
  • Updated: April 24, 2013 - 11:13 AM

Anyone who has been paying attention knows that these cycles of drought and flood are getting closer together and more intense. And it’s only going to get worse.

  • 15
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
romperroomApr. 24, 1311:35 AM

it amazes me that there is only brief mention in this piece of Big Agriculture. Entertaining any argument on climate change is fruitless until policymakers also acknowledge the ways in which Big Ag abuses water resources. Continually draining parcels and then complaining when it is dry - aforementioned water long gone downriver. Taxpayers, meanwhile, are left paying for the damages of water along rivertowns in even MODEST years.

texas_technomanApr. 24, 1311:48 AM

Good luck getting Congress to do anything that takes vision, and $$. They are too busy infighting and throwing money at the industrial military war complex. They can't even agree on a longterm transportation plan.

boris123Apr. 24, 1311:53 AM

Name one compelling reason why congress need a river plan?

rshacklefordApr. 24, 1312:57 PM

"boris123: Name one compelling reason why congress need a river plan?" ---- Because these people are not smart enough to move further away from the water or catch up with how even ancient civilizations were able to move water around. Look at the Fargo people and their pride in creating 1.5 million sandbags! What a waste of time each and every year. You can't even put that on a resume.

jsmolineApr. 24, 13 1:11 PM

Congress needs to stay out of it. If you live in a flood plain, it's just a matter of time til it is washed away, and therefore you get to replace it on your own dime when it is.

FrankLApr. 24, 13 1:39 PM

rshackleford, ever been to Fargo? There is no higher ground. The pitchers mound at Target field would qualify as a mountain in the Red River valley.

braxozApr. 24, 13 2:39 PM

boris123 Apr. 24, 13 11:53 AM Name one compelling reason why congress need a river plan?____________ Because the individual states are too concerned about themselves than caring about the whole river basin. It's a tragedy of the commons situation. Thinking that these rivers can be controlled is the definition of hubris.

joe_mnApr. 24, 13 2:51 PM

Record low levels last yr were due to drought? That is mans problem? Or can govt control rain?

mnnimrodApr. 24, 13 4:01 PM

It's not necessarily the amount of water going to the river but how fast. There has been so much tiling in the Red River Valley the water doesn't get held back for any length of time in sloughs or the field. Every square inch of tillable land is now carefully ditched and tiled to get the water off as quick as possible. Slow melt this spring but this weekend the water will be like rivers right out of the fields and into nice wide clean ditches. They need a water district to control how quickly the water is released. A delay of even of few days makes a huge difference.

jd55604Apr. 24, 13 4:45 PM

Eliminating Federal disaster relief aid and subsidized flood insurance rates would take care of most of this problem and would force people not to build homes on flood plains unless states or local governments were willing to pay for and construct their own flood barriers.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters