Eclectic Home                     Index of Michael Says... Articles                    Shop with Michael
Michael says... Economics and floods

It's partly due to annual snow melt further north, but mostly due to above average seasonal rains.  River flooding on the upper Mississippi. Our hearts go out to the individuals and families whose homes or businesses have been affected... or whose employers have been, and therefore it has hurt their workers' livelihood.

But what are we to do with situations where the town fathers, or the voters of an area reject permanent protection from these recurring "natural disasters" for economic reasons, then expect assistance from the National Guard and later state and federal assistance to get things back in order? I'm thinking here of Davenport, Iowa, which some 17 years ago voted down a river wall which would protect it's downtown and other areas, but wouldn't be as pretty as a clear view of the river... so might hurt tourism.  That's a fair choice, if tourism dollars are greater than the economic cost of the periodic flooding or temporary prevention measures, like sand bagging. But having made that "economic" decision, it should be tourism dollars or taxes on those who benefit from tourism which pay for the sandbags and labor to put them down and later remove them; and for any and all other preventive and recovery measures. It should not cost those far away to subsidize that. Perhaps a raised riverwalk this side of the wall could be included when this is voted on again?

It was back around the same time, maybe a bit earlier, when voters in Johnson County, Kansas, just outside of Kansas City, were given the opportunity to vote on three lakes for flood control and recreation. We too chose periodic flooding. For straight flood control, a vote might not even be required, but the two were tied together, and economic interests who saw great housing lot potential in the rolling area the lakes would have gone used a subtle racial scare theme as part of their tactic to put an end to the lakes plan.  Other measures have been taken to reduce flooding, but some areas will see floods forever.  Some would point to great amounts of commercial, retail and housing stock on the lands which would have been lakes (all increasing the runoff and flooding elsewhere, by the way) as proof the right choices were made.

My belief is that it was the right decision for a few who profited then and later, but the wrong one for all. The same expensive housing, retail and commercial, yes, including the massive Sprint "campus" would have happened, and perhaps sooner and bigger, but further south and west, had the lakes been built. They would have been great selling points to attract new businesses and their employees seeking a nice place to live.  This was a different kind of dumb decision than that made by Davenport's voters in 1984.  There is a public cost in flood control and cleanup here too, on account of the vote in Johnson County, Kansas. Maybe not as dramatic, and certainly not as visible. When it was decided not to build the lakes, it was in effect decided to send our water downstream. The trickle down effect, so to speak.

posted April 27-May 15, 2001