Do you agree with the government flooding rural areas to avoid flooding the cities?

Wow, that would be a tough call to make. If I were one of the few, I hope I’d be understanding of the need for such an action. After all, not choosing is still choosing in a way, and that choice would displace a lot more people and cost all of us more in the long run. I’m glad I’m not the one who has to make that call, though.

No I dont agree with the government its political and emotional,very similar to rural people displaced to make way for Beijing Olympics buildings. Highlights the power that governments have,though some maybe happy with a compensation payout and figure its time to move on.
Either way not a great predicament to be in.

I might not agree with the governments decision, but if you look at the whole picture, this is the most conservative plan to follow.

Can you imagine what a huge task would be, to have to notify these people in the proposed flooding regions before the leeves are blown? Most people, in that area, do not have cellphones.

The government is going to pay for damages of flood water homes and property and that is good.

If a choice had to be made, flooding the rural areas would make the most sense.

Dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t!

Wait ‘till you have to decide who to send to their death and who gets to live.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Cities have more people. It makes sense to spare more people from devastating flooding. That strikes me as one of the basic points of government.

Everyone who lives in a society has to occasionally make sacrifices on the behalf of the “greater good.” A good government should try to limit these sacrifices, but not to the extent of allowing floods to devastate thousands or tens of thousands of people unnecessarily.

I think the number of people evacuated was 100 times smaller. It sucks for the few who were displaced, but it was an obvious call. Also, I believe the evacuees will be compensated.

@john65pennington Do you really think people living in rural areas don’t have cell phones?

I do think parts of very rural areas people don’t have cell phones, especially the elderly. But, it is the same in the cities too. My aunt doesn’t have a cell phone, my grandma never did, she died three years ago, and my mother still doesn’t.

There is an advantage to being flooded if you live on farm land. The flood will replenish the productivity of the soil by dropping all kinds of new soil on the ground. If I were in one of those areas, I’d find a silver lining there.

Lt me get this straight – they buy cheap land behind a levy, built by the government and then if it is flooded by the same government to spare the majority of people. Yes, I agree with that.

What I don’t agree with is allowing people to take advantage of the taxpayers by buying cheap land behind taxpayer built levies. They should learn to live with nature, the way my ancestors did.

[mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

This is one story that NPR aired recently.

The Mississippi is a river that floods. There are levees to protect people, but people can’t totally control nature. Sometimes it’s all too much. And, knowing this, there’s a system in place to bust out some of the levees to flood a bunch of (largely) farmland and more sparsely populated areas to save population centers. It’s very similar to that old moral conundrum about seeing an out-of-control train barreling down a track where it is sure to kill five people, but you have the chance to re-route the train by switching the track down a way that has only one person who will be killed. Is it fair to that one person? Absolutely not! But is it proper to save five people by sacrificing one? I believe most people would give a qualified “yes.”

But here’s the thing that does it for me, here. The guy interviewed in the NPR article says, “Well, it’s their property. We don’t own the property. We have flowage easements in some areas. And in other areas, the land naturally floods every year anyway, so the courts decided that easements weren’t appropriate for those areas. It’s some of the richest farmland in the world, and so every farmer is a gambler at some point. And when the cards go in their favor, they can experience some truly productive harvests. It was not the case this year though.”

In other words, this land, prone to floods, is purchased or leased by farmers who know what the game is. (Most years it doesn’t flood – so why not plant crops and make productive use of the land instead of just wasting the space?) That land is very fertile from previous floods, and this is the gamble those farmers take. They can grow lots of good produce, knowing that in any given year, it’s all going to be lost to flood damage. They know going into this that it’s part of the cost of doing business. And since flood easements cover wide areas, people living there surely must know that if the Big One comes, it’s going to hit them first.

Since it’s a known risk that comes with the territory, I don’t have a huge problem with this being the off year that they know is coming now and then. It sucks that it has to happen, for sure, but it sucks a lot less than just letting the river kill and damage so much more.

@laureth So, if the farmers know the risk, they just lose out this year, right? The government does not compensate them or give them some sort of federal funds for the bad year?

It is impossible to protect every person from every threat.

@JLeslie – Are you asking “what actually happens” or “what is my opinion”? I don’t have enough data to tell you what actually happens. But in my opinion, the farmers should either (1) save money during good times to cover bad times, and/or (2) buy insurance that covers this kind of thing. That’s what the rest of us do. Is it different from people who live in tornado, hurricane, or earthquake prone areas?

If there’s a dire humanitarian need, absolutely come in with relief. If it’s just that they want the government to insure their crops and pay out when it floods, no – not unless we also get a substantial enough cut of the good years’ profits to cover such a loss. If we share in the risk, we also need to share in the reward.

I might think differently if the danger were not known, or if the damage ends up being Katrina-style catastrophic.

This has me in tears today. I feel so bad for the families that will loose their homes and livelihoods (which could include me if the spillway is not opened…or even if it is, but the levees don’t hold….)

There is no easy answer. I just wish they would announce what they are going to do for sure, the uncertainty is putting everyone on edge.

@laureth I was curious about what actually will happen and your opinion about what should happen. My mom actually called me today saying that she heard the people don’t get compensated. I agree with you, if they know it is part of the deal farming there, then they should kitty profits away for a “rainy day.” but, my mom raised that some of the houses are flooded, so I wondered if the farmers build houses on the property or know better? And some of the other houses, are people who simply live in those areas? I assume they have flood insurance and that FEMA helps in terms of housing. But, again, regarding the crops, I agree with you, one bad year, several good years, that seems to be the deal.

Well, they’re getting prayers…

Another good article with some idea of what goes on. At least in one town, “This intentional flood is more controlled, however, and residents are warned by the corps each year in written letters, reminding them of the possibility of opening the spillway, which is 4,000 feet long and has 125 gate bays.”