Missouri River Flood 2011

Far and Wide: The Omaha-Council Bluffs Levees and the Flood of 2011

In 2011, an ocean of water poured down the Missouri River from the Dakotas and Montana.  The deluge represented the largest flood to strike the Missouri Valley since 1952.  At the peak of that earlier flood on April 18, 1952, the Missouri hurled 396,000 cubic feet per second past Omaha-Council Bluffs.  From Sioux City to the mouth of the Kaw River at Kansas City, the swollen river stretched from valley wall to valley wall – completely inundating the bottomlands.  A yellow, inland sea sank farmsteads, cropland, and rural roadways.  Because suburban housing developments and industrial parks did not yet exist in the river’s floodplain, high water devastated mostly agricultural land. Consequently, farmers bore the brunt of the financial losses associated with that flood.  Damage estimates ran as high as $179 million dollars (or $1.48 billion when adjusted for inflation). Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Wetlands, Farmers, and Missouri River Floods

European-American agricultural settlement had a noticeable effect on the Missouri’s hydraulic regime.  During the steamboat era, roustabouts felled the valley’s forests to provide fuel for the hundreds of steamers that worked the river.  The loss of lowland timber caused the Missouri to rise higher, faster, and more frequently than it had in the years before the advent of steamboat traffic on the river.

Valley farmers also contributed to deforestation.  They knocked down the Missouri’s wooded fringes to acquire timber for log cabins, fence posts, roofing shingles, crude furniture, containers, and tool handles.  Settlers burned kindling in cooking and heating fires.  Not coincidentally, the most voluminous Missouri River floods in the nineteenth century occurred during the busiest years of the steamboat era.  Floods passed down the valley in 1844, 1857, 1858, 1862, 1867, 1872, 1874, 1875, 1878, and 1881.  Unknown to valley residents, or at least not acknowledged by them, they had to large extent brought down the floodwaters upon themselves. Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Woodcutters and Floods: Steamboats, Deforestation, and the Missouri River

In 1819, the U.S. Army’s Western Engineer became the first steamboat to navigate the shallow, shifting Missouri.  On its voyage, the vessel encountered a number of problems that delayed its upstream passage, including sunken trees, sandbars, and mud (which found its way into the boiler).  Although, steamboat navigation did not have an auspicious beginning on the Mighty Mo, regular steamer traffic emerged along the Lower Missouri between St. Louis and Kansas City in the 1820s.

In 1831, the first steamboat traveled to the Upper Missouri (the river reach north and west of the Platte River confluence).  In the 1840s, steamboats replaced the slower, more cumbersome, keelboats along the entire length of the river.  By the 1850s, dozens of boats worked the Missouri between St. Louis and the head of navigation at Fort Benton, Montana Territory.  The 1850s witnessed the peak of Missouri river steamboat traffic. Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Army Throws The Public A Bone: But Will It Be Enough?

In late July 2011, Brigadier General John McMahon, (who oversees the entire Missouri River) decided not to lower the Missouri River reservoirs below the traditional base level of 56.8 million acre feet (MAF) at the start of next year’s runoff season.  That base level only frees up 22% of the reservoir system’s storage capacity.  In 2011, the Army began the runoff season at that level.  We now know that level did not provide enough storage space to capture this year’s flood.

For months, McMahon insisted on maintaining the status quo in the operation of the reservoirs.  He likely held firm to this position because he had the backing of the majority of the basin’s senators and other government representatives.  Those officials almost certainly recognized that a lower reservoir system base level threatened the monetary benefits of the Army’s hydraulic system.  Less water behind the big dams in 2012 would mean fewer financial benefits derived from hydropower generation, Missouri and Mississippi River navigation, reservoir recreation, and the apportionment of water to downstream municipalities and power plants. Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , ,

It’s A Tabletop: The Missouri Valley Spreads the Floodwaters

During the construction of the Missouri River navigation channel, the Army erected thousands of pile dikes and revetments to narrow, deepen, and straighten the wide, shallow, meandering stream.  Once the engineering works went into the river, the Missouri deposited its heavy silt-load on the downstream side of the structures.  Overtime, new, elevated lands appeared in the river’s floodplain.  Side channels, marshlands, and scour holes – everything that constituted the floodplain – filled with alluvium.  Accumulated sediments sharply reduced the floodplain’s ability to store floodwater.  Valley farmers benefitted from the newly accreted land.  They expanded their operations into the floodplain, planting row crops where native vegetation once grew.  The floodplain’s loss meant the farmer’s monetary gain.http://ecointheknow.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Corps’ Intransigence and the Reasons for It

On Thursday, November 3, 2011, members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers met with the public in Sioux City, Iowa, to discuss the flood of 2011 and the management of the Missouri River in the months ahead.  The public finally had a chance to vent its anger at the object of its long-held scorn – and vent it did.  When the clean-cut, straight-laced Brigadier General John McMahon took the podium and told the surly crowd that he continued to have full confidence in the skills and abilities of his Missouri River reservoir operations staff – the same staff that determined the reservoir release schedule this past spring with such disastrous results – the audience erupted in a cacophony of catcalls and boos.  But the general, who appeared in front of the throngs in his battle dress uniform, stared back at the seething mass of humanity and repeated the statement a second time – to more boos and sighs. Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Questions for the Corps: Halting a Deluge in 2012

This fall, the Corps of Engineers is holding a series of meetings along the Missouri Valley to promote its interpretation of the flood of 2011 and to take questions from the public regarding the Army’s management of its Missouri River hydraulic system.

Since late May, Brigadier General John McMahon, Colonel Robert Ruch, and Jody Farhat have advanced a very specific interpretation of the flood, which contends: the flood was too voluminous to contain; the huge discharges from Gavin’s Point Dam resulted from freak rain events in Montana in May; the Army made no mistakes in its management of the Missouri River hydraulic system in the months preceding the deluge; and since 2010, the operation of the reservoirs for flood control trumped the seven other authorized purposes of the hydraulic system (including the storage of water for the navigation channel and hydroelectric generation).  McMahon, Ruch, and Farhat have not strayed from the above storyline.  Nor have any of them admitted that the Army holds any responsibility at all for the flood. Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Reservoir Operations and the Army’s Legal Fears

In the last week of May 2011, the Army informed residents of the Missouri Valley that it planned on releasing an “unprecedented” quantity of floodwater from its Missouri River main-stem dams. Officials told a stunned public that high flows would emanate from the big dams within just days and would inundate vast portions of the valley from Montana through the state of Missouri. People wondered then, and still wonder now, how a flood of such size and duration could occur with the presence of six of the world’s largest storage reservoirs situated along the Missouri.

Since May, Brigadier General John McMahon (the overall commander for the Missouri River) Colonel Robert Ruch (the head of the Omaha District, which is charged with determining the reservoir release schedule for each of the upstream dams) and Jody Farhat (the reservoir operations manager in Omaha) have promoted a very specific interpretation of the flood of 2011. Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Missouri Basin Governors – Still Keeping Secrets

On Monday, October 17, 2011, Missouri basin governors or their representatives will meet for the second time this year with Army officials in Omaha, Nebraska, to discuss the future management of the Missouri River.  The governors and Army officials held their first meeting back in mid-August.  We never learned what the governors and the Army discussed or decided during that earlier meeting because the six GOP governors and one Democrat (Jay Nixon, D-MO) barred the public and the press from the proceedings. Governor Schwietzer (D-MT) did not attend the first meeting because he believed the gathering should be open to the public.  He wanted transparency and a democratic process to prevail.  He failed to achieve both objectives. Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , ,

The Decatur Dryland Bridge and the “Impetuous” Missouri

In 1946, the Burt County (Nebraska) Bridge Commission sought the approval of the federal government (which has authority over the Missouri River) to build a bridge over the river linking Decatur, Nebraska, with Onawa, Iowa.  Government officials approved the request with one stipulation.  The new bridge had to be built over the planned course of the yet-to-be-constructed navigation channel, rather than over the existing course of the river, which flowed 500 feet to the east. Continue Reading »

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Footer Divider

Twitter

  • Twitter Updates

    • "Dakota Country" will publish one of my articles in an upcoming issue. It examines the Army's past efforts at widening the Lower Missouri. 3 months ago

Follow Us

Join Mailing List

Contact Us

If you wish to contact Eco InTheKnow, please email us or contact us on the number below.

1303 596 1854