In addition an argument against the management of Mississippi that floods have gotten worse was proved false as records at the time were inaccurate. It was also suggested that some levee’s breaking may have saved towns further upstream. Furthermore the jobs created by the construction of levees, flood walls and wing dykes and other management techniques have boosted the economy. There was also extremely hazardous antecendent conditions that could not be predicted, there was 200% more rain than usual for the particular time of year and people were unprepared in the west were flooding is uncommon, this could not be accounted for when managing the floods for the Mississippi. Although the management had questionable consequences and effectiveness the people of America would not have supported doing nothing to prevent flooding and there would have been a mass uproar.
On the other hand, wing dykes in particular that were used had questionable efficiency. Although the method naturally eroded the bed to create a deeper channel, an excess deposition occurs near the bank. Whether the hydraulic radius is increased or not is questionable compared to the costly development of such a technique.
Levees built across the Mississippi could simply not hold the large volume of water back, when the levees broke a great surge of water flooded nearby areas creating hazardous conditions and damaging houses. If there were no levees there would be in fact a slow seepage of water that would be more manageable and less likely to cause flooding due to the lack of energy. A strong argument against the management of the Mississippi has been its large cost. Although it has created jobs the large cost incurred is indisputable. $180 million is spent every year to try and keep the river under control, in the 1993 flood the damage was $10.5 billion. Whether the cost of the management is worth the protection is questionable as such techniques failed to protect houses, businesses and crops in 1993.
Unlike soft engineering hard engineering is less environmentally friendly, wildlife’s can be potentially destroyed and the construction of large structures can be damaging. Afforestation and the creation washes help build habitats and are considered to be more ‘natural’ methods of river management. The dynamics of the Mississippi have also been upset by using hard engineering. By shortening it, it has been made steeper so it erodes and deposits downstream. Speed has increased and delta loses 35 square miles of swamp each year which has not only threatened the wildlife but also local jobs.
In my opinion the flood management schemes are costly but essential. But for the management techniques used a lot more damage would have been created. It must been seen that the Mississippi needs to be controlled as there would be huge public opposition to simply “doing nothing”. Finally the management employed was only designed to protect the local areas of a certain river discharge; they were not designed to prevent flooding of such magnitude in 1993 and therefore were not at fault for the damage generated.
