This is being presented as a ‘land vs lives’ decision. There are several things wrong with this argument...but I’ll concentrate on one:
They have already evacuated 280 people from the Missouri side...and are asking another 600 to leave.
Cairo has a population of 2,800....it looks like at least 280 people in Missouri will lose their homes (perhaps 880, but I’m not sure).
So its not ‘land vs lives’. Its ‘these people are greater in number, so you draw the short straw today’.
This type of logic can take a long trip down a slippery slope....and frankly it is frightening.
Also, the article is not very clear; but I think it states the Cairo wall is 64 ft, while the river is expected to crest at 61. It should be tall enough....but apparently they are not confident it will actually hold. Whose fault is that?
I remember in 1993, there was alot of debate over whether or not the levee system caused more damage than it prevented, because those not protected by it were subjected to higher flood waters (caused by constraint between levees). I am a strong proponent of levees, and don’t agree with this line of thinking....but are there actually people at the COE who are making the case that levees actually CAUSE problems? This case seems to indicate that.
If the COE is going to start bean counting and playing favorites, I think they should look at productivity. How much federal income tax was derived from the Missouri side, vs Cairo...who wants to bet Cairo’s is a negative number. Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep the fields and destroy
Alas, I hope those barges loaded with explosives don’t simultaneously blow the Missouri levee, and send a wave which destrpys the Cairo side.
>>>>So its not ‘land vs lives’. Its ‘these people are greater in number, so you draw the short straw today’.
Coming soon to a Dr’s office near you if 0bama-care isn’t killed and defunded: Sorry sir... but we can either treat you, or 3 others with the same money spent, so go plan your funeral.