DuckSouth.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... cf0ab9dc6b

This is an interesting article on the competing interests bound up in the control of the Mississippi. I didn't realize that some levee commissions have illegally raised the height of their levees - resulting in flooding south of them.

Interesting article................I know Mr Reed of Sny Island and they have been battling that levee for years.........
Its actually a pushed up sand levee that leaks like a sieve and it could be 10 ft higher than the other side and probably fail at the same water surface elevation as the other side..............Not all levees are the same.....especially in the upper Miss.

Some trivia for you..............back in the day, when one of the Flood Control Acts was being set up (I think it was 1928 ) A famous US Senator from Greenwood,MS was negotiating with Arkansas and Louisiana on a potential overflow area/backwater area............he negotiated that the State of Mississippi side of the river will have its levee 1 ft above the Arkansas and Louisiana side.........................now thats some politics right there.

novacaine wrote:Some trivia for you..............back in the day, when one of the Flood Control Acts was being set up (I think it was 1928 ) A famous US Senator from Greenwood,MS was negotiating with Arkansas and Louisiana on a potential overflow area/backwater area............he negotiated that the State of Mississippi side of the river will have its levee 1 ft above the Arkansas and Louisiana side.........................now thats some politics right there.

James K. Vardaman?

Maybe a bit off the topic here, but it deals with the MS River and the Infrastructure sort of.

The whole Public/Private debate continues to rage on, however I heard of an interesting perspective I guess. Want to get some takes on this.

Hypothetical of course.
You own a large club along the river and have a camp house on the bank. Now the main navigation channel is on the other side of the river from your camp house with dikes being on your side and an island just down stream of your place in a big bend in the river. Now when the water is up like it is now, the boats can obviously operate outside the navigation channel. Well what if the boats were cutting the bend and going "behind" the island instead of around it like they have to do during low water. Mind you this is all still within the banks of the river, obviously large tows couldn't operate through the woods. Do you as a landowner have the right to request/demand the boats stop coming through there and go around the island like they have to do in low water, because that is where the navigation channel is maintained, because the waves from the boats are causing additional damage to your camp that is right on the top bank and is now flooded partially and has waves lapping up on it. Can you own that and make the boats go around the island like low water and not come "behind the island" (in this hypothetical situation keep in mind the island is a large island with plenty of room for boats to go on both sides, just depends on water depth to cover the dikes.

What say you guys?

Bill, you know what the deal is with Wilson Point across the river from Mayersville? Took the kids to the river museum in Vicksburg and noticed that entire point was enclosed by the levee system.

JaMak84 wrote:Bill, you know what the deal is with Wilson Point across the river from Mayersville? Took the kids to the river museum in Vicksburg and noticed that entire point was enclosed by the levee system.

To far south for me..........cant help you.

420 racin wrote:Maybe a bit off the topic here, but it deals with the MS River and the Infrastructure sort of.

The whole Public/Private debate continues to rage on, however I heard of an interesting perspective I guess. Want to get some takes on this.

Hypothetical of course.
You own a large club along the river and have a camp house on the bank. Now the main navigation channel is on the other side of the river from your camp house with dikes being on your side and an island just down stream of your place in a big bend in the river. Now when the water is up like it is now, the boats can obviously operate outside the navigation channel. Well what if the boats were cutting the bend and going "behind" the island instead of around it like they have to do during low water. Mind you this is all still within the banks of the river, obviously large tows couldn't operate through the woods. Do you as a landowner have the right to request/demand the boats stop coming through there and go around the island like they have to do in low water, because that is where the navigation channel is maintained, because the waves from the boats are causing additional damage to your camp that is right on the top bank and is now flooded partially and has waves lapping up on it. Can you own that and make the boats go around the island like low water and not come "behind the island" (in this hypothetical situation keep in mind the island is a large island with plenty of room for boats to go on both sides, just depends on water depth to cover the dikes.

What say you guys?

I thought you were allowed to travel anywhere while water was at/up to bank full (per gage data)?
Although you may not have gage data available at your location, you can always interpolate between upstream and downstream gage and get close. What i mean by that is bank full is not necessarily bank full at your particular location.
Ask the river/legal gurus.........I'm sure some of them know the answer.

NyssaAquatica wrote:

novacaine wrote:Some trivia for you..............back in the day, when one of the Flood Control Acts was being set up (I think it was 1928 ) A famous US Senator from Greenwood,MS was negotiating with Arkansas and Louisiana on a potential overflow area/backwater area............he negotiated that the State of Mississippi side of the river will have its levee 1 ft above the Arkansas and Louisiana side.........................now thats some politics right there.

James K. Vardaman?

Whittington.............it may have been for the 1937 Jadwin Plan. It was when they were planning to crank up flood control reservoirs, river cut offs, etc.
From USACE website:
With the Flood Control Act of 1928, the district became involved in a comprehensive flood control program, which eventually included lakes, levees, and other measures. Following the 1927 Flood, it was realized that, while levees were indispensable, to depend on them for flood protection was suicidal. A plan developed by Lt. Gen. Edgar Jadwin called for floodways, spillways, levee improvements, channel stabilization, mapping, and a navigation channel, a system capable of safely passing the worst possible flood in the valley.

Lt. Gen. Edgar Jadwin Jadwin's plan was not written in stone, but allowed modifications to accommodate the developing river over the years. The plan called for at least one floodway in the Vicksburg District, but it was never built. Instead, a cutoff program proved so beneficial that the floodway was dropped, and 14 cutoffs were made, shortening the river by 152 miles. Cutoffs allow the river to pass increased flows more quickly.

While Jadwin's plan ruled out flood control reservoirs on the Mississippi's main stem, he advocated studying them for the tributaries as part of the comprehensive plan for developing all water resources. In 1936, the Yazoo Headwater Project, pushed by Congressman Will M. Whittington of Greenwood, Mississippi, became a reality and resulted in Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid, and Grenada lakes.

Construction was begun on Sardis Lake in 1936 and, in 1940, the project became operational. Sardis Dam is a hydraulic-fill dam, one of the earliest of its kind in the nation. Work was begun on Arkabutla Lake on the Coldwater River immediately after completion of Sardis. The dam was built between 1940 and 1943 to control the runoff from 1,000 square miles of surrounding hill country. Arkabutla was followed by construction of Grenada and Enid dams, but completion of these two structures was delayed by World War II.

420 racin wrote:Maybe a bit off the topic here, but it deals with the MS River and the Infrastructure sort of.

The whole Public/Private debate continues to rage on, however I heard of an interesting perspective I guess. Want to get some takes on this.

Hypothetical of course.
You own a large club along the river and have a camp house on the bank. Now the main navigation channel is on the other side of the river from your camp house with dikes being on your side and an island just down stream of your place in a big bend in the river. Now when the water is up like it is now, the boats can obviously operate outside the navigation channel. Well what if the boats were cutting the bend and going "behind" the island instead of around it like they have to do during low water. Mind you this is all still within the banks of the river, obviously large tows couldn't operate through the woods. Do you as a landowner have the right to request/demand the boats stop coming through there and go around the island like they have to do in low water, because that is where the navigation channel is maintained, because the waves from the boats are causing additional damage to your camp that is right on the top bank and is now flooded partially and has waves lapping up on it. Can you own that and make the boats go around the island like low water and not come "behind the island" (in this hypothetical situation keep in mind the island is a large island with plenty of room for boats to go on both sides, just depends on water depth to cover the dikes.

What say you guys?

My understanding would be if it’s inside the banks you are out of luck.

JaMak84 wrote:Bill, you know what the deal is with Wilson Point across the river from Mayersville? Took the kids to the river museum in Vicksburg and noticed that entire point was enclosed by the levee system.

Not sure exactly where this is, but there’s a sizable old levee over there near Pittman island between the river and the new levee. In 2011 there were pics of that old levee with a giant hole in it.

ETA, I think this is where you’re talking about. On Google Earth you can see the breach location easily. Looks like they’ve fixed it. (32.9336357,-91.1274877)

420 racin wrote:Maybe a bit off the topic here, but it deals with the MS River and the Infrastructure sort of.

The whole Public/Private debate continues to rage on, however I heard of an interesting perspective I guess. Want to get some takes on this.

Hypothetical of course.
You own a large club along the river and have a camp house on the bank. Now the main navigation channel is on the other side of the river from your camp house with dikes being on your side and an island just down stream of your place in a big bend in the river. Now when the water is up like it is now, the boats can obviously operate outside the navigation channel. Well what if the boats were cutting the bend and going "behind" the island instead of around it like they have to do during low water. Mind you this is all still within the banks of the river, obviously large tows couldn't operate through the woods. Do you as a landowner have the right to request/demand the boats stop coming through there and go around the island like they have to do in low water, because that is where the navigation channel is maintained, because the waves from the boats are causing additional damage to your camp that is right on the top bank and is now flooded partially and has waves lapping up on it. Can you own that and make the boats go around the island like low water and not come "behind the island" (in this hypothetical situation keep in mind the island is a large island with plenty of room for boats to go on both sides, just depends on water depth to cover the dikes.

What say you guys?

Shoot, I’ll bite. Sounds like a really freaking stupid place to build a cabin. Shoulda thought about that. Fail to plan, plan to fail.

I have a little (and too much) experience with people that don’t do their homework when buying property, buy a place with easements, poor access, questionable boundaries, then expect all the neighbors to bend over to make things as perfect as the seller made it sound, when the ‘hood’s been good and happy for the last 100 years. Happens a lot when folks buy timber co land, IME. Get that crap worked out to your (not you, specifically) satisfaction before closing. Anything else is just irresponsible and arrogant.

Surprisingly the Washington Post put out a well-documented article. It is getting rare these days. In my position today I get to see the everyday dealings with the upper, middle and lower MS. Novacaine I will hold my thought on the Sny but the science is pretty clear. Also referring to the Mr. Criss’s comments, he must not have studied economics, particularly socioeconomics as the river is a life-line for the US’s central states. Funding has been atrocious in recent years. USACE has had unprecedented budget constraints and has been asked to do more with less. The work force is at lowest level in years but magically Congress believes you should do more with less. Sadly it doesn’t work that way you can’t retain a first class workforce in today’s environment with the mindset that employees will work for the PRIDE of their country (I heard this comment come straight from a US congressman).

stang67 wrote:

JaMak84 wrote:Bill, you know what the deal is with Wilson Point across the river from Mayersville? Took the kids to the river museum in Vicksburg and noticed that entire point was enclosed by the levee system.

Not sure exactly where this is, but there’s a sizable old levee over there near Pittman island between the river and the new levee. In 2011 there were pics of that old levee with a giant hole in it.

ETA, I think this is where you’re talking about. On Google Earth you can see the breach location easily. Looks like they’ve fixed it. (32.9336357,-91.1274877)

That's the area I was talking about. I'm just assuming that at some point in the past there was a weakness detected in the old levee and it was decided to build the new section rather than try to strengthen the existing older levee system. Essentially turning what looks like 10-15K acres of farmland into a giant bowl. Good thing they did, or the breach from the 2011 flood would've been a major disaster.

My understanding would be if it’s inside the banks you are out of luck.[/quote]

I agree, totally, I was kinda shocked when asked who a fellow needs to talk to in order to get the barges from running right there. So another question that can arise from this, you say as long as you are in the banks you are good (to run a boat that is) does that extend to hunters/fishermen, up into the Oxbow's as well? As long as you are inside the old "Banks" of the river, you are good? (for the record I think so) alot of folks get the old banks confused with the old thalwag/channel. What the gentleman was asking is for the tow boats to run in the thalwag of the river and not just anywhere within the banks, which is think is ridiculous.

Novacaine... We have gage data for the whole river, but you say bank full..some would argue and say flood stage. bank full and flood stage are different. The Corp regulates them (permitting side) to the Ordinary High Water mark (OHWM). which is below flood stage.

I just thought it kinda absurd to have such audacity as to request the tow boats on the MS River stop running so close to "Your" bank of the river. Imagine the request if you were to pull up behind that island an throw out some decoys.

Is there a difference is barge traffic and hunters/fishermen using the water? IF so what is the difference?