Cairo vs. Farmland

Great Debates
1

You’ve probably heard about the flooding on the lower Mississippi and the Ohio.

You may have heard about the fact that the Ohio is at record levels in Illinois, just before it joins the Mississippi, surpassing the previous record set in 1937.

You might have heard that the Army Corps of Engineers decided to blow up the Birds Point levee Monday night, operating the New Madrid Floodway and flooding 130,000 acres of Missouri farmland, in order to take pressure off of levees further up river, including those protecting Cairo, Ill.

What you might not have heard is how controversial that decision was.

Court battles between Missouri and Illinois ended with a ruling that the Corps of Engineers had final authority to operate the floodway. Missouri farmers, and indeed lots of other folks in both states have suggested that saving the by-most-measures fading town of Cairo came at too-high a cost, “ruining” expanses of farmland. Cairoites and their allies rally around the mayor’s mantra, “Lives over land.”

A few facts about the farmland:
[ul]
[li]As I said, it’s 130,000 acres.[/li][li]I’ve read there are about 100 families living on the land, so figure between 300-400 people.[/li][li]The floodway was authorized in 1928 following a flood in 1927. It had only been operated once before, in 1937.[/li][/ul]
A few more about Cairo.
[ul]
[li]Cairo is at the southernmost tip of Illinois, at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi. It is entirely surrounded by levees and has a giant (no longer functioning) gate that closes off the main road into and out of the city to protect from floods.[/li][li]It had about 3,000 people in 2009, a drop of 17.5% since 2000.[/li][li]The estimated median income in 2009 was $21,369 (it was $21,607 in 2000).[/li][li]The estimated median home value in 2009 was $29,260 (it was $25,900 in 2000).[/li][li]It has a 14.2% unemployment rate. 67.3% of residents ages 25 and up have a high school diploma or better, while 7.2% have at least a bachelors degree.[/li][li]A third of the population lives below the poverty line, including nearly half of those 18 or younger.[/li][li]Although Cairo’s been around since the mid-1800s, most of its housing stock is from after 1940. There are several historic buildings (both residential and commercial) including several Victorian and Reconstruction mansions, a large Customs House (1872) and Queen Anne style public library.[/li][/ul]

And a few more general points
[ul]
[li]The Ohio River at Cairo crested at 61.72 feet, more than two feet higher than the 1937 record. There is no gauge on the Mississippi at Cairo, but Thebes (the nearest gauge upriver) crested at 45.52 – slightly higher than the Great Flood of 1993.[/li][li]The floodway took pressure off the rest of the river system, not only Cairo. Of course, most of the rest of the river system that was under pressure was more farmland.[/li][li]Before the floodway was operated, Cairo was not only concerned with water overtopping the floodwalls, but also sand boils and sinkholes. During a tour by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin and Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, an Army Sergeant who was photographing the tour was walking along the street when it collapsed underneath him and he fell in (he was uninjured).[/li][/ul]

So, lives over land? Or let the levees fail where they may?

2

People who have farms on floodplains have to suck it up. The fact that levees have artificially protected them for a period is not a reason to prolong that unsustainable state at the public’s expense. Quite the opposite: they ought to be thankful for whatever time they have been protected (via the donatives of their fellow citizens) from the ravages of nature, and either alter their farming practices to cope with the natural environment in which they farm, or move elsewhere.

People who live on the Nile have developed farming practices that cope with flooding every year for thousands of years; indeed the deposits of silt (IOW newly fertile soil) the floods bring is the wellspring of Egyptian civilisation. Asking to be protected from deposits of silt and then buying fertiliser to make your land able to grow more crops is about as unsustainable and deranged as it is possible to get.

Rivers create floodplains. If you choose to farm here, that’s your lot. Asking your fellow citizens to protect you from the natural forces of the place you choose to farm is, at core, agrarian socialism.

3

Well, it would at least spare future generations the silly pronunciation issue. :slight_smile:

Maybe I’m a little biased because I’m interested in the steamboat era that was Cairo’s hey-day, but letting the town and the history that is tied up in it be destroyed just to prevent some farmland from being temporarily taken out of service seems like burning the the furniture to me-- trading an irreplaceable asset for a one that will recover. Especially since this only seems to happen every, what, 70+ years?

Plus it’s not as if the farms along the Mississippi are exactly having high times either. Back in the 1937 flood, 5000 Missourians were displaced (to save 13,000 Cairoers). It seems to me that the farms are the real dying community, since they’ve lost 94% of their population to Cairo losing a mere 77%. Sure, farming is less labor-intensive that it was in the 30’s, and getting flooded probably didn’t help, but how many people are going to be left a few decades down the road the next time opening the levees becomes necessary?

I also frankly think Cairo’s efforts to reinvent itself as a tourist stop along the River Road are a lot more likely to turn things around in the area than the farms are. Look at Hannibal, another once-bustling river city that faded with the riverboats, but which has reinvented itself as a bustling little tourist town. Sure Cairo doesn’t have Mark Twain, but I drove the whole river about 10 years ago and, yeah, the town is boarded up but it has some very charming architecture and is in a very interesting location with some great history. It has potential.

Of course if we’re making plans decades to centuries down the line, the New Madrid fault might render this discussion moot!

4

[quote=“Garfield226, post:1, topic:580665”]

A few facts about the farmland:
[li]As I said, it’s 130,000 acres.[/li][li]I’ve read there are about 100 families living on the land, so figure between 300-400 people.[/li][/quote]

My local news last night said 200 farmers displaced.

The Feds also reassured everyone concerned that crop insurance will apply. Granted, that would only help farmers who have already planted, but for those that have they will be getting some assistance.

About Cairo…

[quote]
[li]It had about 3,000 people in 2009, a drop of 17.5% since 2000.[/li][/quote]

So… Cairo is about 10 times the people that will be displaced by blowing the levee. This would seem to favor the decision that was made, as society does tend to favor people over other things in these matters.

[quote]

[li]The estimated median income in 2009 was $21,369 (it was $21,607 in 2000).[/li][li]The estimated median home value in 2009 was $29,260 (it was $25,900 in 2000).[/li][li]It has a 14.2% unemployment rate. 67.3% of residents ages 25 and up have a high school diploma or better, while 7.2% have at least a bachelors degree.[/li][li]A third of the population lives below the poverty line, including nearly half of those 18 or younger.[/li][/quote]

What relevance to the decision at hand do these statistics have? Why do you report median income, education, and poverty rates for Cairo and not for the farmers? Are you implying that the people of Cairo are too poor/uneducated to be worth saving?

The flooded farmland will not be ruined for eternity, or even for a particularly long time. Some marginal farms might go under (sorry) but those would likely have failed in a short time any way.

Destruction of building by flooding is… destruction. Expensive to replace, very hard for people to start over. The more people you have the more likely someone is going to be hurt or killed in a flood, so choosing to protect the more densely populated areas over the less so is logical.

I’m just glad I don’t have to make such decisions.

5

The MO farms are not in a floodplain. They are in a floodway. That is, an area designated by the Corps as being the place they *will *send excess water whenever necessary. In other words, the pre-designated place whose interests come last.

And now folks who moved there & bought there & improved there are upset that the other side of their low-cost land bargain is coming due. And we taxpayers will pick up the tab for the flood insurance they didn’t have, and extending their crop insurance to cover unplanted crops and …

130,000 acres sounds like a lot. It’s the equivalent of a square area 14 miles on a side. In the grand scheme of all the land abutting the Ohio, Missouri, & Missisippi rivers, it’s a drop in the bucket.

The US as a whole might be better off if Cairo IL was obliterated and its residents scattered to other locations where there are jobs & a functioning society for them to participate in. But that doesn’t alter the fact that the Corps’ plans for nearly a century have said to those MO-side farmers: We will flood you if necessary to save other areas. So plan accordingly. And now the farmers are acting real surprised that the Corps meant what it’s been saying all these years.

6

One of the great things about the Nile (before it was dammed up) was its predictability. The Egyptians knew when it was going to flood and for the most part they knew how much water to expect. Contrast the Nile with the Tigress and Euphrates River, both of which flooded unpredictably and was a source of consternation to those living near it due to loss of life and property. The Mississippi River is not as predictable as the Nile. Furthermore, modern farming requires all sorts of equipment and infrastructure that can be destroyed by a flood. Tractors, pipes, combines, and other machinery do not typically stand up well to being underwater. I’m not going to argue that the levee shouldn’t have been blown up because I don’t know enough to come to a decision. However, it’s not all that fair to compare the Nile to the Mississippi in this case.

Odesio

7

I think the point is that their current standard of living is relevant to determining how their standard of living might change if they were uprooted and forced to move.

8

I’m not implying anything, myself. For one thing, the data is simple to track down for the city and not so much for the farmers. I’d welcome seeing it if you have any idea where to look.

For another, one of the arguments I’ve heard frequently is indeed that the people of Cairo are too poor and uneducated to be worth saving. “The farmland is more productive than the city,” for one, and “You could probably buy out every house in Cairo for what that farmland is worth,” and “How many buildings are even IN Cairo?”

And then of course, there’s Missouri House Speaker Steve Tilley’s answer to the “Should Cairo or farmland be flooded?” question: “Cairo. Trust me, Cairo. Have you ever been to Cairo? Then you know what I mean.” (which he later apologized for).

For what it’s worth, I have been to Cairo (a few times), and I don’t know what he means. (or it’s possible I know what he means but I think it’s pretty disgusting)

9

Speaking as someone in a economically depressed area I’d be willing to relocate IF I knew that I could get a decent job elsewhere. If Cairo’s population is dropping over time that would indicate that is already happening, but that also means those left are those least able to start over elsewhere. If many of those left in poverty are elderly or children under 18 they’re kind of stuck, aren’t they? (Well, when the kids turn 18 they could go elsewhere, and that often happens in small towns, but the elderly are probably staying put).

If someone wants to set up a trust fund to relocate the downtrodden of Cairo elsewhere and truly help them improve their situation elsewhere I’m all for it, but all too often it seems people are more in favor of simply destroying a community they perceive as failing and just magically expecting the poor folk to either disappear or become someone else’s problem.

As LSLGuy points out, we aren’t really talking about huge swathes of farmland. Also, it’s been known for decades that farmland rests in a floodway. I keep hearing statistics these days about how small farmers need to take non-farm jobs, sometimes two of them, to keep the farms going so I’m not so sure those farmers are any better off financially than the citizens of Cairo.

Obviously, public officials in Illinois will argue for saving Cairo, and public officials in Missouri will argue for saving farmland. Big surprise there.

But it’s not just Cairo vs. farmland. One of the arguments for blowing the levee was that it wouldn’t protect just Cairo but take pressure off levees up and down the waterway and help prevent flooding in other towns as well. As of this morning I heard a report that the Ohio has dropped a foot and half since blowing up the levee, when it was expected to keep rising at this point if that hadn’t been down. Metropolis, IL had four blocks of town underwater (which is significant for a small town) but apparently the water stopped rising there as soon as the levee was blown.

So… now the argument isn’t just Cairo vs. farmland but Cairo plus others vs farmland. How freakin’ much is that particular patch of farmland worth? If you’d consider relocating the town of Cairo would you consider relocating the farmers? It would probably be cheaper in total (individual properties would be worth more, but there would be fewer people involved) and you could just leave that patch of dirt to flood EVERY year and keep the pressure down on the whole river/levee system.

10

News flash

11

fun facts to know and tell: The locals pronounce it KAY-ro.

12

How was it that a town at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers never grew into a major city? :confused:

13

Important to know if you’re reading Huckleberry Finn out loud. (At first Jim and Huck are planning to float downstream to Cairo, then go up the Ohio to free territory; but they float right past Cairo in the night.)

14

I know SE Missouri, and I know Cairo. I’ve been following this pretty closely since I used to live in Paducah, KY – just upstream on the Ohio River.

You can pretty much argue the point either way, but on balance I go with the Corps. That area HAS been a designated flood relief area since 1927, and anyone who built there since them was just gambling that the Mississippi and Ohio rivers would never get high enough that it would be needed. Anyone who lives along any river knows that’s a fool’s bet.

In the short-term at least, it’s working. Water levels on the Ohio have dropped as far east as Paducah, and Cairo has a little breathing room.

Couple of reasons. The town got as large as 15,000 during the 1920s, but it’s a relatively small area and, as you might imagine, it’s prone to flooding. It’s a great location for bridges, but the railroad wouldn’t put a railyard there (because it was small and prone to flooding). It got a bad reputation as a criminal hideout, full of bars, dives and gambling. Then in the 1960s, there was rioting, which pretty much sealed its fate.

15

Exactly right.

Imagine someone had college paid for by the military during a time of peace and when they finished was upset that there was actually a war that they had to serve in. It’s like that.

16

Speaking as a farmer myself…I have to say I think the Corps made the right decision. The greatest good for the greatest number and all that. In the first place, the farmers did know (or should have known) they were operating in an established floodway and prepared for the eventuality of getting inundated. Secondly, the land will recover pretty quickly. The farmers can - and should - be compensated for a year or two of crop losses, and for whatever mitigation measures are required; re-leveling of fields, repair of drainage structures, erosion control etc.

More problematic is the issue of damage to the agricultural infrastructure…homes, wells, outbuildings, loss of livestock, etc. Again, there probably should be some kind of emergency funding put in place to compensate for these losses. If people have built wisely (not guaranteed) the damage should not be overly difficult or expensive to mitigate.
SS

17

Even though the Corps made the right decision it still would have been better to let Cairo float away.

As one who has been there, it really would’ve been the humane thing to do. What a hell hole.

18

Put another way: How come St. Louis – at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, and otherwise very similarly situated in the American Midwest – grew into a major city and Cairo didn’t?

I’m thinking in 19th-Century terms here, of course. Don’t suppose river traffic makes much difference, nowadays, as to which cities thrive and which don’t.

19

The railroads made a huge difference for St. Louis. When riverboat traffic died out St. Louis had railroads. Cairo didn’t.

20

Speaking as a non-farmer, the corp made the wrong decision. They should have updated their plans lng ago, of course. First, Cairo is no longer economically important. It’s a marginal area, which can be destroyed with less economic damage. Loss minimization is hardly cruelty or judgementalism. In fact, when the plan was developed, it worked under the same principle of loss minimization.

Second, the damage to the land may be much more problematic than many here appear to think. It’s going to alter the soil for years, and not in a good way. In fact, what farms exist now may simply cease to be entirely, not because they were marginal, but because farming is very competitive, and the cost to reengineer things too high.

Cairo was never very important, precisely because it wasn’t a big jumping-off point. Yes, it’s at a nice confluence. But consider that most important river towns got that way because either they were important for distribution or they were a transfer point. Cairo wasn’t, because it’s mostly useful to people wanting to move from the Ohio towards the Missouri (and upper Mississipi). By the time that was a factor, Railroads were already spreading and eclipsed riverboats for the passenger business.

More than you might think. The old river industries are still powerful, just a lot smaller in proportion to others.