Cairo vs. Farmland

[Garfield226]

@BrainGlutton

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.

I think one big reason is the natural flooding that occurred relatively frequently before the levees were put in place. The water wasn’t “fully” controlled until the 1937 flood, which I think caused minimal damage in Cairo but devastation along the rest of the Ohio. It wasn’t a picnic even in 1927 (and by then St. Louis was thriving).

Another, based on speculation and the way St. Louis has hit a wall with its artificially created boundaries on three sides, is the room for expansion. Cairo, still today, pretty well fills up its peninsula. It’s sort of rotting from the inside out – buildings going vacant and falling down and such – but they’re built right up to the floodwall on the Ohio side and pretty close to the Mississippi River levee on the west. Also north to the levee and the gate I mentioned in the OP and south to the levee on that end (there’s more land south of the levee, but it’s low-lying – it’s a former state park, Fort Defiance. It peaked around 15 thousand, IIRC, but really, the city itself couldn’t grow much spatially and it’s only about 7 square miles.

And of course the railroads.

[Garfield226]

@smiling_bandit

It’s a marginal area, which can be destroyed with less economic damage. Loss minimization is hardly cruelty or judgementalism.

I don’t suppose you have a cite for that?

[smiling_bandit]

@Garfield226

I don’t suppose you have a cite for that?

For the value of Cairo? Previous posters have already noted that Cairo’s economic output is probably less than the farmland. Aside from which, they can move elsewhere more easily and with less cost to the country.

It is painful; to shove people out of their homes, but it’s the correct decision for the country. I don’t claim it’s a kind decision, but there are no kind decisions here. But I know which one I would rather make, and which one I would be haunted by., I would rather make the decision which, though it had more pain on the surface, caused less damage on the whole.

Not to be unclear about it, either, but Cairo’s supposed status as blighted isn’t relevant. If it were a thriving small town, I would argue the same. I haven’t been there, and in general I often have doubts that observers know what they’re talking about.

[Garfield226]

@smiling_bandit

For the value of Cairo? Previous posters have already noted that Cairo’s economic output is probably less than the farmland. Aside from which, they can move elsewhere more easily and with less cost to the country.

This is not a cite.

You said “[Cairo] can be destroyed with less economic damage.” Posters guessing that the economic output (which isn’t the only value there, of course) might be less than that of the farmland (always? only on good years for farming?) hardly settles the matter.

It seems just as flippant to say something like this – especially when you have no idea of what else is in the town – as it would be to say “flooding is good for farmland, why are the farmers so whiney?”

[Kent_Clark]

@BrainGlutton

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.

Cairo wasn’t founded until 1837 and the town wasn’t incorporated for another 20 years. St. Louis was founded in 1764 and Memphis in 1819, so they had a head start.

The largest city in the area is Cape Girardeau, and it was the biggest port on the Mississippi between St. Louis and Memphis. It was founded in 1793. Cairo was too little and too late.

[Broomstick]

@smiling_bandit

For the value of Cairo? Previous posters have already noted that Cairo’s economic output is probably less than the farmland. Aside from which, they can move elsewhere more easily and with less cost to the country.

Please provide numbers showing economic output, please. I do not find guessing acceptable in such assessments.

And, of course if you simply destroy the town and shove people out into the world homeless it doesn’t cost the country anything - it’s relocating them that costs the money. That’s the only humane way to do it, in which case you’re talking about moving 3,000 townfolk as opposed to 200 farmers. Sheer numbers alone, it’s going to cost more to move the town than to simply buy out the farms.

It’s not like the US has some shortage of viable farmland.

Not to be unclear about it, either, but Cairo’s supposed status as blighted isn’t relevant. If it were a thriving small town, I would argue the same. I haven’t been there, and in general I often have doubts that observers know what they’re talking about.

There have actually been instances where entire small towns in flood zones HAVE been bought out - either moved to another location, or the occupants provided with assistance to move elsewhere. That’s not an unthinkable decision, but that does take time and there was a flood RIGHT NOW. Going forward, discussing whether to save Cairo next time or relocate those people is worthwhile, but the decision here had to be made quickly.

[Skammer]

Aren’t floodplains fertile because they periodically flood? I’ve heard (in this thread and on NPR) that the flooding will hurt the soil, but I always thought the opposite. Can someone edumacate me?

[Lightray]

@BrainGlutton

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?

In addition to other reasons mentioned (railways, earlier founding), St. Louis is built on top of limestone bluffs. Cairo is built on the floodplain. When the rivers are in flood, the riverfront of St. Louis is under threat if the levees don’t hold, but the heart of the city is not. All of Cairo was threatened if the levees did not hold.

(Nowadays, of course, development in the city extends further up- and down-stream from the bluffs. In the 1993 flood I worked at a chemical plant with the levee as one of its borders – it would have been flooded if the levees failed. But the Arch and heart of downtown, not.)

[Garfield226]

@Skammer

Aren’t floodplains fertile because they periodically flood? I’ve heard (in this thread and on NPR) that the flooding will hurt the soil, but I always thought the opposite. Can someone edumacate me?

As I understand it, the difference is that in a typical flood, the water slowly rises to cover the land. Here, a hole was intentionally blown in the levee, allowing some amount of water already built up behind it to rush over the fields.

Farmers seem to be concerned about that speed, “scouring” is a term I’ve heard. Additionally I’ve heard that they are worried about there being a lot of sand brought into the fields (perhaps again because of the speed of the water).

[Ludovic]

Crop yields have hugely improved over the past 100 years, partly due to modern fertilizers*. It may be the case that flood soil is both more fertile than the soil it replaced in antiquity and up until the 20th century, and yet less fertile than the modern soil.

*sustainability of this practise notwithstanding.

[hermann]

@BrainGlutton

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.)

Wouldn’t it have been a lot easier…and made more sense…to just cross over to Illinois?

[An_Arky]

@Lightray

In addition to other reasons mentioned (railways, earlier founding), St. Louis is built on top of limestone bluffs. Cairo is built on the floodplain. When the rivers are in flood, the riverfront of St. Louis is under threat if the levees don’t hold, but the heart of the city is not. All of Cairo was threatened if the levees did not hold.

(Nowadays, of course, development in the city extends further up- and down-stream from the bluffs. In the 1993 flood I worked at a chemical plant with the levee as one of its borders – it would have been flooded if the levees failed. But the Arch and heart of downtown, not.)

This. Plus, the confluence is actually a few miles north of St. Louis, and that area is very flood prone.

[smiling_bandit]

@Broomstick

Please provide numbers showing economic output, please. I do not find guessing acceptable in such assessments.

I would, but it’s rather hard to find exact numbers for such a small town. I can make a reasonable estimate based on the household income. However, that’s not actually an important measure to me in this case.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Cairo-Illinois.html

And, of course if you simply destroy the town and shove people out into the world homeless it doesn’t cost the country anything - it’s relocating them that costs the money. That’s the only humane way to do it, in which case you’re talking about moving 3,000 townfolk as opposed to 200 farmers. Sheer numbers alone, it’s going to cost more to move the town than to simply buy out the farms.

It’s not like the US has some shortage of viable farmland.

yes and no. I fully understand what you’re saying. What I am saying is that while the nominal gdp of Cairo might be more than the farmland, it’s going to be much more practical to relocate the town. They have skills which can be transferred elsewhere; farmland will be out of use for some time. I recognize it will cost more up front.

There have actually been instances where entire small towns in flood zones HAVE been bought out - either moved to another location, or the occupants provided with assistance to move elsewhere. That’s not an unthinkable decision, but that does take time and there was a flood RIGHT NOW. Going forward, discussing whether to save Cairo next time or relocate those people is worthwhile, but the decision here had to be made quickly.

I recognize that. I don’t blame the Corp for doing what it did. I do blame the ridiculously static nature of the Corp. TO be fair, that’s not entirely it’s fault. Congress has tended to promote its stagnation with poorly-though out projects. (God, what I could say about it’s attempts to control the Mississippi).

What I am saying is that the Corp’s rules on this should have been reviewed ad changed a long time ago.

[FarmerChuck]

Well, heres my side… from a farmer… from NY not in the area

first off yea its 3000 people v.s 200 farmers but lets look into some stuff

first we have a median value of $29,260 for the houses in cairo now lets do some math

$29,260 x 3000 = 87,780,000 lets had another 13 million in for the businesss, which is a bit high i bet thats 100,780,000 in total loss right ok? maybe…

now lets go with the farm land, ok so the mid west is the reason america is able to feed the world so lets do some crop math

130000/3 = 43333 ok so lets say its divided up equally with corn, wheat, and soy. Well any winter wheat has been destroyed so we will do that first
43333x 75 bu/per acres is 3,249,999 x 7.22 per bushel = 23,464,999
Soy 43333 x 60 bu/ac x 13.22 = 464,705,865
Corn 43333x 180 bu/ac x 7.13= 55,613,527
added up 543,784,391 total in crop loss.
Now can be insured yes, but not all of it. now we have the grain bins, the barns, and the farmers houses we will had another 10 million… thats probably really low… now the equipment… the avg price of a new comebine with both headers is about 250-300 thousand…and older ones… around 50000… so ur talin an avg of 150000… thats more then these peoples avg house… then u have tractors, planters, tillage etc …
In the end the 200 farmers will loose more then the people living in cairo unless you include the
“i lost all my pictures” and such or death also some of those farmers are dairy or beef cattle men… so now u have the loss of alll the cattle, horses, pigs, chickens… not to mention all the manure/fuel/fertlizer that will be washed down stream
Now we have the other issue… Both the towns and the farms are built in areas that flood. i mean… when you have a city that is surronded by leveies and had a flood gate on main street, common sense would dictate that well your taking a risk. its kinda like new orleans… honestly the best thing that could of happend is people got out, and the city was completly destroyed no one should be living in lierarally a hole next to a major ocean. its stupid and poor civil enginerring to allow a city to be there. no one should be allowed to rebuild the homes there. Farmland however is much better it can be easily reclamed and worked grain bins and barns can be put up and taken down tractors and such can be moved in and out
Bottom line is neither party has the right to bitch, but we would all be better off is cairo was destroyed and the farmers are saved both econmoically and for the next time the river floods, b/c it will agian

[Broomstick]

No, best for the rest of us is to get rid of both Cairo and the floodway farms. Let it all revert back to natural floodplain. Then we’ll never have to bail out, rescue, restore, or insure anything or anyone there again.

Of course, there’s nowhere completely safe from natural disasters, but some spots just don’t make sense to use. New Orleans has the marginal justification that some sort of port makes a lot of sense at the mouth of the Mississippi where it meets the Gulf although building below sea level there is, yes, stupid (to be fair - some of that land was above sea level and sank, but in that case, maybe people should move BEFORE the flood). Nothing requires either a town or a farm at that particular spot on those rivers.

[BrainGlutton]

I’ve never read Martin Chuzzlewit, but I saw the BBC adaptation. Martin, trying his fortune in America, is persuaded to move to a newly-founded city “at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers,” IIRC, to hang out his shingle as an architect. There’s a scene where he looks at a tabletop model and is dismayed that everything seems to have been built already . . .

He is deeply disappointed, when he gets there, to find out the city is barely a hamlet and shows no signs of growing. (It is never named as Cairo – I think the place is called “Eden” or something – and I don’t know if Dickens ever went to Cairo during his famous visit to America, or was aware of its existence.)

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Broomstick

No, best for the rest of us is to get rid of both Cairo and the floodway farms. Let it all revert back to natural floodplain. Then we’ll never have to bail out, rescue, restore, or insure anything or anyone there again.

Of course, there’s nowhere completely safe from natural disasters, but some spots just don’t make sense to use. New Orleans has the marginal justification that some sort of port makes a lot of sense at the mouth of the Mississippi where it meets the Gulf although building below sea level there is, yes, stupid (to be fair - some of that land was above sea level and sank, but in that case, maybe people should move BEFORE the flood). Nothing requires either a town or a farm at that particular spot on those rivers.

**S.B. **isn’t entirely wrong that we should not be forever bound by a decision made in the 1920s. It may very well be that upon reconsideration we determine that there has been enough change in the circumstances that we might privilege the farmland over Cairo.

But the time to revisit those decisions is not a few days before the river overflows its levees (or whatever). And there was nothing stopping the farmers from lobbying in the decades before now, after it started to appear that Cairo might not be able to make a case for the floodway. And there is nothing stopping them from initiating that discussion now, to proceed on a deliberate timetable, about who should be left holding the bag when this happens again in however many years.

[Broomstick]

I previously pointed out that making such drastic changes during a period of clear and present danger of flooding, when the levees are already stressed, and flooding imminent, is not a good idea.

Since no one gave this a thought before things got to that point it would seem the Army Corps of Engineers decision to blow the levee and sort the mess out later is reasonable.

[Garfield226]

@BrainGlutton

I’ve never read Martin Chuzzlewit, but I saw the BBC adaptation. Martin, trying his fortune in America, is persuaded to move to a newly-founded city “at the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers,” IIRC, to hang out his shingle as an architect. There’s a scene where he looks at a tabletop model and is dismayed that everything seems to have been built already . . .

He is deeply disappointed, when he gets there, to find out the city is barely a hamlet and shows no signs of growing. (It is never named as Cairo – I think the place is called “Eden” or something – and I don’t know if Dickens ever went to Cairo during his famous visit to America, or was aware of its existence.)

[

At length, upon the morning of the third day, we arrived at a spot so much more desolate than any we had yet beheld, that the forlornest places we had passed, were, in comparison with it, full of interest. At the junction of the two rivers, on ground so flat and low and marshy, that at certain seasons of the year it is inundated to the house-tops, lies a breeding-place of fever, ague, and death; vaunted in England as a mine of Golden Hope, and speculated in, on the faith of monstrous representations, to many people’s ruin. A dismal swamp, on which the half-built houses rot away: cleared here and there for the space of a few yards; and teeming, then, with rank unwholesome vegetation, in whose baleful shade the wretched wanderers who are tempted hither, droop, and die, and lay their bones; the hateful Mississippi circling and eddying before it, and turning off upon its southern course a slimy monster hideous to behold; a hotbed of disease, an ugly sepulchre, a grave uncheered by any gleam of promise: a place without one single quality, in earth or air or water, to commend it: such is this dismal Cairo.

](Dickens's Impressions of the Mississippi valley at Cairo, Illinois, the original of "Eden" in Martin Chuzzlewit)So, a slight exaggeration then.

[BrainGlutton]

And here it goes again.

US engineers are flooding up to three million acres in southern Louisiana in a bid to protect large cities along the Mississippi River.

US Army Corps of Engineers spokesman Col Ed Fleming said they would open floodgates to divert water from the river, protecting the cities of Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

I expect rather less controversy here, than when Cairo was at stake.