Flood-plain problems aren’t so cut and dried
On one level, I agree with the writer of “Out of the flood plain.” (4.2.08) In fact, before I lived in an area affected by flooding, I used to think the same way. I hope people who want to make suggestions for how others should behave will take the time to visit those areas and talk to the people directly involved.
For example, the city of Pacific did not experience a flood from 1919 to 1982 It has only been in the last two decades that the Meramec River and the little creeks around the area have crept into town. The lowest lying part of town is also the most historic and contains some of the most prosperous businesses. It’s just not that easy to “move out of the flood plain.” One small church on First Street was founded in 1874. Yes, it could be moved, but at what cost? Do taxpayers want to subsidize preserving the history in that building? Another example is the McHugh-Dailey building which now houses our only coffee house and which will provide a community meeting room and theater on the 3rd floor sometime soon. That building is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year and was reconstructed on the present site from parts of World’s Fair buildings.
I’ll leave it to the hydrologists and engineers to figure out what the impact of levees in other towns is and how much climate change is affecting our weather patterns. But until some kind of plan is developed for protecting Pacific’s history, I invite outsiders to come and take a look for themselves. It’s just not that easy to turn the heart of a town into a park.
Susan Cunningham
Pacific


Susan there is a long legal precedent that one who alters the flow of a natural water course will be held liable to those who suffer damages as a result of that action. Are you suggesting that the Corps of Engineers (builders of the levees) should be held responsible for Pacific’s flooding?
Citizen Smith - Maybe you should do a little research on the history of Missouri Water Laws. Unless your definition of a long legal precedent is the last 15 or so years.
The “civil law rule” was briefly followed in Missouri, which is what you describe, but the basis of Missouri water law for over 100 years was the so-called “common enemy rule”, which allows an individual to do basically anything to prevent flood damage.
It wasn’t until 1993 that Missouri courts have applied the “comparative reasonableness rule” , which puts some restrictions on what a person can do but is subjective and will likely be a case by case judgement in the courts. I suggest you read Water Resources Report Number 51 - A Summary of Missouri Water Laws published by DNR.
I don’t know all the impacts of the Valley Park levee but I do know based on a hydraulic model of the Meremac River that during a 100 year flood the flood stage in Valley Park would have to be 2 feet higher with the levee than without to have any effect on the flood waters in Pacific.
thank you for the information Kurtis. I am new to MO and the state from which I moved still acknowledged the common law.