The Levee Must Go

Des Moines Register:

The city of Hamburg in southwest Iowa has invited contractors to bid on removing 8 feet of dirt from a levee on the west side of town. It was a bitter but necessary concession that the city has lost its battle to preserve the wall that valiantly protected the city from the flooding of the Missouri River in 2011.
The Missouri spilled out of its banks for most of that summer after record snow melt and spring rains forced the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to release massive volumes of water from reservoirs upstream in Montana and the Dakotas. With the Corps’ assistance, volunteers peeled off soil from surrounding farms to raise the existing 11-foot levee by 8 feet, and that saved the town from being flooded.
After flood waters receded, the city was presented with two options: Spend $5.6 million to make the taller levee permanent, or remove the top 8 feet of material. Despite the city’s creative efforts to raise the money — including an online plea for donations complete with a You Tube video of a flash-mob dance in downtown Hamburg — it proved too much for a community of 1,200 residents and 85 businesses with an annual city budget of $1.2 million.
There are no bad guys in this story. The community stepped up to build a wall in an emergency to protect the town. But there is a big difference between a wall of dirt thrown up in an emergency and a permanent flood-control protection structure designed and built to the Army’s engineering standards.
Corps of Engineers officials point out that the city could not rely on the temporary addition to hold back flood waters without constant monitoring and repairs, which is costly, time-consuming and uncertain. Indeed, the Corps and the city were in “flood fight” mode with daily inspections and patches to keep the emergency levee intact for four months.
The Corps might consider paying for part of a permanent levee, but it would have to pass a cost-benefit analysis. Even if it passed that rigorous test, Hamburg would then have to wait in line behind a long list of other approved projects that are awaiting engineering studies and an appropriation from Congress.

That is an interesting situation.  I have to agree with the paper, and the Corps.  Without major improvements, the temporary levee would very possibly fail when it is needed again.  However, considering how much work has to be done each spring along the Red River of the North, I would hate to be trying to build this thing up and tear it down if flooding gets very frequent along the Missouri. I'd probably hit up the state and feds and area businesses for any loan money I could get my hands on, and at least start the process of making the levee permanent.  The project to put things back like they were before is projected to cost about a quarter as much as improving the whole thing.  Seems like a waste to totally scrap the temporary levee out.