The AAR and Mississippi navigation (was: "comedy act....")

[jeaton]

Sorry that I seem to be so emotional about the subject.  It's that I have little tolerance for someone that presents a view as a fact, expecially when it is contrary to some farily solid evidence.  Beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  You suggest that since the a dredging is good for 15 years that this year's expenditure should be then amortized over 15 years.  Are you implying that the entire Mississippi system is being dredged this year?  An an

You talk of prior usage rights, that is, I assume prior to the work of the Corps, suggest that the Mississippi in its natural state was useful for something like the barge transport systems in use today.  That indicates to me that you have zero knowledge of that waterway.

You present your usual babble about the cost of environmental studies and litigation as being some major part of the Corps expense hidden appearantly in the maintenance and operation budgets, yet haven't shown the first dollar figure to support your claim.

And so on. 

If you wonder why you get little respect on this forum, perhaps it is because you present your opinions as matters of fact, and then say that they are the truth.  Because you said so?

[Anonymous]

Sorry that I seem to be so emotional about the subject.  It's that I have little tolerance for someone that presents a view as a fact, expecially when it is contrary to some farily solid evidence.  Beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  You suggest that since the a dredging is good for 15 years that this year's expenditure should be then amortized over 15 years.  Are you implying that the entire Mississippi system is being dredged this year?  An an

You talk of prior usage rights, that is, I assume prior to the work of the Corps, suggest that the Mississippi in its natural state was useful for something like the barge transport systems in use today.  That indicates to me that you have zero knowledge of that waterway.

You present your usual babble about the cost of environmental studies and litigation as being some major part of the Corps expense hidden appearantly in the maintenance and operation budgets, yet haven't shown the first dollar figure to support your claim.

And so on. 

If you wonder why you get little respect on this forum, perhaps it is because you present your opinions as matters of fact, and then say that they are the truth.  Because you said so?

I gave you a chance to be a mature reasonable adult, and you are choosing to act like a willfull child.

Read 'em and weep:

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/steamboat.asp

You'll notice that barging actually began in earnest during the steamboat era:

"In 1907, the Sprague set a world's all-time record for towing-60 barges of coal, weighing 67,307 tons, covering an area of 6-1/2 acres, and measuring 925 feet by 312 feet."

So yes, barging predates Congressionally mandated navigation improvements. 

Please read further:

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/federal.asp

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/commerce.asp

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/river.asp

Here's the Upper Mississippi River navigation plan:

http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns/

Quote of note:  "Its first costs are the $5.7 billion framework for ecosystem restoration and a $2.6 billion for the navigation efficiency improvements."

As I said previously, the greatest *cost* of these projects are the environmental costs, not the physical navigation project itself.  Here you see that the faux costs due to eco-legislation are more than two times the actual cost of the navigation improvements.

Cost of dredging for USACE:

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddcosts.htm

As you can see, the cost of dredging has basically doubled from 10 years ago.  Why do you think that is?  The basics of dredging haven't changed, nor can you chalk it up to normal inflation.  Clearly, it is nothing but eco-costs imposed on the USACE that have pushed these costs well beyond the actual physical act of clearing snags and muck from the river bottom.

When we add an inflation adjusted analysis, from 1963 to present the cost of dredging has still nearly doubled, all due to ever increasing strictness of eco laws:

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddhisMsum.pdf

So you see, even though such things are common knowledge in general, Jay just can't fathom such things without actual reference.  From the American Waterways Operators:

http://www.americanwaterways.com/press_room/issue_briefs/full_funding.html

"Half the cost of capital construction and major rehabilitation projects on the inland waterways system is paid from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund."

Are you getting yet, Jay?  Half the costs of navigation is paid from the Trust Fund, and half the costs of maintaining navigation is due to environmental add ons.  Ergo, barging pays it's own way.  Both you and Mr. White are wrong in spirit to suggest otherwise.

So I'll ask you again - why should the barging companies be forced to pay for these faux cost increases beyond the actual physical costs?  What the barging companies pay into the Waterway Trust Fund is sufficient to cover the physical costs, so let the econuts pay the difference, right?

Proof that the Trust Fund is raided by federal budgeteers:

http://www.littleriverbooks.com/waterwayswork.pdf

 

This is why I have no respect for your constant personal attacks.  You will not use your brain to put two and two together and come up with a reasonable synopsis of the facts at hand, instead demanding a full scale study for each point made.  Well, sorry you cannot seem to access this same informtation when you dug through your sources for your USACE numbers you provided.  Of course, you provided no links, so I'll just "pull a Jay" and state that beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  (Sound familiar?  It should - it's your words verbatum).

 

[Datafever]

Futuremodal, you state that barge traffic pays its own way when environmental costs are excluded.  But since railroads must pay those same environmental costs out of their own pocket, doesn't that still amount to a subsidy for the barges?

[Anonymous]

Futuremodal, you state that barge traffic pays its own way when environmental costs are excluded.  But since railroads must pay those same environmental costs out of their own pocket, doesn't that still amount to a subsidy for the barges?

Two things:  There tends to be more environmental hyperactivity related to waterways than to dry land.  Secondly, since the USACE is a government agency, they get more of the eco-interference than a private entity would. 

I would expect that the DM&E project, being one that is to be funded partly by federal funds and needing eminent domain for brand new ROW, will also experience a greater than average share of eco-litigation than most railroads would experience, but not to the level experienced by the USACE.

[Datafever]

Futuremodal, are you implying that commerce/industry should not be held accountable for environmental damages?

[Anonymous]

Futuremodal, are you implying that commerce/industry should not be held accountable for environmental damages?

No, I'm saying *environmental damage* from such things as dredging or lock maintenance is non-existent.  An EIS is required for virtually every project that might dip into a waterway.  One of the local barge ports up here had to abandon plans for a new small riverside dock due to costs associated with the EIS requirements.  The way the law is written, river users must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at their expense) that water-borne development activities won't harm the environment, rather than forcing the eco-nuts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it will (and at the eco-nuts expense).  Ergo, a lot of unrealistic draconian fantasies are brought to the table as *possibillities* that must be discounted on each point.

It is somewhat ironic, since private fishing boats will spill noticable amounts of  fuel into a river from single stroke engines, yet the possibility that USACE maintenance dredging might stir up a little mud is cause for a full scale panic.

[Datafever]

But isn't it also true that dredging, the installation of locks and flood abatement projects have drastically altered the environmental profile of the Mississippi delta?

[edblysard]

Hummm.

So what you are saying is that when the Harris County Navigation District dredges the Houston ship channel, they really don't have to transport the dredge material to an EPA managed land fill on highway 90, like they have been forced to do for decades?

 

I will be sure and tell the guys running the dredge you said they don't really cause pollution like the EPA says...

 

Oh, and if you are out on a small fishing boat that leaks fuel, hope you have a fire extinguisher on hand, and a life preserver.

Next time you see one leaking, let me know, I will call the Coast Guard for ya....they love fuel leaking boats, sorta job security if you get my drift.

Futuremodal, are you implying that commerce/industry should not be held accountable for environmental damages?

No, I'm saying *environmental damage* from such things as dredging or lock maintenance is non-existent.  An EIS is required for virtually every project that might dip into a waterway.  One of the local barge ports up here had to abandon plans for a new small riverside dock due to costs associated with the EIS requirements.  The way the law is written, river users must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at their expense) that water-borne development activities won't harm the environment, rather than forcing the eco-nuts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it will (and at the eco-nuts expense).  Ergo, a lot of unrealistic draconian fantasies are brought to the table as *possibillities* that must be discounted on each point.

It is somewhat ironic, since private fishing boats will spill noticable amounts of  fuel into a river from single stroke engines, yet the possibility that USACE maintenance dredging might stir up a little mud is cause for a full scale panic.

[tree68]

...single stroke engines...

[Murphy Siding]

...single stroke engines...

     You know- they have that distinctive sound, kind of like the sound of one hand clapping.

[Anonymous]

But isn't it also true that dredging, the installation of locks and flood abatement projects have drastically altered the environmental profile of the Mississippi delta?

"Drastically" is such a subjective, emotive word.

Altered, yes.  Drastically?    Define your take of what "drastic" would be.

It's a good thing those railroad projects don't "drastically" alter the landscape, huh?

[Anonymous]

I will be sure and tell the guys running the dredge you said they don't really cause pollution like the EPA says...

Which is why much of the time dredge spoils are dumped right back in the river outside the navigation channels, creating new riparian habitat.  Such is the plan for dredging the Snake and Clearwater Rivers out this way.

Or are you saying that temporarily stirring up what's embedded in the muck causes pollution?  I'm sure the boys at the EPA forgot that when they ordered the dredging of the Hudson River to remove GE's dioxin.

Seems like you're suggesting that it's bad to dredge for navigation, but okay to dredge if it's not for navigation.

[Anonymous]

...single stroke engines...

     You know- they have that distinctive sound, kind of like the sound of one hand clapping.

I guess that's why they leak so much fuel!

BTW - it's two stroke engines (I think).

[Datafever]

...single stroke engines...

     You know- they have that distinctive sound, kind of like the sound of one hand clapping.

I guess that's why they leak so much fuel!

BTW - it's two stroke engines (I think).

Or possibly you mean a single cylinder engine. 

[jeaton]

Sorry that I seem to be so emotional about the subject.  It's that I have little tolerance for someone that presents a view as a fact, expecially when it is contrary to some farily solid evidence.  Beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  You suggest that since the a dredging is good for 15 years that this year's expenditure should be then amortized over 15 years.  Are you implying that the entire Mississippi system is being dredged this year?  An an

You talk of prior usage rights, that is, I assume prior to the work of the Corps, suggest that the Mississippi in its natural state was useful for something like the barge transport systems in use today.  That indicates to me that you have zero knowledge of that waterway.

You present your usual babble about the cost of environmental studies and litigation as being some major part of the Corps expense hidden appearantly in the maintenance and operation budgets, yet haven't shown the first dollar figure to support your claim.

And so on. 

If you wonder why you get little respect on this forum, perhaps it is because you present your opinions as matters of fact, and then say that they are the truth.  Because you said so?

I gave you a chance to be a mature reasonable adult, and you are choosing to act like a willfull child.

Read 'em and weep:

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/steamboat.asp

You'll notice that barging actually began in earnest during the steamboat era:

"In 1907, the Sprague set a world's all-time record for towing-60 barges of coal, weighing 67,307 tons, covering an area of 6-1/2 acres, and measuring 925 feet by 312 feet."

So yes, barging predates Congressionally mandated navigation improvements. 

Please read further:

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/federal.asp

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/commerce.asp

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/history/MISSRNAV/river.asp

Here's the Upper Mississippi River navigation plan:

http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns/

Quote of note:  "Its first costs are the $5.7 billion framework for ecosystem restoration and a $2.6 billion for the navigation efficiency improvements."

As I said previously, the greatest *cost* of these projects are the environmental costs, not the physical navigation project itself.  Here you see that the faux costs due to eco-legislation are more than two times the actual cost of the navigation improvements.

Cost of dredging for USACE:

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddcosts.htm

As you can see, the cost of dredging has basically doubled from 10 years ago.  Why do you think that is?  The basics of dredging haven't changed, nor can you chalk it up to normal inflation.  Clearly, it is nothing but eco-costs imposed on the USACE that have pushed these costs well beyond the actual physical act of clearing snags and muck from the river bottom.

When we add an inflation adjusted analysis, from 1963 to present the cost of dredging has still nearly doubled, all due to ever increasing strictness of eco laws:

http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/dredge/ddhisMsum.pdf

So you see, even though such things are common knowledge in general, Jay just can't fathom such things without actual reference.  From the American Waterways Operators:

http://www.americanwaterways.com/press_room/issue_briefs/full_funding.html

"Half the cost of capital construction and major rehabilitation projects on the inland waterways system is paid from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund."

Are you getting yet, Jay?  Half the costs of navigation is paid from the Trust Fund, and half the costs of maintaining navigation is due to environmental add ons.  Ergo, barging pays it's own way.  Both you and Mr. White are wrong in spirit to suggest otherwise.

So I'll ask you again - why should the barging companies be forced to pay for these faux cost increases beyond the actual physical costs?  What the barging companies pay into the Waterway Trust Fund is sufficient to cover the physical costs, so let the econuts pay the difference, right?

Proof that the Trust Fund is raided by federal budgeteers:

http://www.littleriverbooks.com/waterwayswork.pdf

 

This is why I have no respect for your constant personal attacks.  You will not use your brain to put two and two together and come up with a reasonable synopsis of the facts at hand, instead demanding a full scale study for each point made.  Well, sorry you cannot seem to access this same informtation when you dug through your sources for your USACE numbers you provided.  Of course, you provided no links, so I'll just "pull a Jay" and state that beyond the lack of any supporting evidence, some of the things you present as fact are total nonsense.  (Sound familiar?  It should - it's your words verbatum).

 

Did you actually read all the pages on the links you posted?

Looking at the several links to the history of the Corp of Engineers, we find that Congress was responding to the needs to improve navagation as early as 1850, just about 57 years before the Sprague set the record for tow size.

Oh yes, when did the barges lines start to pay-as you claim-all their cost for the waterways?  Could we say 1978 when the Inland Waterways Trust Fund was established?

Next we have the Upper Mississippi River Navagation Plan.  You correctly note the projected cost of ecosystem restoration on the project is is twice the cost of the navagation improvements. The ecosystem restoration part is totally separate from the navagation improvements.  In the executive summary for the full report there are statements of the cost to mitigate the environmental damage associated with what you call the "physical navagation project".  That number is pegged at about $200 million or well less than 10% of the $2.7 billion project cost.  So where do you get the 50% of the *cost* is environment work.  There is nothing in the plan outline that says that the Trust Fund will be tapped for anything but the work included in the navagation part of the project. 

Moving on the the link to the Maintenance Dredging Expenditures, and looking at the record of t

[edblysard]

Wow,

And I though my 13 year old could come up with odd conclusions....

 

Hey, don't those blinders chafe a little around the ears?

I will be sure and tell the guys running the dredge you said they don't really cause pollution like the EPA says...

Seems like you're suggesting that it's bad to dredge for navigation, but okay to dredge if it's not for navigation.

[Anonymous]

Looking at the several links to the history of the Corp of Engineers, we find that Congress was responding to the needs to improve navagation as early as 1850, just about 57 years before the Sprague set the record for tow size.

And this means what?  The real channel improvements didn't even start until the mid 20th century.  Before that, it was mostly snag removal and such.

The point I made which you discounted was that barging preceded modern waterway maintenance.

Oh yes, when did the barges lines start to pay-as you claim-all their cost for the waterways?  Could we say 1978 when the Inland Waterways Trust Fund was established?

Exactly.  Right about the time the eco-types started demanding an EIS for regular maintenance dredging.  Not suprisingly, that's when dredging costs started to skyrocket relative to prior maintenance venues.

I'll repeat the kicker here for your benefit - What other mode has to have an EIS every time ROW maintenance is required?  Only barging.  And before you claim that railroads are different due to private ROW ownership, keep in mind that Amtrak owns the NEC, and Amtrak is allowed to perform regular maintenance without the EIS requirement.  Same with public highways.

How do you think the railroads would fare if they had to complete an EIS every time they wanted to perform maintenance?  Not too well, I think you'd agree.

  So where do you get the 50% of the *cost* is environment work. 

I shouldn't have to provide a rock solid comprehensive study to support this hypothesis, as anyone who has been involved in the permitting/lawsuits/delays et al of these projects would be able to confirm this point of view, especially as it relates to a very basic physical function such as river dredging.  What is dredging?  You scoop or suck out the muck and rock, and deposit it somewhere other than the navigation channel.  By all accounts, such an activity is a simple, relatively low cost endeveour.  It's not rocket science, nor is it a major construction project.  Even you, Jay, could operate a dredging barge with little training and expertise!

Yet environmental litigiousness has caused the related costs of such a basic maintenance function to rise exponentially.

I'll state this with the obvious candor it deserves - it shouldn't cost no $2 billion to dredge the Mississippi shipping channel from NO to SL and beyond.  It probably could be done for a few hundred million at most by a run-of-the-mill dredging firm.  I would venture that dredging the entire length of the Mississippi once every 10 or so years would cost less than the cost of maintaining one of the parallel railroads to Class IV standards.  Of course, the only difference is one has to put up with EIS regs for what should by all acounts be regular maintenance, and one doesn't.

I'll challenge you on this - find any EIS related to any project of any scope, and look at the cost/benefit analysis.  You'll probably conclude as I do that the costs of the environmental mitigation are very real (e.g. someone's gotta write the check and draw on the balance), while the benefits of the eco-mitigation are mostly theoretical, e.g. what might have happened to some eco-aspect if the mitigation didn't take place, e.g. no check coming in to replace the balance.

[Anonymous]

Wow,

And I though my 13 year old could come up with odd conclusions....

Hey, don't those blinders chafe a little around the ears?

I will be sure and tell the guys running the dredge you said they don't really cause pollution like the EPA says...

Seems like you're suggesting that it's bad to dredge for navigation, but okay to dredge if it's not for navigation.

Yep, them dudes are good for a laugh or two!

[jeaton]

Looking at the several links to the history of the Corp of Engineers, we find that Congress was responding to the needs to improve navagation as early as 1850, just about 57 years before the Sprague set the record for tow size.

And this means what?  The real channel improvements didn't even start until the mid 20th century.  Before that, it was mostly snag removal and such.

The point I made which you discounted was that barging preceded modern waterway maintenance.

Oh yes, when did the barges lines start to pay-as you claim-all their cost for the waterways?  Could we say 1978 when the Inland Waterways Trust Fund was established?

Exactly.  Right about the time the eco-types started demanding an EIS for regular maintenance dredging.  Not suprisingly, that's when dredging costs started to skyrocket relative to prior maintenance venues.

I'll repeat the kicker here for your benefit - What other mode has to have an EIS every time ROW maintenance is required?  Only barging.  And before you claim that railroads are different due to private ROW ownership, keep in mind that Amtrak owns the NEC, and Amtrak is allowed to perform regular maintenance without the EIS requirement.  Same with public highways.

How do you think the railroads would fare if they had to complete an EIS every time they wanted to perform maintenance?  Not too well, I think you'd agree.

  So where do you get the 50% of the *cost* is environment work. 

I shouldn't have to provide a rock solid comprehensive study to support this hypothesis, as anyone who has been involved in the permitting/lawsuits/delays et al of these projects would be able to confirm this point of view, especially as it relates to a very basic physical function such as river dredging.  What is dredging?  You scoop or suck out the muck and rock, and deposit it somewhere other than the navigation channel.  By all accounts, such an activity is a simple, relatively low cost endeveour.  It's not rocket science, nor is it a major construction project.  Even you, Jay, could operate a dredging barge with little training and expertise!

Yet environmental litigiousness has caused the related costs of such a basic maintenance function to rise exponentially.

I'll state this with the obvious candor it deserves - it shouldn't cost no $2 billion to dredge the Mississippi shipping channel from NO to SL and beyond.  It probably could be done for a few hundred million at most by a run-of-the-mill dredging firm.  I would venture that dredging the entire length of the Mississippi once every 10 or so years would cost less than the cost of maintaining one of the parallel railroads to Class IV standards.  Of course, the only difference is one has to put up with EIS regs for what should by all acounts be regular maintenance, and one doesn't.

I'll challenge you on this - find any EIS related to any project of any scope, and look at the cost/benefit analysis.  You'll probably conclude as I do that the costs of the environmental mitigation are very real (e.g. someone's gotta write the check and draw on the balance), while the benefits of the eco-mitigation are mostly theoretical, e.g. what might have happened to some eco-aspect if the mitigation didn't take place, e.g. no check coming in to replace the balance.

Changing the subject a little aren't we?  I doubt that there is much, if any, measurable dollar return for any investment or cost associated with environmental mitigation or remediation.  It is quite clear from your many posts that you find any expenditure of taxpayer or business funds not producing a measurable dollar return to be deplorable.  On the matters of the environment, I and perhaps a considerable percentage of Americans do not agree with your position.  You might say that I and my fellow travelers prefer to live in a world that is not a dump and are willing to pay the price.  If you care more about the money-well it is a free country.

Meanwhile, back at the original question about the barge lines paying their full share of waterway  costs.  I think the information provided by the references that I used and in your links makes it rather clear that your arguments are specius.  All you have done is present your views as the evidence and "facts" to prove the truth of your views.  Quite vain.

[penncentral2002]

Looking at the several links to the history of the Corp of Engineers, we find that Congress was responding to the needs to improve navagation as early as 1850, just about 57 years before the Sprague set the record for tow size.

And this means what?  The real channel improvements didn't even start until the mid 20th century.  Before that, it was mostly snag removal and such.

Yet the very next page after the one that you cite states "In 1896, Congress authorized a navigation channel 9 feet deep and 250 feet wide at low water between Cairo and Head of Passes."  That definitely sounds like a channel improvement to me.

The only section of the Mississippi which is naturally suited to large scale navigation is the section south of Baton Rouge.  Baton Rouge got its name because the early French explorers found that there were dangerous rapids and it was the furthest that they could take their ships.  They marked these rapids with a red stick or in French, a baton rouge.  Small flat boats could travel from upper Mississippi and Ohio River to Baton Rouge naturally, but no further.  Thus almost all navigation on the Mississippi River is completely unnatural (as is almost all of the Mississippi River today).

You are also missing another segment of costs associated with Mississippi River navigation.  The canalization of the Mississippi has created serious environmental damage on the Louisiana coast because it prevents the silt from flowing down the river and resupplying the Mississippi Delta region.  Thus, Louisiana is losing land.  There is very strong evidence that the hurricanes in the gulf region, including Hurricane Katrina hit land stronger due to the erosion of the Mississippi Delta.  Additionally, the canalization of the Mississippi has caused the floods when they occur to become much worse.  The budget doesn't come anywhere close to showing the past environmental damage that the conversion of the Mississippi from a river to a canal has caused.  The costs of the EIS and the like (which is generally a small part of the total project cost) are neccessary expenditures to prevent much larger damage later.  People today are just starting to learn the horrible costs of the canalization of the Mississippi (even though the 1927 Mississippi River flood also demonstrated them and led to Congress to pass the 1928 Flood Control Act).  While, the navigation program on the Mississippi has also produced great benefits, today people understand that you need to pay some now to avoid much greater costs in the future.

[bobwilcox]

Higher water levels favor barging, but also favor electricity generation... 

 Both take the same amount of water to raise and lower the locks... 

Their are no hyro-electirc plants between St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans and the Gulf. 

There are no locks on the lower Miss. River between Cairo, IL and the Gulf. 

There are lots of tax dollars spent for dredging. 

 

 

[bobwilcox]

I gave you a chance to be a mature reasonable adult, and you are choosing to act like a willfull child...

Dave-Why do you like to shut down threads that you start with comments like this?  If you post something do not expect everyone to agree with your opinions.  I think from now on if I see a thread you start I will just not read it.  Why waist my time? 

[Anonymous]

Looking at the several links to the history of the Corp of Engineers, we find that Congress was responding to the needs to improve navagation as early as 1850, just about 57 years before the Sprague set the record for tow size.

And this means what?  The real channel improvements didn't even start until the mid 20th century.  Before that, it was mostly snag removal and such.

Yet the very next page after the one that you cite states "In 1896, Congress authorized a navigation channel 9 feet deep and 250 feet wide at low water between Cairo and Head of Passes."  That definitely sounds like a channel improvement to me.

Are you suggesting the Mississippi's average channel depth is less than 9 feet below Cairo?  Of course not.  That "9 feet" is the depth desired for consistant navigation, including some in channel straightening.  Most of the river below Cairo is deeper than 9 feet, isn't it?

The only section of the Mississippi which is naturally suited to large scale navigation is the section south of Baton Rouge.  Baton Rouge got its name because the early French explorers found that there were dangerous rapids and it was the furthest that they could take their ships.  They marked these rapids with a red stick or in French, a baton rouge.  Small flat boats could travel from upper Mississippi and Ohio River to Baton Rouge naturally, but no further.  Thus almost all navigation on the Mississippi River is completely unnatural (as is almost all of the Mississippi River today).

That's quite a statement - "all navigation on the Mississippi is completely unnatural".  Hard to give you any credibility there, given that the river has been used for navigation long before railroads were even "invented".  Again, most improvements on the river are at particular points on the river.  You make is sound like the river has been turned into a de facto canal.  PS - "ships" generally refers to ocean going vessels, so it's not suprising that ships of yore couldn't make it past Baton Rouge, nor can they today.

You are also missing another segment of costs associated with Mississippi River navigation.  The canalization of the Mississippi has created serious environmental damage on the Louisiana coast because it prevents the silt from flowing down the river and resupplying the Mississippi Delta region.  Thus, Louisiana is losing land.  There is very strong evidence that the hurricanes in the gulf region, including Hurricane Katrina hit land stronger due to the erosion of the Mississippi Delta.  Additionally, the canalization of the Mississippi has caused the floods when they occur to become much worse.  The budget doesn't come anywhere close to showing the past environmental damage that the conversion of the Mississippi from a river to a canal has caused.  The costs of the EIS and the like (which is generally a small part of the total project cost) are neccessary expenditures to prevent much larger damage later.  People today are just starting to learn the horrible costs of the canalization of the Mississippi (even though the 1927 Mississippi River flood also demonstrated them and led to Congress to pass the 1928 Flood Control Act).  While, the navigation program on the Mississippi has also produced great benefits, today people understand that you need to pay some now to avoid much greater costs in the future.

Again, you leave out the greater environmental effect on the river, that of flood control projects, and try to blame those unintended consequences on navigation projects.  As I stated before, most of the river below Cairo has a natural depth beyond 9 feet, and dredging is done at certain points to make the depth consistent for navigation.  These perfunctory dredging projects had no effect on the problems you mention.  It was the desire for flood control by riverside interests that led to the unnatural raising of levees, which in turn raised the elevation of the river, which in turn forced leveels to be raised even higher, etc.  Turns out, flooding is a cyclical event, one that naturally rehabbed farmland by depositing those rich soils, and when they started "leveeing" everywhere, that natural cycle was shut down.  Too bad no one had figured out to leave the farmlands as is but put the farmhouse and barn on higher ground.

That's one area where we probaby agree the USACE and riverside interests screwed up.  I have little sympathy for folks who build there houses and communities on natural flood plains. 

But please, try to keep the two projects seperate when analyzing such effects, e.g. dredging for navigation is different from flood control projects - unless you're applying for a job at the AAR?

[Anonymous]

I gave you a chance to be a mature reasonable adult, and you are choosing to act like a willfull child...

Dave-Why do you like to shut down threads that you start with comments like this?  If you post something do not expect everyone to agree with your opinions.  I think from now on if I see a thread you start I will just not read it.  Why waist my time? 

I don't shut down any thread, Bergie does.  Indeed, for the most part I'd like to keep these discussions going full bore.  But folks like you, LC, and Ed B come in and start with the personal insults - just like your post here, one disguised as a "tsk tsk" - and then Bergie has to come in and do what he has to do.

I feel that Jay was being rather immature with his replies, not the level of professionalism I expect from him when we disagree about something, and I called him out on it.  If he has a problem with my perceptions of his unnecessary insults added to his otherwise credible posts, then let him deal with it.

And don't take this personally, but you don't really bring much to the table anyway, so I doubt I'll miss your replies, especially if they're of the example above.

[Anonymous]

Higher water levels favor barging, but also favor electricity generation... 

 Both take the same amount of water to raise and lower the locks... 

Their are no hyro-electirc plants between St. Louis, Memphis, New Orleans and the Gulf. 

Yeah, that was pointed out to me.  I was making a general statement on barging and dams but made the mistake of including that generalization into the debate over the Mississippi dams.

Too bad, since there is great hydro potential for modern low-head hydropower projects at these dams.

There are no locks on the lower Miss. River between Cairo, IL and the Gulf. 

Again, yes I know. 

There are lots of tax dollars spent for dredging. 

There are lots of tax dollars spent for railroads, including Amtrak and transit.  I hate to have to explain this a million times, but the cost of dredging projects as per USACE project sheets is a far cry from the actual physical cost of dredging.  All things being equal, it's a lot cheaper to maintain a navigation channel that it is to maintain a railroad ROW.

 

 

[Datafever]

Again, you leave out the greater environmental effect on the river, that of flood control projects, and try to blame those unintended consequences on navigation projects.  As I stated before, most of the river below Cairo has a natural depth beyond 9 feet, and dredging is done at certain points to make the depth consistent for navigation.  These perfunctory dredging projects had no effect on the problems you mention.  It was the desire for flood control by riverside interests that led to the unnatural raising of levees, which in turn raised the elevation of the river, which in turn forced leveels to be raised even higher, etc.  Turns out, flooding is a cyclical event, one that naturally rehabbed farmland by depositing those rich soils, and when they started "leveeing" everywhere, that natural cycle was shut down.  Too bad no one had figured out to leave the farmlands as is but put the farmhouse and barn on higher ground.

That's one area where we probaby agree the USACE and riverside interests screwed up.  I have little sympathy for folks who build there houses and communities on natural flood plains. 

But please, try to keep the two projects seperate when analyzing such effects, e.g. dredging for navigation is different from flood control projects - unless you're applying for a job at the AAR?

I also agree that flood control projects have caused more damage (in general) than any subsequent good.  I lived in an area where flood control seemed like the best thing since sliced bread.  For about thirty years.  After that, the decline in agricultural yields became noticeable.  The long term costs outweighed any short term gains.  It's just that the short term gains were reaped by a different set of people than what suffered the long term loss.

Futuremodal, it is my understanding that many of the flood control projects on the Mississippi were for the benefit of navigation.  It is difficult to navigate a barge down (or up) a rampaging river. 

[Anonymous]

Again, you leave out the greater environmental effect on the river, that of flood control projects, and try to blame those unintended consequences on navigation projects.  As I stated before, most of the river below Cairo has a natural depth beyond 9 feet, and dredging is done at certain points to make the depth consistent for navigation.  These perfunctory dredging projects had no effect on the problems you mention.  It was the desire for flood control by riverside interests that led to the unnatural raising of levees, which in turn raised the elevation of the river, which in turn forced leveels to be raised even higher, etc.  Turns out, flooding is a cyclical event, one that naturally rehabbed farmland by depositing those rich soils, and when they started "leveeing" everywhere, that natural cycle was shut down.  Too bad no one had figured out to leave the farmlands as is but put the farmhouse and barn on higher ground.

That's one area where we probaby agree the USACE and riverside interests screwed up.  I have little sympathy for folks who build there houses and communities on natural flood plains. 

But please, try to keep the two projects seperate when analyzing such effects, e.g. dredging for navigation is different from flood control projects - unless you're applying for a job at the AAR?

I also agree that flood control projects have caused more damage (in general) than any subsequent good.  I lived in an area where flood control seemed like the best thing since sliced bread.  For about thirty years.  After that, the decline in agricultural yields became noticeable.  The long term costs outweighed any short term gains.  It's just that the short term gains were reaped by a different set of people than what suffered the long term loss.

Futuremodal, it is my understanding that many of the flood control projects on the Mississippi were for the benefit of navigation.  It is difficult to navigate a barge down (or up) a rampaging river. 

You know, I really didn't want this thread to become a pro vs con regarding Mississippi River navigation!

I can tell you from local observation that tugs and barge tows do tackle rampaging river characteristics.  A few years back we had some major snow melt coupled with some major rain storms that turned the Snake River slack water pools into fast moving turbidity.  Going downstream was not that much of a problem for the barges (downstream fuel use was almost non-existant, just keep the consist between the navigation markers!), but coming upstream the barge captains had to max the tug's output with mostly empty barges and still only managed about 2 or 3 knots (7 to 10 knots is normal operating speed).

As for flood control projects, my understanding is that the basics of such are the levees, which are meant to keep high water off low lying land, and not to enhance the river's channelization.  There are also some high water flowways, but these are not used for navigation.  Dredging the low bars to maintain a 12 foot deep channel is the main navigation aspect.  I don't think dredging is done for flood control.  I can say with most certainty that the flood control levees have made dredging needs more frequent, since much of what used to end up on lowlands during natural flooding episodes is now being deposited in river many times, right in the main navigation channels, and slowly raising the level of the riverbottom.

[edblysard]

Gee Dave,

The only one I can see issueing personal insults is you...as shown by your entire quoted reply, which is nothing but insults.

I gave you a chance to be a mature reasonable adult, and you are choosing to act like a willfull child...

Dave-Why do you like to shut down threads that you start with comments like this?  If you post something do not expect everyone to agree with your opinions.  I think from now on if I see a thread you start I will just not read it.  Why waist my time? 

I don't shut down any thread, Bergie does.  Indeed, for the most part I'd like to keep these discussions going full bore.  But folks like you, LC, and Ed B come in and start with the personal insults - just like your post here, one disguised as a "tsk tsk" - and then Bergie has to come in and do what he has to do.

I feel that Jay was being rather immature with his replies, not the level of professionalism I expect from him when we disagree about something, and I called him out on it.  If he has a problem with my perceptions of his unnecessary insults added to his otherwise credible posts, then let him deal with it.

And don't take this personally, but you don't really bring much to the table anyway, so I doubt I'll miss your replies, especially if they're of the example above.

[Anonymous]

OK, so let's shut the river down completely (And save all that money! And if we do, what effect will it have on the economy?). Who, exactly, is going to move that 15% of the nation's bulk cargo? The railroads are maxed out these days; there's more to move that ever before. Also, the railroads, and the nation, are east - west freight worlds, and the Western Rivers are a north - south freight world. There isn't a lot of rail capacity that paralells the river system to take up that 15% if you kill the river off. In short, the river is a minor threat to rail transport; take a look at your nearest federally built interstate highway for a bigger threat. And, you know, in the long run, rail and water transport will be laughing in comparison to trucking. Fuel will only get more expensive, and who uses the most fuel per ton/mile moved? It isn't rail and water, by a long shot.

[jeaton]

OK, so let's shut the river down completely (And save all that money! And if we do, what effect will it have on the economy?). Who, exactly, is going to move that 15% of the nation's bulk cargo? The railroads are maxed out these days; there's more to move that ever before. Also, the railroads, and the nation, are east - west freight worlds, and the Western Rivers are a north - south freight world. There isn't a lot of rail capacity that paralells the river system to take up that 15% if you kill the river off. In short, the river is a minor threat to rail transport; take a look at your nearest federally built interstate highway for a bigger threat. And, you know, in the long run, rail and water transport will be laughing in comparison to trucking. Fuel will only get more expensive, and who uses the most fuel per ton/mile moved? It isn't rail and water, by a long shot.

Just for the record, I don't have a problem with the use of government funds to maintain or improve the waterways.  That was not my issue here.