Does it really make that much sense to be sandbagging these levees that are at risk from flooding?
It's true that nobody wants their land to flood....but if a river is contained and all the water in it flows downriver, doesn't it make things that much more dangerous for the people living downstream...as the volume of water that ends up downstream might have been reduced by flooding further up, thereby lessening the danger of even more water heading towards the people at the bottom of the river?
After all, the small feeder streams and rivers continue to feed the main all the way down, and with no 'bloodletting', the end result could be double the amount of water for the eventual recipients further along.
This make for the argument that it might be better to let nature take it's course and rather than trying to stop it, learn where the floods happen and try to evade it for the next time by easing the water's exit path.
It's true that nobody wants their land to flood....but if a river is contained and all the water in it flows downriver, doesn't it make things that much more dangerous for the people living downstream...as the volume of water that ends up downstream might have been reduced by flooding further up, thereby lessening the danger of even more water heading towards the people at the bottom of the river?
After all, the small feeder streams and rivers continue to feed the main all the way down, and with no 'bloodletting', the end result could be double the amount of water for the eventual recipients further along.
This make for the argument that it might be better to let nature take it's course and rather than trying to stop it, learn where the floods happen and try to evade it for the next time by easing the water's exit path.
Comment