Remember when some low caliber science pundits immediately jumped on the “climate change” bandwagon of blame? It turns out that as usual, they were wrong. This new study shows extreme flooding on Meramec and Mississippi rivers in late December cannot be blamed solely on 3-day rain, “channelization” of river was a major factor, according to the study
From WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS

At the end of December 2015, a huge storm named “Goliath” dumped 9-10 inches of rain in a belt across the central United States, centered just southwest of St. Louis, most of it in a three-day downpour.
The rain blanketed the Meramec Basin, an area of 4,000 square miles drained by the Meramec River, which enters the Mississippi River south of St. Louis.
The Meramec’s response was dramatic. Gauging stations recorded a pulse of water that grew as it traveled down the main stem of the Meramec River, setting all-time record highs in the lower basin in the Missouri cities of Eureka, Valley Park and Arnold.
While extraordinary rain drenched the entire Meramec Basin, only 5 percent of the Mississippi River’s giant watershed above St. Louis was so affected. Yet only a day after the flood on the lower Meramec peaked, water levels on the Mississippi at St. Louis were the third-highest ever recorded. A few days later, record flood stages were recorded downstream at Cape Girardeau, Mo., and Thebes, Ill.
Why was the flooding so bad? Most news reports blamed it on the heavy rain, but Robert Criss, PhD, professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, said there was more to the flood than the rain.
“I think there was significant magnification of the flood levels on the Meramec by recent developments near the river,” he said. “Sure it rained a lot, but what happened here cannot be explained by the rainfall alone.”
The flood on the middle Mississippi River, in turn, was remarkable for its short duration and the time of year. “It was essentially a winter flash flood on a continental-scale river,” Criss said. “The Mississippi has been so channelized and leveed close to St. Louis that it now responds like a much smaller river.”
In the February issue of the Journal of Earth Science, Criss and visiting scholar Mingming Luo of the China University of Geosciences in Wuhan, China, take a close look at data for the New Year’s flood, treating it as a giant natural experiment that allowed them to test their understanding of changing river dynamics.
“Flooding is becoming more chaotic and unpredictable, more frequent and more severe,” Criss said. “Additional changes to this overbuilt river system will only aggravate flooding.
“In the meantime,” he said, “inaccurate Federal Emergency Management Agency flood frequencies based on the assumption that today’s river will behave as it has in the past greatly underestimate our real flood risk and lead to inappropriate development in floodways and floodplains.”
What happened at Valley Park and why?
The prior flood of record in most of the lower Meramec Basin occurred on Dec. 6, 1982, Criss said. Given that the 1982 flood, like the 2015 flood, was a winter flood during an El Niño event, they should have been similar. Criss thought it would be revealing to compare them.
When he did this, he discovered that the peak flood stage at Valley Park in 2015 was three-feet higher than it would have been had the river responded as it had in 1982, and more than a foot higher upstream from Valley Park at Eureka in 2015 than in 1982.
What had happened at Valley Park between 1982 and 2015? A three-mile-long levee had been built next to the river; a landfill partly in the river’s floodway (as defined in 1995) had expanded; parts of the floodplain had been built up with construction fill; and development along three small tributaries of the Meramec had destroyed riparian borders, so that they became torrents after a rain but no longer flowed continuously.
The record high water levels on the Meramec were associated with these developments, Criss said. “The biggest jump in the flood stage was next to the landfill in the floodway and to the new levee, which restricted the effective width of the floodway and ‘100-year’ floodplain by as much as 65 percent.”
He drives home the point by breaking the flood data into two chunks and looking at the earlier half separately from the later half. When he does this, it becomes apparent the river is becoming more chaotic and unpredictable and that floods are more frequent, higher and more damaging than they once were.
As the New Year’s flood demonstrates, when we assume an unchanging river, we greatly underestimate our flood risk, he said. “The St. Louis levees protected us from the 1993 flood, considered a 330-year event,” he said. “But if a real ‘200-year’ flood occurred on today’s river, the structures protecting St. Louis would be overtopped.
“The heavy rainfall was probably related to El Niño, and possibly intensified by global warming. But new records were set only in areas that have undergone intense development, which is known to magnify floods and shorten their timescales.
“People want to blame the rain, but this is mostly us,” Criss said. “It’s a manmade disaster.”
During the New Year’s flood, roughly 7,000 buildings near St. Louis were damaged, two interstate highways were closed for several days, the community of Valley Park was evacuated, and two Metropolitan Sewer District plants were swamped so that sewage was dumped directly into the water. The flood killed more than 20 people in Missouri and Illinois, caused several hundred million dollars of damage, and left millions of tons of debris in its wake.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why not blame climate change, create a new fee or tax because of the terribleness of climate change. throw the additional revenue in the general revenue pot and use it for better benefits for government bureaucrats. Who would you know want to fix the actual problem. Why would any politician be actually interested in fixing the actual problem since in the modern era that is unheard of.
Maybe it’s time for another new madrid earthquake to redefine the river’s path and boundaries. The last one was smack in the middle of the dalton minimum.
(OK, coincidence does not imply causality, but…)
When the experts start relating how the building of infrastructure, whether restricting natural waterways or adding thermal mass into the environment or the changing of land use, has repercussions on the natural order of things, then I agree that man does contribute to what appears to be climate change.
Here’s what sells in the tabloids right now: An article which depicts an extreme but totally natural (very recent) weather event and skillfully weaves in the exacerbation of mankind’s presence and influence on a planet pushed into an out-of-control chain reaction of disastrous consequences. Anything else disappears into the mundane…
With the Manmade Global Warming, property/real estate developers are free to do whatever they want. When teir land development eventually leads to flooding, no one examines the land use decisions, but blames the SUV drivers.
Perfect.
After reading the above comments I am reminded of the old line familiar to people working in water management “there’s a reason why floodplains are called that.” I’m also reminded of the somewhat depressing remark often heard from the general public that goes something like “I’ve lived here for 15 years and I’ve never seen it that high before. There must be something unusual going on.”
And they never wonder why there aren’t any old homes in the neighborhood.
There are old homes in the “neighborhood” where I live.
Every couple of years I have a new owner (with a new mortgage) of an old (80 to 100-year) old farm house, that needs proof that they shouldn’t be required to pay flood insurance. Or they want to reconstruct the garage or add a bedroom….
Five or six pre-dam valley wide events with no impact to the homes…. Two or three 50 to 100 year events since the dam construction(s) and no impact to the homes. Yet they are designated as being in the flood plain. And if the owner spends somewhere between necessary $800 and $30,000 to document or remodel the flawed original assumptions then FEMA will allow them to stop paying $1,200 to $3,000 per year for the protection money (insurance).
There are more property owners getting screwed by the overzealous & bad planning which has a stated intent to protect from catastrophe, than there are property owners getting wet from flood events. (this is absolutely true in FEMA Region X)
I completely agree. The FEMA flood plain insurance is a revenue stream. If they reevaluate the flood plains and loose revenue from those no longer required to be insured they have to raise rates on people living in contemporary flood plains to levels that are not affordable. Of course, the flood insurance shouldn’t be cheap in a flood plain, thereby discouraging people to take up residence in a potential disaster area.
The use of terms like “200 year flood” is so often misunderstood that it’s continued use is mendacious. I actually means that in any given year there is an *estimated* chance of 1/200 (0.005) of such an event. Such event probabilities cannot be properly quantified without a record that includes a statistically significant number of such events. Since the record itself is barely 200 years old for the Missouri area, the data cannot provide a significant number of such events.
Error bars on sufficiently rare events (those obeying Poisson statistics) are typically about 100% of the mean.
The *estimate* is just that – a wild-ass guess – and means nothing.
Climate change….NOT. Dredging the ship’s channel has been going on for decades – wasting the deposits needed to keep up the protective delta past New Orleans by sending them into the Gulf. http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2011/05/river-will-win.html