Jump to content

Talk:Morganza Spillway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Letter the USACE sends to people below the spillway

[edit]

What's it actually say? Who gets it? Just the people in the Morganza floodway alone? Technically speaking, from the point the Morganza floodway and Atchafalaya Floodway join, what do you call the combined downstream area? And from that same spot, if you go UPSTREAM in the Atchafalaya Floodway, do those folks get the letter? After all they could get worse flooding if water from from the spillway backs up the Atchafalaya Floodway from the junction.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find a source for the article as to what do you call the combined downstream area. The other points you raise might be good for this or one of the related articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Corps flood ___MY___ farm??

[edit]

Media reports are rife with how much flooding will happen in the Atchafalaya Basin due to the opening but hardly anyone is daring to ask how much would be happening regardless? Let's think about two things: (1) geographic extent and (2) depth. The innundation maps seem to show almost identical extent. I confess I haven't looked at them really carefully. But it looks like there will be SOME flooding all over the place. So just thinking about geographic extent I fear the outcry against the corps for flooding "me" to save "them". On the other hand, there's depth. entering speculation here.... with the spillway opened, maybe what would have been "some" flooding becomes really really deep flooding. So buildings on piers that would have been above the water without the spillway open might now be done for. Crop lands that might have retained soil might suffer extreme erosion (or maybe more rich sedimentation?) Anyway, I hope someone finds some good analysis to share. If the governor of LA was saying a heap of acres downstream of the floodway were going to flood regardless, we need some perspective on just how much "worse" the situation is because the gates were opened. The corps will be on the short end of the stick for complaints.... but how much will the corps actions be responsible for the damage?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole lesser of two evils issue and liability issues might be better covered in 2011 Mississippi River floods. I doubt anyone ever produced a good analysis on the what if the gates were not opened in 1973. They blew up homes to set a fire break during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the main issue ended up being who was going to pay who. Jinda probably was presented with analysis on the options of opening or keeping the gates closes and those options would be part of the state governments papers. Perhaps someone can locate them for the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are important angles (less of two evils and liability) but that's not what I'm getting at. Instead, I'm asking about intellectual integrity.... let's pretend the flood was smaller in equal proportion to what comes down Morganza Spillway. A heap of the Atchafalaya basin is still going to flood even at that reduced volume. So.... when we say "The corps will deliberately flood the "Atchfalaya basin to save New Orleans" that's not 100% accurate and precise, because so much extra water is ALREADY coming down from Old River Control that the Atchfalaya basin is ALREADY flooding (or will). Its more accurate to say the corps will deliberately exacerbate that flooding by diverting from Morganza. But this nuance is lost in the media, so hotheads get to scream at the corps for every single solitary drop above flood stage in Atchfalaya basin. That's wrong, intellectually speaking, but is this an important distinction? Maybe, maybe not. What I would like to know is how much will it be exacerbated, vs the higher-than-normal flow from ORCS.Italic text NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There in lies the essence of Wikipedia. I agree it may make more sense to focus on how the corps will deliberately exacerbate that flooding by diverting from Morganza (and, of course, how it was the failure of the Government's dam, and not Hurricane Katrina, that resulted in the damage). However, Wikipedia's policies result in Wikipedia merely reflecting the media - "a representative survey of the relevant literature"[1] such that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."[2] What other organization do you know works so hard to produce information but informs everyone that "Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for any purpose"?[3] It is a hard thing for new editors to let the media tell the story within Wikipedia. However, that is what distinguishes Wikipedia from the rest of the Internet. As you note regarding alternate vs. exacerbate issue, "this nuance is lost in the media." That means it has no place in this Wikipedia article (unless you find a reliable source that discusses it). Once you embrace the concept of letting the relevant literature tell the story within Wikipedia even if you do not believe it to be true, you will begin to understand what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly look again. Please not that in the ARTICLE I had added a reference for the fact that the waters mingle. Fact-citation-article. Then, when I unsuccessfully sought references for the degree-of-exacerbation issue, I did _not_ post it in the article. Why not? Because as I said in this TALK thread, the nuance is (so far) lost in the media! Hopefully some reporters reading these pages for story ideas will run with this one.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First opening of gates (1973)

[edit]

This topic is deserving of a stand alone article or at least be part of a broader topic article such as 1973 Mississippi River floods. You might find some information here. For the broader article, I did find File:Morgan City Louisiana Aerial 1973 Flood.gif and File:Pierre Part Flood Mailbox 1973.gif. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those and more than a dozen other images are in Commons:Category:1973 Louisiana flood. I agree we could use an article on the subject. Infrogmation (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles created 1973 Mississippi River floods and Mississippi Flood of 1973 need to be merged. From what I can tell, year last and "Flood" singular and capitalized seems to be the standard, so I suggest that the latter be the destination page. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spillway/Floodway

[edit]

I noticed in this edit, User:Ebnpebnp says, "The floodway is the path the water takes, the spillway is the control structure". That sounds reasonable, but the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't seem to be stickin by that terminology, specifically referring to the control structure as the "Floodway" in the captions of their public photos, eg File:Forebay side of the Morganza Floodway.jpg, File:Gate of Morganza Floodway.jpg. Some of the South Louisiana media seems to be using the terms interchangeably as well. Any clarification? Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ebnpebnp is absolutely right. Maybe the Corps may be referring to the entire project or complex as floodway. "Morganza Spillway" is most common in searches as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Army Corps of Engineers isn't the arbitrator of the floodway/spillway terminology issue. They may be intentionally misusing the terms in an effort to try to limit their legal liability down the road (like they did by blaming the damage on Hurricane Katrina (act of God) rather than their failed dam (human design/construction defect). Who knows. A representative survey of the relevant literature can resolve the floodway/spillway terminology issue. However, given the volume of info on this topic, it will take a while before such an issue is resolved. Until then, I think we should continue to distinguish the two via the idea that "The floodway is the path the water takes, the spillway is the control structure" since it seems to make sense. Otherwise, the article will end up confusing everyone. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the interpretation that the Morganza Spillway is the structure and the Morganza Floodway is the flood plain. This is consistent with signs on structure[4] and Louisiana[5] and FEMA[6] press releases. US Government definitions of spillway and floodway (below) are also consistent with this interpretation. The recent edits to the article obscure these points.

NOAA:

Spillway - "In hydrologic terms, a structure over or through which excess or flood flows are discharged. If the flow is controlled by gates, it is a controlled spillway, if the elevation of the spillway crest is the only control, it is an uncontrolled spillway."[7]

Floodway "In hydrologic terms, (1) A part of the flood plain, otherwise leveed, reserved for emergency diversion of water during floods. A part of the flood plain which, to facilitate the passage of floodwater, is kept clear of encumbrances. (2) The channel of a river or stream and those parts of the flood plains adjoining the channel, which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the floodwater or floodflow of any river or stream."[8]

US Bureau of Reclamation:[9]

Spillway. "A structure that passes normal and/or flood flows in a manner that protects the structural integrity of the dam. Overflow channel of a dam or impoundment structure. A structure over or through which flow is discharged from a reservoir. If the rate of flow is controlled by mechanical means such as gates, it is considered a controlled spillway. If the geometry of the spillway is the only control, it is considered an uncontrolled spillway. Any passageway, channel, or structure designed to discharge surplus water from a reservoir. See auxiliary spillway, emergency spillway, service spillway, morning glory spillway, shaft spillway, and fuse plug spillway."

Designated floodway. "The channel of a water course and those portions of the adjoining flood plain required to provide for the passage of a selected flood with a small increase in flood stage above that of natural conditions."

USACE:[10]

spillway 1. "A feature in a dam allowing excess water to pass without overtopping the dam. Usually the spillway functions only in large floods. (USACE) 2. A structure over or through a dam for discharging flood flows."

floodway "A natural or constructed channel that conveys flood flows."

TVA:[11]

Spillway "A channel or passageway around or over a dam through which water is released, or “spilled,” past the dam without going through the turbines. Spillways at some dams are controlled with gates. At others, water flows over the top of the spillway automatically when the reservoir level gets to a certain elevation. A spillway is a safety valve for a dam; it can be used to discharge rainfall and runoff from major storms as necessary to maintain the reservoir below a predetermined maximum level."

--Kkmurray (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spillway consensus

[edit]

TeamNOLAcoe, your edits are not appropriate and I will revert the bulk of them. The structure is a spillway, and the recent change to the article's title, without discussion, is wrong. See the above comments by Kkmurray, and especially the sign adjacent to the road over which many people travel. 4. It is incontrovertible that the Corps calls it differently at times, but they often have internal reasons to use a particular nomenclature. So if the US Navy insists on calling their ship a boat, might we consider using their naming convention? Sure, but if the official name of something is a "United States Ship" and others call it a ship, we might as well use the names that consensus deems appropriate.

I propose that the consensus name for the structure is Morganza Spillway. This is the odd fact: all of the newspaper articles used a sources for this article use that name, and you have changed all mentions of this official name in the article except where the title of a Source uses this name.

Furthermore, TeamNOLAcoe, you are seemingly identifying yourself as some misguided member of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers. Shame on you for doing a disservice to this website by obfuscating the proper name.

And as icing on the cake, I had personally added a sourced piece of information regarding an embarrassing mistake made by the Corps. During the spillway opening, the estimated flow rate had been grossly underestimated by the Corps. I noticed that you, TeamNOLAcoe, removed any mention of the findings by U.S. Geologic Survey and replaced this with a figure not found in media reports of the day... 182,000 cu ft/s (5,200 m3/s). While I believe that this is likely to be a good figure, I will be that this number is from lengthy post-analysis by the Corps, and that you are privy to this data as a member of the Corps. Why no mention that the Corps originally estimated 114,000 cu ft/s (3,200 m3/s)? Why no analysis of the -37.4% error in your estimate? Why did you leave my source and change the article?

Here is the source for the Corps' error: http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/news/view.asp?ID=482 and a quote:

Beginning on May 18th, discharge measurements were taken onsite by our federal partners at United States Geological Survey (USGS) to validate the computed measurements. A significant difference in the computed and measured discharge rates was discovered. After a review of this difference, it was determined that the computed flow understated the discharge from the Morganza Floodway.

“Thanks to our strong partnership with the USGS, we have better tools to make decisions based on the best science and modeling efforts available,” says Ken Holder, Chief, Public Affairs Office. [...]

Working closely with our partners at USGS, we have determined the Morganza Floodway was discharging at a rate of 172,000 CFS with 17 bays open, well below our initial estimates of 300,000 CFS, instead of the reported 114,000 CFS. This discharge of 172,000 CFS is well within the water control plan for the structure, which is designed for a 600,000 CFS capacity. The discharge measurement has no effect on gate operations at the Morganza Floodway.

I hope you are not an engineer or an official at NOLA COE. I hope you are the janitor or something. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Morganza Spillway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morganza Spillway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morganza Spillway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morganza_Spillway&oldid=1204071201"