AFTER THE FLOODS, GOVERNMENT LEAVES PEOPLE ALL WET

The devastating Flood of 1993 has long subsided, but the struggle continues in dealing with its aftermath. As feared, some elements in the federal government see the misery inflicted on those in the Missouri and Mississippi river floodplains as opportunities for policy revisions rather than personal relief. In addressing the issue of floodplain management, agencies in the U.S. bureaucracy are straying from their goal of balancing economic and environmental considerations, leaning precariously to the latter side. We suggest this is unsound policy, and we cheer those lawmakers who are holding those bureaucrats' feet to the fire.

Missourians in Congress, including Rep. Bill Emerson and Sen. Christopher Bond, are among those voicing concerns to the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, which is gathering public comment on a draft report. Among the things lawmakers point out is that environmental aims are given parallel status to flood protection and navigation in the evaluation of management of floodplains. In other words, the advocates for restoring some levee-protected and productive property to wetlands have gained a foothold in the federal policy-creating system.

This stands as particularly meaningful in this region since thousands of acres of good farmland, carrying a high commercial value because of levees, could find themselves at risk by a policy that gives none of those things preponderant weight. If a swamp is as good as a field of row crops, then federal policy has no incentive to safeguard productive land. Vested in management strategies this way, environmentalists will gain a valuable precedent in taking on other items on an extremist agenda ... all at the expense of the continuing suffering of some who earned a living in the lowlands.

Further, the draft report presents a shift in responsibility for flood control from the federal government to states and local communities. Obviously, this is a play toward the same end, with the environmental movement grasping the issue from a fiscal standpoint. Most rural communities caught in the flood have no chance to recover the losses they suffered, much less take on more of a role in flood protection that the federal government wants to abdicate. Since the money is so clearly not available through local governments, federal authorities can let some flood protection obligations glide away with a clear conscience.

Rep. Emerson and Sen. Bond also worry that the draft report gives too little attention to navigational concerns on the Missouri and Mississippi. If navigation becomes tougher, the course of getting goods to their markets becomes more expensive. If that happens, consumers will pick up the tab. And if prices of shipping along waterways rise, the transport of commerce along rivers will decline and that industry will suffer. None of this bodes well for Cape Girardeau or any other river community.

The federal government should not abandon concerns about the environment. However, human considerations should take priority in the development of strategies to manage floodplains. Initial indications are that policymakers, left unchecked, would put people second, using the latitude following last year's flood to impose their will. We wish Missouri lawmakers well in countering these opportunists.