Some people following the Trinity toll road debate were alarmed at last Sunday’s DMN editorial, which sent a mixed message when it came to the distinction between a floodway and a floodplain. I mentioned it briefly in my first NTTA story, Jim Schutze had a post on Unfair Park and Sharon Boyd also weighed in.

This is important is because a floodway is commonly defined as “a channel for an overflow of water caused by flooding.” A floodplain, which also can be spelled flood plain, is defined as “level land along the course of a river formed by the deposition of sediment during periodic floods.”

My main issue is the part of the editorial that referenced Angela Hunt’s claim that building a road within a floodway has never been done before, and then it was followed up with a statement from the Corps about floodplains. Here is the excerpt.

“Ms. Hunt's side has said that building a road within a floodway is unheard of. Apparently, sending a man to Mars via slingshot would be more feasible.

But Corps officials tell a much different story.

Building within a flood plain is not unusual, they told The Dallas Morning News.”

I asked Colleen McCain Nelson, who wrote the piece, to help me understand her argument with such an obvious difference between a floodway and a floodplain. She said the editorial board recently had a long conversation with Corps officials about the Trinity Project. Nelson said the Corps told them that it didn't consider this project to be that unusual because so much building has occurred in floodplains.

“When we pressed them [Corps officials] on the question of whether roads have been built in floodways, they said they weren't sure, but added that they didn't consider that to be a key question,” Nelson said. “They said regardless of whether a similar project has been completed, this proposal just comes down to engineering and flood protection. They emphasized that regardless of whether there's a road or not, we will have the same level of flood protection.”

Nelson said the board wanted to make the point that the Corps was neither a political pawn nor the mayor's political ally, as has been suggested.

“The Corps didn't give us all the answers that we were looking for, but they made clear that their approach is all about engineering and not at all related to the politics of this project,” Nelson said. “They're simply trying to deliver the project that the city wants. Until now, that included a toll road. Come Nov. 6, it may not.”

Angela Hunt said the U.S. Corps of Engineers gets its funding from Washington, D.C., and there is evidence of a situation in New Orleans where the Corps perhaps made decisions based on political expediency rather than safety.

“I certainly hope that’s not the case here. I think all of us do, but to pretend that any facet of our government is removed from political influence is naïve,” Hunt said. “I don’t think it can be overstated that it’s significant that no one has built a major road in a floodway.”

In response to Hunt’s comments, Nelson said she would not suggest that the Corps or any agency is infallible. She said Corps engineers have shown a willingness to reject plans that simply are unworkable or unsafe, such as vetoing the city’s proposals to build a road on top of or in the side of the levees.

“The Corps' goal is to find engineering solutions for the city's plans. And if the city suggests a design that compromises flood protection, the Corps has pledged to just say no,” Nelson said. “When it comes to questions of engineering, I'm not willing to substitute my judgment or a politician's for the Corps' expertise.”

While I appreciate Nelson’s responses, it doesn’t do much to explain why she chose to debunk Hunt’s argument with a statement that doesn’t relate to Hunt’s claim. If I said strawberries are red and someone attempted to disprove it by holding up an orange, it would be the same flawed argument. They aren’t the same fruit just as floodways and floodplains aren’t the same thing.

Nelson admitted that the Corps wasn’t sure about any other roads built in a floodway and the officials they spoke with didn’t give them all the answers they were looking for. However, this information didn’t make it into the story.

Hunt says no road like this has ever been built in a floodway. The editorial board met with officials from the Corps and they couldn’t dispute that claim, yet the editorial is written as though they have totally dismissed it, saying, “Corps officials tell a much different story.” No, they didn’t tell a much different story. They couldn’t name a road like this build in a floodway after being “pressed” by the board.

At the end of the editorial, Nelson wrote, “With so many moving parts in this $1 billion project, the Corps simply is focused on designing solutions. Ms. Hunt's camp is busy crafting conspiracy theories.”

Conspiracy theories? Perhaps the editorial board should take a trip to New Orleans and ask around to find out if Hunt’s thoughts about the Corps are a conspiracy. And the next time they want to make someone look crazy by making it sound like they want to send someone to Mars in a slingshot, they should find someone able to actually disprove their statement.

Most importantly, when the Corps can’t give answers to questions, that information should be included because keeping it out leaves people to craft conspiracy theories of their own about The DMN.

Comments (10)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment