Bill Mc – I am not surprised to your read of the book. Popular nonetheless – it is the literary work of a journalist – not the work of scientific investigations. Apart from reading reviews and commentaries of the Upholt book – I haven't read it. And I do not have first-hand experience of the Mississippi River hydraulics and processes like you do.
My interest in large rivers comes from my works in Ganges-Brahmaputra System. Some of the experiences are in: Some aspects of turbulent flow structure in large alluvial rivers and in An Alluvial River's Sedimentary Functions – Building Delta and Floodplain.
As I have learned from yours, it prompted me to look into other sources on the topic.
Washington Post's Ralph Eubanks wrote . . . Rather than thinking of the river as something to be controlled, with man playing God, Upholt wants us to see the river as a deity. "If my time on the river has convinced me of one thing, it's that we do not make good gods. The river is the true god here," albeit an unappeasable one. As Upholt explains further: "The fight along the Mississippi River can't be against nature, since it's impossible to say what 'nature' is here. It's always a fight among humans, people who can't agree what kind of world they want to build." . . .
Some other sources – many know:
NOAA NWS Lower Mississippi Flood History – New Orleans/Baton Rouge chronicles floods from 1543 – Present.
As outlined in the NOAA NWS Flood History of Mississippi . . . The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 was the most destructive flood in United States history . . . Out of this catastrophic flood grew the Flood Control of 1928, which gave the federal government authority over the containment of the Mississippi River. This led to the eventual creation of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T) . . .
Engineers are often challenged by non-engineers such as the Father of American Literature, Mark Twain (1835 -1910) "The Mississippi River will always have its own way; no engineering skill can persuade it to do otherwise…" and "Ten thousand River Commissions . . . cannot tame that lawless stream . . . cannot say to it , "Go here," or "Go there," and make it obey"- quotes as in USGS Science for a Changing World, and in University of Missouri-Rolla slide deck Evolution of the Levee System Along the Lower Mississippi River, respectively.
Is Mississippi River really untameable? Most engineers like USACE would say 'no'. But, popular book authors in their literary works, like Mark Twain, JM Barry (Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America), and Boyce Upholt – see the river – something more than a river – something of a nation's identity, culture and emotional wellbeing. They, including some federal and local orgs like USGS and universities – do not see eye-to-eye to the logic of most engineering interventions. They consider such interventions as something imposed – as attempts to change the character of a river – to control and tame the soul of a vast water system called the Mississippi River.
Interestingly, in modern times, these popular views are shaping the management philosophy of many water systems around the world. When I was studying in Delft – we had study tours with professors showing how the lower Rhine-Meuse system was engineered – let's say controlled to the highest degree. A decade later, when I was there to finalize project reports with colleagues – I was told the opposite. It was all about restoration and rehabilitation projects – in attempts to give back the river its former self of river-floodplain composite – to address environmental concerns and make space for other creatures who call the system their home. It's a modern trend everywhere.
In the end, convergence of diverse views must happen for the greater good – aiming to balance things. Development not at the cost of everything else – rather with a spirit of accommodation in order to minimize adverse consequences, both short and long terms. This reminds me of Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955), who once wrote: All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.
--------------------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D
Website Links and Profile
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-08-2025 03:24 PM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Over-engineered Mississippi River?
I have now read Boyce Upholt's book, The Great River. He successfully engages the reader in the Mississippi River's dynamic history; however, I also found much to dislike in this book. Upholt's perspective reveals itself early – on page 10 he says, "The river we've built is coming apart." I disagree.
The author describes the river beautifully and provides a good history of human interactions with it. He speaks admiringly of the indigenous people who occupied the river basin before Europeans came and of houseboat-dwelling Acadians in the Atchafalaya swamps. He clearly favors a Walden Pond type subsistence existence of a few hardy souls living in a natural setting, free of substantial engineering works. Those sentiments are less useful in a nation of 350 million people needing food, shelter, and jobs.
He expresses his disdain for engineers, and especially the Army Corps of Engineers, early and often. Again on page 10, he describes their efforts as "… river building mania." With one exception, Upholt forgets that the Corps doesn't decide what to build. The Corps advises within the limits of law and policy; Congress and the President decide with pressure from lobbyists and the public. Rules established by the Bureau of the Budget (now Office of Management and Budget) determine how the Corps' advice must be formulated. So when Upholt says, "But the Corps will not foot the bill to move a levee …" he ignores the fact that it's Cogress that prevents the funding, not the Corps.
In the 1950s and 60s the Corps advocated for conserving natural resources in public works projects but was instructed to stay in its lane – navigation and flood control. Swelling environmental consciousness across the USA in the 1970's prompted President Carter to allow the Corps to add a policy that its projects should minimize or eliminate adverse effects to the environment if "economically feasible." Not until 2017 was the Corps allowed to add sustainability to its operating principles. Blaming the Corps ignores the fact that the President and Congress set the policies and decide which projects the Corps builds.
Much of The Great River documents the growth of river science and engineering knowledge through lessons learned from previous successes and failures. That in itself is a success story but Upholt deploys it in a Monday morning quarterback sense, using practice changes to characterize earlier efforts as wrongheaded. For example, referring to Fisk's seminal report, he says, "Only in 1941, … did the Army assign a geologist the task of piecing together the alluvial chronicles" of the Mississippi River. Fisk's groundbreaking river geomorphology was a new, relatively untested science in 1941, not a belated application of standard techniques as, "Only in 1941," suggests.
He supports his starting premise that the river is "coming apart" by citing continuous changes in the Mississippi's behavior and corresponding adaptations of engineering responses as signs of failure, signs of things falling apart. They are not. Anyone who understands rivers knows that they evolve in response to changing climatic conditions, landscape conditions, geologic frameworks, and yes, engineering works. The river has always changed and will keep on changing. We must keep on learning and applying that learning to live successfully with the great river.
------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
Original Message:
Sent: 06-12-2025 05:00 PM
From: Dilip Barua
Subject: Over-engineered Mississippi River?
There is a SOURCE Article published on its June 12th issue – that reviewed the 2024 The Great River … book by Boyce Upholt. We have discussed different aspects of the Mississippi River engineering management issues before – this article rejuvenates them again.
It questions to extent engineering interventions should go encroaching Nature's way of doing things. It points finger to the judgments of all – that propose one project after another. How careful are the cost-benefit-impact analyses of projects – for that matter of all sorts of feasibility studies – both short and long-term? Does the article say what it is?
Dilip
---------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D
Website Links and Profile