Ps Form 3801: Fill & Download for Free

Simply put, the sustained rate of loss of wetlands that has occurred and continues to occur (albeit more slowly) throughout the Mississippi River Basin has directly added to the severity of flooding along the southern parts of the River. Those wetlands were recently deemed essential to the prevention of flooding along the Mississippi River. That means the remaining wetlands need preservation or else future flooding will be worse. Meanwhile, the current scale of flooding along the River is irreducible because, to do so, the wetlands that have been replaced with agricultural land and urban land cover would need to beGreat Mississippi River Flood, Illinois, 1927Great Mississippi River Flood, Kaskaskia, Illinois, 1993How did we get here?Truthfully, a lot of teamwork went into draining northern Indiana's wetlands and replacing them with very fertile farmland, as it is used today. That level of concerted teamwork will figure largely in the rest of this answer as I will be focusing on the almost unprecedented aggregation of social activity that occurred across multiple spatial scales.Notably, the spatial aspect to the Mississippi flooding is really quite important because the geography is critical to understanding how to prevent rivers from flooding towns.So here goes: At one time, in the distant past, an extensive system of wetlands existed around and amongst the Great Lakes that was unimaginably large (see map, below). Basically, the entire country east of the Rocky Mountains drains into the Mississippi River. Yet, the difference between today's network of wetlands and that of the 1780s is dramatic (only Alaska and North Dakota remain undisturbed).U.S. Distribution of Wetlands, 1780 - 1980So what happened?The spread of agriculture in the Midwest, as well as the construction of great cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland, and Detroit, all required dry land. That the land was currently supporting wetlands merely meant that it required draining.So you see, this is a sociospatial answer because it highlights the intersection of the American economy, the American environment, and American society in that intra- and inter-cooperation between jurisdictions (towns, cities, regions, states, countries) was needed for such a mind-bending undertaking to occur. And, I only say that because cooperation at the same scale is needed if the Mississippi is ever going to stop flooding today's American towns and cities in so deleterious a fashion.US Flood Risk, 2010In other words, the restoration and preservation of the North American network of wetlands will require nothing less than the reshaping of international, national, state, regional, county, and city commerce, with ramifications extending into the deepest and least populated of both the U. S. and Canadian hinterlands. That is, of course, assuming we truly want to limit flooding within the Mississippi River Valley.Seriously?! Is all that really necessary?Like I said, the above scenario is only necessary if you want to limit flooding in the Mississippi River Valley.Wetlands tend to soak up a lot rain and snow before it can flow, or melt, into the rivers all at once. So, wetlands don't prevent rivers from flowing; they just slow them down and limit their capacity to flood.This fact is important because flooding gets worse by duration just as much by volume. So, given an absence of wetlands and a whole slew of rain events, or a whole slew of snow events that all melt at once, that's going to cause a more sustained flood for you unless there is a wetland between the headwaters and you or, unless the headwaters are actually a system of wetlands!But what are wetlands really? Glad you asked...WetlandWetlands are so named because they are covered in water for part of the year and, in "In the United States Code (16 U.S.C., Section 3801(a)(18)), the term wetland is defined "as land that (A) has a predominance of hydric soils, (B) is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions and C) under normal circumstances supports a prevalence of such vegetation."[en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland]Meanwhile, "a hydric soil is defined by federal law to mean "soil that, in its undrained condition, is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during a growing season to develop an anerobic condition that supports the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation." [en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydric_soil]Finally, "aquatic plants are plants that have adapted to living in aquatic environments (saltwater or freshwater). They are also referred to as hydrophytes or macrophytes."[en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrophytes]So, the United States Congress has seen fit to define wetlands as "inundated, saturated, or flooded" with water. But, Congress also added that, in order for hydric soil to be classified as a wetland, it must remain wet enough to support the lifecycles of aquatic plants under normal conditions. Thus, there's a slight but meaningful difference between hydric soils and wetlands because, when a wetland is drained the hydric soil is still there but it can't develop an anaerobic environment because it has been dried out. And aquatic plants can only live in hydric soil that is saturated and forms an anaerobic environment. That's biology and that makes this a biospatial answer too.Now then, it turns out that wetland biology and flooding have a lot to do with each other, as I have done my best to explain above. But, is there truly a correlation between (a) changes in the percent coverage of wetlands and spatial distribution of wetlands in the US and (b) an increase in flooding in the US?Yes and, in this case, there is also causation.The reduction of wetlands has led to an increase of flooding but, it would not be very scientific of me to entirely discount the fractional effects of urbanization, channelization, and other forms of development on total flooding incidence. Therefore, I will now state that the total increase in flooding is not entirely due to a reduction of wetlands.That said, I will return the reader's attention to the sociospatial drivers that led to the reduction of biospatial protection against flooding that aquatic plant biomass had previously rendered.Agrultural Drainage TileHuman teamwork has destroyed wetlands. We drain hydric soils that can soak up water so that we can build cities with streets, parking lots, houses, factories, and offices. By doing this, we are reducing the extent of our permeable wetlands and increasing the impermeable surface coverage. It's not always a permanent change.But, over time, disruption to the pore sizes and particle sizes that characterize hydric soils can become permanent. That means that, even if we tried to restore it by tearing up asphalt, concrete, and agricultural drainage tile, the wetlands' ability to soak up water might be irreparably damaged. If that occurs, it will never be able to soak up rain and release it slowly downstream.Also, non-hydric soils also play a role in curtailing floods but the green spaces are also losing coverage and, without the opportunity to soak into the ground, the rain or snowmelt that precipitates throughout US cities will end up rushing into the urban streams and rivers and those streams and rivers will rush right over their stream- and river-banks and come right into our living rooms.SourceTherefore, in order to prevent our cities (and our living rooms) from flooding, we must all work in concert with our upstream and downstream neighbors just like the farmers from Indiana did when they drained the hydric soils and converted the wetlands into cropland.But, instead of transforming wetlands into cropland over the course of two centuries, we should instead focus on preserving what remaining wetlands we have by modifying our towns, cities, regions, states, and countries policies, regulations, and laws to protect wetlands.Wetlands are the front line of defense against floods and we have not been treating them with the respect they deserve.PS. I am not forgetting about all the other plant and animal species that depend on wetlands for their existence. They are another reason to halt the destruction of wetlands.