Every Spring it's the same thing. Some part of our country is faced with flooding. Usually, it's the area around the Mississippi. This year, it's the Red River area, particularly Fargo, ND.
Every year I ask the same question, but have never gotten an adequate answer except that it would too expensive. In the long run, would it be more expensive than losing so many homes, relocating families and rescuing those who didn't have time or means to evacuate the area?
This is my plan. Maybe the Army Corps of Engineers could work on it. I propose a series of underground pipelines from the offending rivers. These pipelines could be kept shut off until there is a threat of flood. The lines could be opened, relieving the water in the river. Additionally, these pipelines could be directed to areas of the country that are subject to droughts. Once these lines were opened, water could flow to the farms in the drought areas. We would be saving cities along the rivers and providing much needed water to towns in drought areas.
I know this would be expensive, but wouldn't it create many jobs thus stimulating the economy and reducing the unemployment rate for construction workers, engineers, etc. There also would be a need for people to maintain these pipelines, giving long term employment, not just a one time job. It would also avoid the trauma of packing up your family and leaving your home and business to the forces of nature.