Follow the Money Down the Missouri River: A Billions-Dollar Gamble on Navigability
The Mississippi River has long been a lifeline for American commerce, with its navigable waters stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes. But what about the Missouri River, which also played a crucial role in the country's economic development? A recent examination of the river reveals that billions of dollars have been invested in making it more navigable, yet grain shipments on the river dwindle to near nothing.
A key question is why topography, a major obstacle for the Missouri River, was ignored when designing its infrastructure. The river's current is much faster and steeper than the Mississippi, with a cumulative lift of 26 locks and dams equivalent to a stair-step of flat lakes joined by locks. This makes it difficult to build structures that anchor the main channel in place and deepen it enough for barges.
The solution proposed is the construction of "wing dams," which are visible from the house where aviator Amelia Earhart was born. These dams are constructed of pilings driven into the riverbed with rock piled on either side, and stretch out for miles along the Missouri River. However, even these measures have not proven effective in increasing barge cargo.
According to recent statistics, only a handful of barges per year travel downriver or carry grain upriver. The majority are dominated by sand and gravel carried short distances for local use. This has led some to question whether the billions spent on making the Missouri River more navigable was a worthwhile investment.
The U.S. Treasury's outlay is not an isolated incident, however. Other government-funded projects have also met with skepticism. For example, deepening harbors to accommodate larger ships has proven costly and underutilized. The original Panama Canal locks accommodated vessels up to 40 feet in draft, but new tankers and bulk carriers require much deeper water.
In the end, it seems that economic decisions are often driven by politics rather than practical considerations. Cities and ports clamor for international airport status or deeper harbors, even if they may not be used extensively. The result is a series of expensive infrastructure projects with uncertain payoffs.
As economist Edward Lotterman notes, it's essential to take a closer look at the economic returns on these investments before proceeding with costly upgrades. Otherwise, we risk following a "billions-dollar gamble" that fails to deliver concrete benefits for the nation's economy and taxpayers.
The Mississippi River has long been a lifeline for American commerce, with its navigable waters stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes. But what about the Missouri River, which also played a crucial role in the country's economic development? A recent examination of the river reveals that billions of dollars have been invested in making it more navigable, yet grain shipments on the river dwindle to near nothing.
A key question is why topography, a major obstacle for the Missouri River, was ignored when designing its infrastructure. The river's current is much faster and steeper than the Mississippi, with a cumulative lift of 26 locks and dams equivalent to a stair-step of flat lakes joined by locks. This makes it difficult to build structures that anchor the main channel in place and deepen it enough for barges.
The solution proposed is the construction of "wing dams," which are visible from the house where aviator Amelia Earhart was born. These dams are constructed of pilings driven into the riverbed with rock piled on either side, and stretch out for miles along the Missouri River. However, even these measures have not proven effective in increasing barge cargo.
According to recent statistics, only a handful of barges per year travel downriver or carry grain upriver. The majority are dominated by sand and gravel carried short distances for local use. This has led some to question whether the billions spent on making the Missouri River more navigable was a worthwhile investment.
The U.S. Treasury's outlay is not an isolated incident, however. Other government-funded projects have also met with skepticism. For example, deepening harbors to accommodate larger ships has proven costly and underutilized. The original Panama Canal locks accommodated vessels up to 40 feet in draft, but new tankers and bulk carriers require much deeper water.
In the end, it seems that economic decisions are often driven by politics rather than practical considerations. Cities and ports clamor for international airport status or deeper harbors, even if they may not be used extensively. The result is a series of expensive infrastructure projects with uncertain payoffs.
As economist Edward Lotterman notes, it's essential to take a closer look at the economic returns on these investments before proceeding with costly upgrades. Otherwise, we risk following a "billions-dollar gamble" that fails to deliver concrete benefits for the nation's economy and taxpayers.
. I mean, grain shipments are basically non-existent now 
. It's like they were trying to make a massive investment without doing their research first 
. And those wing dams? Not exactly effective 
. But you know what is getting the hype? The Panama Canal expansion 
. Maybe we should focus on upgrading that instead of pouring money into rivers that aren't even being used for cargo 
. I mean, someone's gotta take a closer look at these economic decisions and make sure they're not just a bunch of unnecessary spending 
i mean i get it we need infrastructure but $billions shouldnt be just thrown around w/o checking if its worth it 
its like theyre chasing after international airport status or deeper harbors instead of thinking about whats really gonna benefit the country. wing dams r cool and all but clearly not working lol 
. And still, grain shipments are barely happening. It's like, what's the point? 
. I mean, we all love a good infrastructure upgrade, but when do they actually get used? 
Cities and ports want deeper harbors and better airports, but is it really worth the cost? 
. We can't just keep throwing money at problems without thinking about the returns 
. Otherwise, we're just following that "billions-dollar gamble" phrase and hoping for the best 
. It's definitely a creative solution, but at what cost? 
. Anyways, I guess we'll just have to keep an eye on how this whole thing plays out and see if it's worth the investment 
.
. I mean, who really uses these old grain ships anymore? It's all about those fancy new tankers and bulk carriers now 
. But do we have the space for them? Like, no one actually told us it was going to get that expensive 
.