Disclaimer: I have been studying the damming of the Missouri River now for about four years. My M.A. thesis has primarily been about the South Dakota's role in damming Missouri River from 1915 to 1950. That is the perspective that I bring to this article.
As I was reading Mount Blogmore blog posting today. It brought to mind some interesting points think about this situation such as; are where does the water go from the Missouri, why were the dams built in the first place, and would the flooding be even worse without the current infrastructure? I hope to answer these questions below.
Where does all the water go? All the water from the Missouri travels to the Mississippi River. Right now the Mississippi is at record stages any more water now or earlier would have increased the flooding on the Mississippi, and the Corps are using plans and safeguards developed after the 1927 to combat that flood. You can wish that they did something, but suffering was either going to be felt here or down river. I believe that the Corps were trying to ease pain down river, and did not intentionally do this.
This flood reminds me of the flood of 1943 and 1952. The prevailing wisdom at that time was to build high head dams to serve multiple purposes such as; flood control, irrigation, navigation, and hydroelectric power. The damages caused by the 1943 and 1952 floods inundated the same area with about 4 feet of water before the dams. Corps of Engineers officials had testified in Congress and had made statements that flood of 1952 would have been prevented with the high head dams. The Oahe dam is a high head dam.
Which brings me to my final point. The Missouri is meandering river. It moves around and is fairly uncontrollable and the flooding would have been worse without the current infrastructure. If you want to put the blame on Corps for the possible flooding of Pierre and Ft. Pierre, we also have to blame ourselves for some of the decisions we have made as South Dakotans.
To conclude the blog post my thoughts are with the people of Pierre and Ft. Pierre and wish them luck on their struggle.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Representative Noem has a Challenger for 2012 Three Months into Her First Term
A couple days ago Minnehaha County Commissioner Jeff Barth announced that he is considering a run against Representative Kristi Noem for South Dakota's lone Congressional Seat. This announcement came on Monday and was aired on KOTA 1380am. More information came on Tuesday in a Johnathan Ellis article in the Argus Leader. From the Ellis article we learn that Barth has not announced official candidacy, but has started the process for a possible run. This includes talking to Democratic party members in Washington D.C. and in South Dakota. Ben Nesselhuf, South Dakota Democratic Party Chairman, said that he is not discouraging anyone from looking at the possibility of running against Representative Noem.
Barth stated in the Argus article was that he would pull his name out of contention if former Rep. Herseth-Sandlin decides to run. Herseth-Sandlin at a speech at South Dakota State University this week did not rule out a possible run in 2012. The idea of Herseth-Sandlin running for her old seat would make an interesting rematch in 2012.
Now if Herseth-Sandlin decides to run in 2012 it is highly possible that she will not have a primary for the nomination, unless there is a fringe candidate. The logic behind this argument is that in 2010 when Rapid City Doctor Kevin Weiland did not primary Herseth-Sandlin after Weiland said he would after her vote on current Health Care Law. He received 3834 petition signatures to put his name on the ballot, but then decided not to run against Herseth-Sandlin. That move shows that Weiland would probably not primary Herseth-Sandlin in 2012 if she runs. With Barth saying that he will not primary Herseth-Sandlin, if she runs again, shows that if Herseth-Sandlin really wanted to challenge Rep. Noem it would be possible.
Now if Herseth-Sandlin decides not to run, the landscape in the South Dakota Democratic Congressional primary could be rather interesting. Now we know that Jeff Barth is hypothetically running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Rep. Noem, but will someone primary Barth? Will the Weiland Wildcats comeback again to convince Dr. Weiland to run for the congressional seat again? Could we see an East vs. West primary with Barth vs. Weiland for the Democratic nomination? It will take more time, but one thing we do know is that Noem will not be running unopposed 2012. More to come with this story.
Barth stated in the Argus article was that he would pull his name out of contention if former Rep. Herseth-Sandlin decides to run. Herseth-Sandlin at a speech at South Dakota State University this week did not rule out a possible run in 2012. The idea of Herseth-Sandlin running for her old seat would make an interesting rematch in 2012.
Now if Herseth-Sandlin decides to run in 2012 it is highly possible that she will not have a primary for the nomination, unless there is a fringe candidate. The logic behind this argument is that in 2010 when Rapid City Doctor Kevin Weiland did not primary Herseth-Sandlin after Weiland said he would after her vote on current Health Care Law. He received 3834 petition signatures to put his name on the ballot, but then decided not to run against Herseth-Sandlin. That move shows that Weiland would probably not primary Herseth-Sandlin in 2012 if she runs. With Barth saying that he will not primary Herseth-Sandlin, if she runs again, shows that if Herseth-Sandlin really wanted to challenge Rep. Noem it would be possible.
Now if Herseth-Sandlin decides not to run, the landscape in the South Dakota Democratic Congressional primary could be rather interesting. Now we know that Jeff Barth is hypothetically running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Rep. Noem, but will someone primary Barth? Will the Weiland Wildcats comeback again to convince Dr. Weiland to run for the congressional seat again? Could we see an East vs. West primary with Barth vs. Weiland for the Democratic nomination? It will take more time, but one thing we do know is that Noem will not be running unopposed 2012. More to come with this story.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
South Dakota Public Broadcasting Funding is Cut by 16 Percent
Yesterday the Associated Press reported that South Dakota Public Broadcasting will be cut 16 percent by July 1st. Executive Director Julie Andersen could not divulge anymore information because staff have not been fully informed on the cuts. This budget cut of (800,000 dollars)16 percent though, will cause the termination of 7 staff members. Andersen says that local television programming will be cut, the radio schedule will change, and that late night educational programming will be eliminated. When questioned about this 16 percent cut, Governor Dennis Daugaurd stated that, "the budget cut is middle ground between those who like public broadcasting and those who don't."
Now a 16 percent cut is a huge cut. This cut is six percent higher than the average 10 percent cuts for all other agencies except education. The governor though calls 16 percent cut is middle ground? Middle ground would be a 10 percent cut,the cut that most agencies reluctantly took. The state legislature took advantage of Republican party sentiment toward the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. This is not a budget matter, it is a way to attack media source that covers the entire state. If you remember, that South Dakota Public Broadcasting is the only place that provides adequate coverage of the State Legislature in their reporting on television with Statehouse, and radio reports on South Dakota Public Radio. No other media source covers state affairs like South Dakota Public Broadcasting. In defense of the legislature, Larry Tideman Senator from Brookings said that, Public Broadcasting did not fight to keep their funding. The problem with this type of argument is that everyone received a cut. For Public Broadcasting to fight for their budget, they would have to show that they were more important than Education and Medicare. It would be very difficult to for any state organization to deem themselves more important than Education. Even though their are more important items to fund than Public Broadcasting, but still a cut their in funding will hurt the overall operation of South Dakota Public Broadcasting.
Andersen made the comment that local television programming will be cut to compensate the budget reduction. Could it be possible that there would be less media over site of State Politicians due to the fact that South Dakota Public Broadcasting might not be adequately able to fact check, and provide comprehensive reporting on state events? Will the quality of the High school State Basketball Tournaments fall back to only airing one tournament instead of all three? Will shows like Dakota Focus, On Call, No Cover No Minimum, and Nature Adventures will they be able stay on television? We do know that some of the late night educational programming meant for teachers to use in classrooms will no longer be shown for the benefit of South Dakota students. The problem with the cuts and possible cuts is that we as South Dakotans will suffer. Local programming that is available now will not be able to evolve into better programming, or possibly have the ability to come back after being in absence. Cutting valuable programming is never good for a society.
South Dakota Public Broadcasting is a very important part of South Dakota society and that the impact of cuts to their budget should have been considered during the budget process. I hope that South Dakotans will help South Dakota Public Broadcasting close their funding gap, and help provide the funds necessary for quality programming for South Dakota.
Now a 16 percent cut is a huge cut. This cut is six percent higher than the average 10 percent cuts for all other agencies except education. The governor though calls 16 percent cut is middle ground? Middle ground would be a 10 percent cut,the cut that most agencies reluctantly took. The state legislature took advantage of Republican party sentiment toward the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. This is not a budget matter, it is a way to attack media source that covers the entire state. If you remember, that South Dakota Public Broadcasting is the only place that provides adequate coverage of the State Legislature in their reporting on television with Statehouse, and radio reports on South Dakota Public Radio. No other media source covers state affairs like South Dakota Public Broadcasting. In defense of the legislature, Larry Tideman Senator from Brookings said that, Public Broadcasting did not fight to keep their funding. The problem with this type of argument is that everyone received a cut. For Public Broadcasting to fight for their budget, they would have to show that they were more important than Education and Medicare. It would be very difficult to for any state organization to deem themselves more important than Education. Even though their are more important items to fund than Public Broadcasting, but still a cut their in funding will hurt the overall operation of South Dakota Public Broadcasting.
Andersen made the comment that local television programming will be cut to compensate the budget reduction. Could it be possible that there would be less media over site of State Politicians due to the fact that South Dakota Public Broadcasting might not be adequately able to fact check, and provide comprehensive reporting on state events? Will the quality of the High school State Basketball Tournaments fall back to only airing one tournament instead of all three? Will shows like Dakota Focus, On Call, No Cover No Minimum, and Nature Adventures will they be able stay on television? We do know that some of the late night educational programming meant for teachers to use in classrooms will no longer be shown for the benefit of South Dakota students. The problem with the cuts and possible cuts is that we as South Dakotans will suffer. Local programming that is available now will not be able to evolve into better programming, or possibly have the ability to come back after being in absence. Cutting valuable programming is never good for a society.
South Dakota Public Broadcasting is a very important part of South Dakota society and that the impact of cuts to their budget should have been considered during the budget process. I hope that South Dakotans will help South Dakota Public Broadcasting close their funding gap, and help provide the funds necessary for quality programming for South Dakota.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Thune Will Not Run For President
Senator John Thune off of his website announced that he will not be running for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination. On his website Senator Thune states that," I feel that I am best positioned to fight for America’s future here in the trenches of the United States Senate." Senator Thune is the first possible Republican presidential candidate to announce that he will not run for President. Thune's showings in Presidential Straw Polls in New Hampshire and at CPAC were dismal. In the ABC New Hampshire straw poll Thune received zero percent of the votes, and at CPAC he only received two percent of the votes. The argument can be made that Thune's notoriety in the Republican Party is unknown to most conservatives. In comparison, conservative favorite Ron Paul won both polls with about one-third of the vote. The political climate shows that this is not the time for Senator Thune to run. For Senator Thune to have a chance at the nomination he needs to gain more exposure and needs to bring more ideas to the table. Maybe Senator Thune will be ready next Presidential Cycle?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Point of The Angry River Rat
The Angry River Rat is a blog about South Dakota Politics from a liberal and youth prospective. We the youth of South Dakota, instead of leaving our lovely state, we are going to add to the commentary. We are going to fight for many items especially Education. We will bring up topics that range from national issues that affect South Dakotans especially the youth. It is our goal to bring ideas to the forefront and help expand the conversation. We are going to call it how we see it, our goal is to inform and not create propaganda. We will base our posts on facts and evidence. Our evidence might not be South Dakota specific, but we will always show our train of thought. Our goal is not a change of power, but in a change discussion and bring broader ideas to the public. I hope you enjoy this blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)