Dredging might have helped this week’s flood a little, but please don’t think of dredging as the solution to all flooding problems.
A graph of the flow (on right) and depth (on left) data for the Blanchard River can be found at http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php? wfo=cle&gage=fdyo1. Click on tabular data to see the actual numbers.
The river crested at 15.37 feet at 3:30 a.m. Sunday (the table uses UST, which is Greenwich Mean Time, five hours ahead of EST) with a flow of 8,880 cubic feet per second (cfs).
At 10:37 a.m. on Dec. 21, the river was one foot below flood stage (10 feet) with a flow of 3,720 cfs. It reached flood stage (11 feet) at 12:05 a.m. Dec. 22 at a flow of 4,360 cfs.
If you dredged out enough material to bring the river level back to one foot below flow stage, you would have 640 cfs extra capacity in the river.
Reducing the 8,880 cfs by 640 cfs leaves 8,240 cfs. A flow rate of 8,240 cfs is equivalent to a depth of 14.98 feet.
The one foot of dredging saves .39 foot (4-3/4 inches) of the 4.37 feet of flooding for a flood like the one we’re having now.
It would only save about an inch for bigger floods like the ones in 2007 and 2009. It would save close to one foot for the little floods that crest only about a foot above flood stage. They would just about stay within the banks of the river.
Please go to the website and look at the numbers and do the math yourself.
If preventing frequent small floods from forming at all, reducing medium every-five-year floods by a few inches, but doing next to nothing for 100-year big floods is, in your opinion, worth the cost of dredging the length of the river, then do it, but remember it won’t solve everything.
James Miller

There have been years of study, when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face.
The river cannot be deepened because it has a rock bottom. Farmers balk when it comes to any seizure of land for rerouting or retention ponds, and rightly so.
The answer is simple and you can see it in action by taking a drive to the town of Chillicothe. There they walled in the river with concrete, and installed flood gates on bridges where needed. And guess what, it was done by the Army Corps of Engineers!
Oh, yeah, and they still have clams living in their river.
Troy Lane

All the publicity about recent comments made by Phil of the “Duck Dynasty” family has raised a series of questions for me. Let me begin by saying that I am not intolerant or a bigot or a racist or a homophobe or a “hater.”
I am simply a born-again Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God. Leviticus 18:22 (King James version of the Holy Bible) states, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Verse 23 goes on to say, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”
Now for my questions. Do those who reject the teaching of Leviticus 18:22 (and who support homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle) also reject Leviticus 18:23 (and therefore maintain that physical relationships with animals is an acceptable alternative lifestyle choice — which I seriously doubt, by the way)?
Because if verse 22 is wrong, wouldn’t it follow that verse 23 is also wrong? I mean, how can we reject one verse but not the other? And if we can indeed pick and choose which Bible verses to believe and which to reject, how do we know we’ve made the right choices?
Maybe the entire account of the birth of Jesus is incorrect. Maybe he was born in a tent somewhere in Tibet rather than in a stable in Bethlehem. Or maybe Mary isn’t really his mother. Or maybe Jesus isn’t real at all, and thus never set foot in Nazareth, or parted the Red Sea, or turned water into wine, or healed the sick, or died for our sins so that we could have eternal life.
Get my point?
Judi Donaldson