Engineering corps always also have civil responsibilities. For instance, in the United States, the Army Corps of engineers is responsible for dredging canals.

Providing drinking water to a population is one of the archetypal roles of military engineers.

Since it’s a weekend, if people have time, here’s the classic narrative summary by John McPhee of the Mississippi delta and the role of the Corps: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/02/23/atchafalaya

Just wanted to say thanks for the recommendation. Excellent article though it took me a few days to finish.

"Atchafalaya" is one of four articles compiled into a book, The Control of Nature, that is also excellent. One other of the four that I remember from that book is about how erosion shapes the Los Angeles basin -- "Los Angeles Against the Mountains".

They also have a huge presence in nearby Vicksburg (waterways), so it might have been an easy resource to call on.

Division of the Army, in wartime they're tasked with building the infrastructure to support the army. Like temporary (or permanent) bridges, buildings, bunkers, etc. In peace time they can use their skills at home to support infrastructure.

Given the size of the armed forces, assigning some percentage to domestic infrastructure seems like a fantastically good idea.

It's a somewhat unusual arrangement though, to have a division of the armed forces perform essentially civilian functions, isn't it?

Maybe not globally – gendarmerie come to mind – but certainly in the English-speaking world?

The current US military budget (#1 highest globally) is fitting for a country who is currently at war with the next 5-10 highest military budget countries. And since theyre allies with most of those countries, and at war with none of them, and since both political parties' #1 marching order is to increase that budget, I for one would enjoy seeing that faction be used to aid domestic infrastructure.

Unusual, but very sensible. Military is trained to operate in chaotic environments where basic facilities (transport, communications, supply, ...) cannot be counted on.

Seems perfect for response to natural disasters, which seem to be becoming more common these days.

The military is about much much more than fighting/killing.

It's an unusual arrangement, but it is absolutely something other countries should be adopting. Canada's equivalent thereof (as well as its equivalent to FEMA) was completely not up to the task when it came to last year's flooding in BC.

They are a division of the US Army.

When they're not actively destroying the Mississippi Delta through incompetence.

I assume you're referring to the Old River Control Structure?

I know it's a controversial project, but the alternative -- to let the Mississippi divert itself away from New Orleans and Baton Rouge -- would be an unthinkable economic (and social) catastrophe. So I don't think it can be chalked up to mere incompetence.

(Yes, I know and agree that the ORCS has been environmentally destructive. But what's a workable alternative?)

> let the Mississippi divert itself away from New Orleans and Baton Rouge

This is perfectly workable, while I understand YMMV

> would be an unthinkable economic (and social) catastrophe.

Not only is it thinkable, it could be done responsibly, today. The ORCS will continue to fail (at irregular intervals), which will cause catastrophe as these events do. At some point, it will be decided that the system is no longer worth maintaining. Might as well rip the band-aid off by setting a specific date and start making a graduated change. If you didn't move out after Katrina[1], I don't think you can be convinced anyway.

[1] there was a 29% reduction in New Orleans population, post katrina

> Not only is it thinkable, it could be done responsibly, today.

How?

You have a metro area of 1.3 million which is totally economically dependent on the river. A huge volume of freight moves through the delta daily. Billions of dollars of port infrastructure have been built in New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

Even disregarding the social cost -- which would be huge, given the high levels of poverty in New Orleans -- the pure economic cost would quickly rack into the tens or hundreds of billions. And tens of billions more would be required to make the new course navigable, rebuild port infrastructure, build new cities to serve the port, relocate workers from other parts of the country, etc.

And even then the river could just change its course again in two years or twenty or fifty.

Not to mention the time it would take to rebuild the industry that is between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. That combined with the fact that the major shipping route to deep water ports to export ag commodities (corn, wheat, soy) to the rest of the world would effectively be halted for probably a year would mean a multi-trillion dollar arrow to the knee for the US.

There's been an enormous amount of PR done on the behalf of the Army Core of Engineers ever since people figured out that New Orleans was their fault.

New Orleans even being able to continue existing at all is due to the Army Corps Of Engineers. The Old River Control Structure keeps it from flooding too hard, and a LOT of resources go into keeping the river along its current route so that NOLA can continue as the premier port for the mid-west to import and export from/to the world.

How much would it cost if the river diverted? Would a huge part of Louisiana need to be geo-engineered to restore the literal bloodflow of US trade (in the East)? There would be dozens of states that would be hosed economically if the Mississippi entrance were to be blocked.

It would cost a shitload. Morgan City would have to be build up tremendously, since that is likely where the bulk of the flow would end up, through the Atchafalaya river, basin, and delta.

New Orleans and Baton Rouge would see one of the most dramatic economic implosions seen in the modern world. Akin to, and possibly worse, than the hollowing out of many formerly prosperous rust belt cities.

There would also most likely be a lot of people displaced by allowing the Mississippi/Atchafalaya to meander at will, since the channels to handle that amount of water if left to its own devices are simply not there. You'd end up with an absolutely enormous floodplain between the current paths of those two rivers. My family is from the bayous between that area. The highest place in town was an artificial hill in a park 20-30 feet high.

All in all, it's probably better ecologically to simply let the rivers meander as they will, but economically it is in the city, state, and region's best interests to maintain the status quo.

And why didn't they get these guys to fix Flint's water issues?

I dont know, but as general commentary:

Lead poisoning is not so easy to fix. You have to replace extensive amounts of lead pipe and/or find and remedy another source and then treat the existing poisoning which doctors aren't so talented at.

Most doctors aren't well versed in chelation protocols. Even if you replace all the lead pipes, the problem isn't resolved. You still need medical care.

My understanding of the Flint water issue was the introduction of corrosive water that caused the lead pipes to leech lead. The fix wasn't "Make repair at the one point of failure" but "Replace every water pipe in the 34.1 square mile city."

Flint had to replace their pipes before it could be fixed. But it was fixed in 2019, anyone who still posts “the US is bad because Flint doesn’t have working water” is just lying to you.

What do you mean? Flint is still replacing lead service lines as they're found.

https://cityofflint.wpengine.com/progress-report-on-flint-wa...

Merely having lead pipes isn’t the problem as long as they’re not degraded. As I said, the water quality has been fine for years now.