Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway

The Commission recommended four floodways below the mouth of the Arkansas River and, above, stronger and higher levees set back from the channel.

At a flood stage of 55 feet (17 m) on the Cairo gage, the levee would overtop and crevasse to divert water to the floodway.

[My constituents] do not want to see southeast Missouri made the dumping ground to protect Cairo, much as we love Cairo.Construction was scheduled to begin in the summer of 1929, but landowner George W. Kirk filed a lawsuit maintaining that he would be unable to sell his land or secure loans as a result of the floodway.

However, the inability of the St. John Levee and Drainage District to obtain the necessary easements has prevented the Corps of Engineers from initiating the project.

The Mississippi River Commission and the Corps of Engineers later realized that they did not have sufficient property rights to access the levee to place and detonate explosives.

The frontline and setback levees end near New Madrid but do not connect, leaving a 1,500-foot (460 m) gap that functions as a drainage outlet.

Unlike the Morganza and Bonnet Carre Spillways in Louisiana, the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway does not have floodgates.

The operation of the floodway is directed by the president of the Mississippi River Commission after consultation with the Chief of Engineers.

They laid 11,000 feet (3,400 m) of pipe that they can fill with liquid explosives and detonate to open the levee and activate the floodway.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contends that the program is vital to the actual and economic survival of the region.

[6] Opponents of the plans, such as The Missouri Coalition for the Environment say it will not address the flooding problem, but instead, will only destroy fish habitat.

The flood damage, the United States Department of Agriculture says, could have been greatly limited had the Floodway Project been completed.

Fish & Wildlife Service, however, the plan is unworkable; or per Senator John McCain's recitation of an earlier article in The Washington Post, "absolutely ridiculous".

A 2004 lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation resulted in an injunction that halted the work.