It's always interesting to see how stories you've reported on come out years later.

In this case, it's almost 25 years later.

I was the city hall reporter in Davenport, Iowa in the mid-1980s when the Army Corps of Engineers begin putting pressure on the city to erect a floodwall in order to control floods along the Mississippi River.

Congress had approved the money and the city's coffers at that time had the money to match the federal funds. The total cost of the project was estimated at about $34 million. I looked the numbers up; my memory is not that good.

The debate raged on for over a year. It was at times intense, and since Davenport had partisan city politics, it was political. Council members running for office were quizzed extensively on how they felt about flood walls.

Those in favor of erecting a flood wall argued that the money was available and that over the long run the city could save money by protecting itself from Mississippi floods. There were several buildings and businesses located in areas that flooded on a fairly regular basis.

Those against the flood wall said it would separate the city from one of its biggest assets, the river. They argued that an occasional flood was better than walling off the city from the river.

The timing was also interesting. After years of neglecting riverfronts, many cities had realized the value of riverfront property. Davenport, along with a lot of other cities, was beginning to realize that the river was a tourism draw. They also argued that a well-managed riverfront could add a lot to the "quality of life" in the city. The transformation from using the riverfront as an industrial "dumping ground" to making it a vital part of the city was just beginning.

The vote finally occurred, and although it was close, the floodwall project lost out.

There were major Mississippi river floods in 1993, 1997, 2001 and again this year. City officials announced this week that the 2008 flood will cost about $4.5 million in clean up and repairs.

At times, the federal government has sparred with the city over whether the federal government should pay for flood clean up. The feds argue that since Davenport decided not to build a floodwall with federal dollars, why should federal money be used to clean up the mess?

That's a pretty good argument if circumstances hadn't changed in the last 25 years.

But the city's last floodwall study, in 2002, shows that a floodwall wouldn't pay for itself. In fact the $55 million floodwall project would only return a little more than 50 cents on the dollar.

The change has been some smart building and planning in Davenport. Many of the businesses and buildings that were affected by floods have moved out of the flood areas. The baseball stadium, which was completely under water many times, has its own floodwall. Much of the riverfront has been converted into park area and green spaces, which make for easier clean up. A new art museum in the downtown area has a flood-ready parking lot on its ground floor.

Still, the city will ask for federal dollars to help with the clean up. It's a good question whether that's fair to taxpayers.

But we also don't know what would have happened if a flood wall would have been built in the mid-1980s. Iowa was the first state to approve riverboat gambling and Davenport was the first city to secure a riverboat casino. Would that have happened if the city would have been walled off from the river?

The significant part of the Davenport story is that a decision was made and, for the most part, the community moved on and reacted to that decision. There's a lesson in that.

Editor Gary Sawyer can be reached at 421-6975 or gsawyer@herald-review.com.