The point is that if that section of the country faces flooding and therefore and inability to produce substantial amounts of crops, everyone... suffers

Allowing the river to periodically inundate its floodplain would renew the fertility of the alluvial soils. This would increase agricultural productivity in the North American Midwest, while reducing the amount of artificial fertilizer required. It would also allow the Mississippi to renew its delta, protecting the Gulf coastal plain from storm surges during hurricanes. Channelizing the Mississip only allows the precious topsoil that erodes due to agroindustrial stupidity to reach deep water. Eroded topsoil should be redeposited over the floodplain and in the delta, where it would do some good.

Oh don't get me wrong, restoring the natural flooding cycle of the floodplain would be hugely beneficial to long term crop production from the area.

What the thread has been referring to is a summer where flooding ruins crop production for that year and how devastating that would be to our food supplies. It only takes 1 winter for people without food to starve.

Okay, gotcha. But even in '93 farmers managed to grow a crop on the floodplain. Taking out the levees & allowing snowmelt to renew the floodplain might preclude winter wheat and delay working the fields some years, but it wouldn't eliminate an entire growing season's crop. The occasional short-term detriment to agriculture would be enormously offset by the long-term benefit.