Yeah I was going to say - you'd need to take only the flood water to avoid the worst of the environmental effects, which would be tricky. Part of the reason floods are so damaging is that the existing flood control methods were not up to the task (and that's the only kid of flooding that makes the news) so the proposal translates into two parts 1. effective diverting flood waters, and 2. transporting the water someplace it is needed. (though it may be possible to use #2 to motivate better #1)
Even diverting only that floodwater that is destructive to human endeavor can still have large environmental impacts since the river has been flooding like that for a lot longer than we've been around so the whole ecosystem has evolved to cope and even take advantage of it.
Then there is the ecology of west texas etc to think about.
Making it greener is not nessesarily a good idea.
(Also means EI studies have to focus on what kind of negative impact we are prepared to live with.)
I think all this critique boils down to "needs more research".
Don't be put off, new ideas always get dumped on in science - that's how things work.
There are large-scale irrigation projects around the World, have a look at some of them, see how other people overcame the major problems and get back to us?