House Speaker: Why rebuild New Orleans?

[Mickey]

I just talked to my dad (before you all start crapping on his credentials, he was a former Civil Engineering professor at UB, founding member of MCEER (multidisciplinary center for earthquake engineering research, used to be called NCEER in the 90's), current chair of his school's civil engineering dept and former head of the national earthquake research center in taiwan) and he said that even if the levees had been bolstered ahead of time, this tragedy probably would still have happened...no engineering is strong enough to guarantee withstanding such a storm

his professional opinion is yes, the water can be drained with hydraulic division, the city can be rebuilt and the levees can be made taller and stronger, but there is no guarantee that of withstanding huge storms

if this is what other professional engineers will tell investors, who in their right mind is going to invest in that city?

his exact words "i think the city is dead forever, but it gives new research topics for those in academics because FEMA has shown that it can not handle this kind of situation"

interesting fact i never knew about that he fed me...did you know that new orleans wasn't always below sea level? it was the constant pumping of the water out and the use of groundwater that caused subsidence

428204[/snapback]

...and we can't prevent earthquakes in California yet people still live there. No system can prevent the worst that nature can do but fortunately, nature tends not to do her worst in the same place with any frequency. That is why NO hasn't gone under this bad before. Such storms are rare as are devastating earthquakes. We aren't going to abandon California any more than we are going to abandon NO. We will build as much protection from future hurricanes as we reasonably can and the city will come back.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

interesting fact i never knew about that he fed me...did you know that new orleans wasn't always below sea level? it was the constant pumping of the water out and the use of groundwater that caused subsidence

428204[/snapback]

 

That's what I've been led to understand too. Basically built on silt that has sank over time because of the pumping out of the ground water.

[BadDad]

That's what I've been led to understand too.  Basically built on silt that has sank over time because of the pumping out of the ground water.

428435[/snapback]

 

What about a project to rebuild the wetlands in the delta that have been starved by the dike and levy system? If they could find a way to restore the wetlands and swamps that absorbed the storm surge in the past and couple it with a system of levies, then, possibly, one the worlds great cities could survive and prosper again.

 

As an aside I can't imagine the Dutch even contemplating the abandoning of Amsterdam even though it too is below sea level and protected by a system of dikes.

[finknottle]

Do you really think the current population density in southern Cal. would be possible without the engineering that brings in all that water?  Should we throw in the fault and earthquakes?

428282[/snapback]

 

He said that it would not be possible to live in Southern California but for feats of modern engineering. That's different from your saying the current density is only possible with current engineering. In point of fact, no city on earth is inhabitable without the engineering that brings in food, water and power every day.

 

He was addressing calamaties:

 

I don't know of any place that is immune from floods, earthquakes, terrorists, fires, epidemics, blizzards, ice storms, tsunami's, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes. 

427003[/snapback]

 

I still see no reason why, just because we can mitigate some disasters, we should go out of our way to develop in high-risk areas. His point (I think) was that every area already *is* high risk.

[Mickey]

He said that it would not be possible to live in Southern California but for feats of modern engineering.  That's different from your saying the current density is only possible with current engineering.  In point of fact, no city on earth is inhabitable without the engineering that brings in food, water and power every day.

 

He was addressing calamaties:

I still see no reason why, just because we can mitigate some disasters, we should go out of our way to develop in high-risk areas.  His point (I think) was that every area already *is* high risk.

428731[/snapback]

Lets try to bring this back to the original point. I don't agree with those who say we should not rebuild NO or that the people there are getting what they deserve for daring to live in a flood plain. My point was that lots of people live in areas prone to natural disasters, disasters they are protected from by various engineering feats from earthquake building codes to dams and everything in between. If someone is going to argue that we abandon NO then they should be calling equally as strong for San Francisco to be abandoned. Given the likely cost of heating homes in the Northeast this winter, we should probably evacuate everthing north of Maryland. Afterall, if we run out of oil everyone there will freeze. NO has been around for a long, long time and, God willing, will be around for a few hundred more.

[UConn James]

What about a project to rebuild the wetlands in the delta that have been starved by the dike and levy system? If they could find a way to restore the wetlands and swamps that absorbed the storm surge in the past and couple it with a system of levies, then, possibly, one the worlds great cities could survive and prosper again.

428552[/snapback]

 

There was a piece on PBS late last night in this same vein. Explained a little about the geological history of the delta region. They provided the explanation that when a hurricane hit the marshes/wetlands, that have been eroded by man's tinkering, it would "pulled the rug out" from under it and reduced the strength of the storm before it hit inland. I don't know how much it would take to restore them, but at least ecologically, it would be an ideal thing to set it to rights again.

[finknottle]

Lets try to bring this back to the original point.  I don't agree with those who say we should not rebuild NO or that the people there are getting what they deserve for daring to live in a flood plain.  My point was that lots of people live in areas prone to natural disasters, disasters they are protected from by various engineering feats from earthquake building codes to dams and everything in between.  If someone is going to argue that we abandon NO then they should be calling equally as strong for San Francisco to be abandoned.  Given the likely cost of heating homes in the Northeast this winter, we should probably evacuate everthing north of Maryland.  Afterall, if we run out of oil everyone there will freeze.  NO has been around for a long, long time and, God willing, will be around for a few hundred more.

428796[/snapback]

 

The difference is between personal choice and state intervention. It should not be national policy to use federal money to heat the homes in the Northeast, nor to use federal money to reinforce San Francisco architecture, nor to drain Louisanna. If people want to live in those places, it should be a personal economic decision between themselves, their builders, and their insurers. I see no reason why my tax dollers should go to rebuilding some rich guys estate on the North Carolina coast every time a hurricane passes through, nor pay for the draining of swampland and the building of levee's for some poor peoples farms.

 

Likewise, when I say abandon NO I really mean abandon it *federally*; people and businesses there can do what they want if they think it makes economic sense.

[Mickey]

The difference is between personal choice and state intervention.  It should not be national policy to use federal money to heat the homes in the Northeast, nor to use federal money to reinforce San Francisco architecture, nor to drain Louisanna.  If people want to live in those places, it should be a personal economic decision between themselves, their builders, and their insurers.  I see no reason why my tax dollers should go to rebuilding some rich guys estate on the North Carolina coast every time a hurricane passes through, nor pay for the draining of swampland and the building of levee's for some poor peoples farms. 

 

Likewise, when I say abandon NO I really mean abandon it *federally*;  people and businesses there can do what they want if they think it makes economic sense.

428957[/snapback]

 

Actually, it is federal policy. Fed money funds everything from rural electrification to major transportation and safety projects in just about every state. There are plenty of ways all of our choices are subsidized directly or indirectly by the federal goverment. The way it works is that when bad things happen to you, that rich guy's tax money gets diverted to help you out and vice versa. Too many people have the attitude that spending tax money to help them is sound fiscal policy but money spent to help anyone else is a waste of their tax dollars. That's why farmers don't call crop subsidies "welfare". It's only welfare if it helps the other guy.

 

If the federal government isn't going to step in and help rebuild after a once in several lifetimes disaster, there isn't much point in having a federal government. If NO flooded like this every 10 years, fine, abandon it at every level but that isn't the case. The whole reason for government is to provide people a mechanism through which they can act collectively to solve problems they couldn't ever solve individually.

[finknottle]

Actually, it is federal policy.  Fed money funds everything from rural electrification to major transportation and safety projects in just about every state.  There are plenty of ways all of our choices are subsidized directly or indirectly by the federal goverment.  The way it works is that when bad things happen to you, that rich guy's tax money gets diverted to help you out and vice versa.  Too many people have the attitude that spending tax money to help them is sound fiscal policy but money spent to help anyone else is a waste of their tax dollars.  That's why farmers don't call crop subsidies "welfare".  It's only welfare if it helps the other guy.

 

If the federal government isn't going to step in and help rebuild after a once in several lifetimes disaster, there isn't much point in having a federal government.  If NO flooded like this every 10 years, fine, abandon it at every level but that isn't the case.  The whole reason for government is to provide people a mechanism through which they can act collectively to solve problems they couldn't ever solve individually.

429042[/snapback]

 

I agree with you on your synopsis on the role of government. Where we differ is on deciding which problems should be solved and which should not.

 

IMO funding with a definite economic goal - roads, electrification, and perhaps even municipal internet access - is worthwhile, while funding to mitigate the ups and downs of natural fluxuations (whether crops or disasters) is bad when national security is not involved.

 

I simply don't understand why the federal government should help me if, say, a hitherto unknown volcano erupted on my land and destroyed my house. Nor would I understand why it should help me rebuild and channel the potential lava flows away from my front yard in case it reawakens. And yet, even if it did none of the usefull things for me, I would still see the point in having a government.

[thanes05]

The difference is between personal choice and state intervention.  It should not be national policy to use federal money to heat the homes in the Northeast, nor to use federal money to reinforce San Francisco architecture, nor to drain Louisanna.  If people want to live in those places, it should be a personal economic decision between themselves, their builders, and their insurers.  I see no reason why my tax dollers should go to rebuilding some rich guys estate on the North Carolina coast every time a hurricane passes through, nor pay for the draining of swampland and the building of levee's for some poor peoples farms. 

 

Likewise, when I say abandon NO I really mean abandon it *federally*;  people and businesses there can do what they want if they think it makes economic sense.

428957[/snapback]

 

Do any of you realize how important the central gulf coast is to our country? The ports that exist in this region play a vital role in our nation's economics. Since this region was decimated by Hurricane Katrina, have you noticed how gas prices are? I believe the average price is now over 3 dollars! Some areas are up to 5! This is an area of our country that needs to be rebuilt. It is an area that needs Federal support.

There is something else I want to point out. If you take the test scores from the populated places in MS, which consist of the gulfcoast, Jackson, and Oxford areas, the state would rank top ten in the nation in academics.

[sweet baboo]

If you take the test scores from the populated places in MS, which consist of the gulfcoast, Jackson, and Oxford areas, the state would rank top ten in the nation in academics.

429448[/snapback]

i'm not sure what your point is with that statement, but do you have any sources for that?

[Mickey]

Do any of you realize how important the central gulf coast is to our country? The ports that exist in this region play a vital role in our nation's economics. Since this region was decimated by Hurricane Katrina, have you noticed how gas prices are? I believe the average price is now over 3 dollars! Some areas are up to 5! This is an area of our country that needs to be rebuilt. It is an area that needs Federal support.

There is something else I want to point out. If you take the test scores from the populated places in MS, which consist of the gulfcoast, Jackson, and Oxford areas, the state would rank top ten in the nation in academics.

429448[/snapback]

I do thanes, I have every expectation that we will rebuild the coastal areas devastated in this disaster.

[Like A Mofo]

yeah...and its full of colored people and democrats anyway.

426122[/snapback]

 

Nice. We need more of this thinking in this country.

[UConn James]

A pretty good column by a geology prof I had for a class at the U. He really knows his sh--.

 

"This was our Atlantis."

 

New Orleans Can't Stand In Nature's Way

September 4, 2005

By ROBERT THORSON

 

`This is our tsunami." That was the haunting phrase of Biloxi's mayor, which I read beneath the televised images of destruction from Hurricane Katrina.

 

But the comparison between the late August Mississippi Gulf Coast storm and last December's Indonesian tsunami is terribly inadequate - even misleading - with respect to earth science.

 

The Sumatran tsunami of December 2004 was a surprise attack that struck a largely underdeveloped coast. Its waves traveled sight unseen at speeds up to several hundred miles per hour, destroying coastal communities in minutes.

 

Katrina, on the other hand, was spotted nearly a week before it ground its way into a wealthy, educated nation that prides itself on homeland security and civil preparedness.

 

The flood surge that swept through New Orleans was created largely by human folly. We let the city sink below sea level (5 to 15 feet). We built dikes higher and higher on foundations resembling brown butter. We developed an evacuation plan that failed miserably, especially for the poor.

 

"This was our Atlantis." That's what I want my great-grandchildren to hear when they ask what happened to New Orleans in 2005.

 

I want them to learn about the fatal mix of rising seas, sinking lands, elevating rivers, shoreline erosion and increased storminess that finally caught up with public ignorance and government arrogance.

 

I want them to hear that Hurricane Katrina gave this country the "shock and awe" it needed to force an unconditional surrender to nature's power; to realize that rebuilding New Orleans was as pointless as it was prohibitively expensive. I want them to understand that life in the Big Easy had gotten so impossible that the only answer remaining was permanent evacuation.

 

There are five geological factors that lead me to this sad conclusion about the lower Mississippi Delta. They are the steady rise in sea level, the sinking of the delta plain, the increased height of the riverbed, the loss of wetlands due to coastal erosion, and the increased storm strength. Rebuilding New Orleans under such circumstances is not the kind of risk that a prudent insurance company or an overspent federal government should take.

 

Rising seas. Sea level has been rising since the last Ice Age on low-latitude coasts throughout the world. The pace slowed about 9,000 years ago, creating the coastal deltas and marshes on which early civilizations arose. In the past few thousand years, the pace had slowed even more, to less than a tenth of an inch per year. But the pace has nearly doubled in the last century because of global warming, which melts glaciers and causes the ocean to expand.

 

Sinking land. Muddy deltas sink as they compact over time. This isn't a problem as long as every layer that settles out of sight is replaced by another, courtesy of the Mississippi's seasonal flooding. This balancing act held sway over New Orleans for thousands of years until it was stopped by the dikes in the late 18th century. The precious sediment needed to keep a great American city alive is being wasted in a place where nobody lives.

 

Elevating riverbed. The sediment being forced to flow past the city is dumped where the dikes finally end. This creates miles of new land, meaning that the river has to flow a longer distance before reaching its ultimate low, the sea. Rivers, however, can't flow when there is no slope. Hence, any added length to the channel requires that its height be raised. The bed of the river at New Orleans must rise to make this happen.

 

Receding shoreline. With the sea coming up and the land going down, the marshy shoreline of Louisiana's south coast has no alternative but to migrate inland via normal coastal erosion. This process has been accelerated by human activity: canals dug for oil exploration, the starvation of the delta vegetation of fertile mud, and the introduction of plant-eating water rats (nutria). As the shoreline moves closer to New Orleans, there is less and less land to buffer storms before they hit densely occupied areas. Shoreline loss causes incoming storms to have faster wind speeds, stronger waves and a higher flood surge.

 

Stronger storms. This variable is still being debated by climate-change scientists. The idea is that a warmer greenhouse Earth will offer up stronger, more frequent hurricanes. This seems to be taking place, but it's too early to tell for sure.

 

"Let bayous be bayous," I wrote almost a year ago when Hurricane Ivan sloshed a wall of mud soup against the tottering dikes of New Orleans, which managed to hold. "Let Old Man River do its delta thing. Let the City of Jazz become the wonderful swamp that nature intended ... New Orleans will someday go under. It's a modern-day Atlantis in the making."

 

Please dig deep in your pockets to help with medical and humanitarian needs and to help the poor relocate their families to higher ground. But I advise you not to spend a dime to subsidize federal flood insurance for the Gulf Coast, or to rebuild America's Atlantis.

 

By the way, my 13-year-old daughter is named Katrina. She's another force of nature.

 

Robert M. Thorson is a professor of geology at the University of Connecticut and a columnist for The Courant.

[Chilly]

Lets try to bring this back to the original point.  I don't agree with those who say we should not rebuild NO or that the people there are getting what they deserve for daring to live in a flood plain.  My point was that lots of people live in areas prone to natural disasters, disasters they are protected from by various engineering feats from earthquake building codes to dams and everything in between.  If someone is going to argue that we abandon NO then they should be calling equally as strong for San Francisco to be abandoned.  Given the likely cost of heating homes in the Northeast this winter, we should probably evacuate everthing north of Maryland.  Afterall, if we run out of oil everyone there will freeze.  NO has been around for a long, long time and, God willing, will be around for a few hundred more.

428796[/snapback]

 

I don't believe that the analogy and logic follows.

 

New Orleans is unique. I don't think that you can compare New Orleans to San Francisco or any other areas where there are naturally occuring natural disasters. If you could, wouldn't everyone be calling for people to move away from where hurricane Andrew struck?

 

The difference is that in these other cities, it isn't the entire city that is threatened, but rather individual buildings. To rebuild New Orleans, you're literally going to need to rebuild the entire foundation of the city, rather then individual buildings, only to have the foundation of the city still not very strong.

 

This is a fundamental difference - in Miami, San Francisco, etc building standards have been getting better, and the individual can choose up to how strong they want the building to be. In New Orleans, not only have the levees not gotten stronger (the city's foundation has gotten weaker over time), but it also isn't up to individual investment. The entire city, no matter how strong you create a building, is going to be at risk.

 

There are many cities which are prone to natural disasters, some more then others (virtually every city in the US will be subject to a natural disaster of some sort - "tornado alley", the earthquake areas, the northeast's blizzards, the south's hurricanes, etc), but there is only one city in which the city is getting weaker against natural disasters and not stronger - New Orleans.