An UnEasy Question: "Should New Orleans be rebuilt?"

USA Today (9/14/2005) had a great front page article about this. There is even some talk to build a New New Orleans that is much smaller with much of the flooded property returning to the wetlands that actually prevented the older sections from floodding years ago.

You can only drain so much swamp area (I know, I know...the PC term is protected "wetlands").

After all, water will always flow to its lowest point and if that's your property 15 feet below sea level, then don't come asking the Federal government (our tax money) for flood damage if you chose to build there.

 

It's possble that new planning laws prevent building in floodplains now.

Many Canadian jurisdictions have by-laws preventing new developments in floodplains that is subceptible to 100-yr floods (those of intensity that occurs every 100 years on the average). This piece of legislation came out relatively recently after Hurricane Hazel devastated Toronto's westside in the 1954s. I mean historic developments have been excempted, otherwise new commercial development can't prop up on flood-prone areas anymore.

I mean similar laws can be legislated in New Orleans.

I have a morbid thought though, what do you call the new New Orleans when it's rebuilt in a different location?
"New New-Orleans"?

 

Sacramento, California is vulnerable to flooding. Parts of West Sacramento, downtown, and the North Natomas area lie at less than 10 feet mean sea level (MSL). The Sacramento River and American River (California's two largest rivers) are 25 feet above MSL at flood stage.

Are there other parallels with New Orleans? A few.

The State and federal governments attempted to build a large dam on the American River at Auburn (up-stream) in the mid-1970s. It was to be a multi-purpose structure with flood protection, power generation, and water storage being the principal benefits. The project was terminated largely due to the political influence of the Sierra Club and other environmental political action groups. California politicians, mostly liberal Democrats responded to their constituents and stopped the project (Matsui, Cranston, Fazio, Feinstein, etc.). The City of Sacramento is still unprotected from a well-timed 100-year storm. The politicians are still arguing about the "best" solution. Republicans generally want a dam. Democrats generally want levee improvements. Little has happened in 30 years.

In Louisiana. The Corps of Engineers attempted to construct huge flood walls around New Orleans in the late 1960s. The project was stopped by environmental groups interested in protecting wetlands. The Corps dropped the issue, or was that the ball we saw dropped?

We ought to demand that our government "leaders" (Ha, ha, ha..) establish better priorities. Who really gives a damn about gay marriages, flag burning, Kyoto, and abortion funding?

 

Send dirt.

 

It's too big not to be re-built, right?

 

One of the things some poeple don't realize however, is that the wetlands protect the city. So protecting the wetlands, to some degree, protects the city. Destruction of the wetlands is not a good thing in many regards.

 

Same thing here in Grand Forks. When the FLood of 97 hapened. IT almost whipped out the whole town. I'd say about 50% or more of East Grand was moved and all the areas along the river on the Grand Forks side were moved. Especially any low area near the river.

Move and preserve as much as possible and doze the rest. Learn to live with the descision and make it better and more historic. New Orleans is not a place it's the people, and not the one you've seen on TV lately either.

If you think the History channel special about this engineering disaster is gonna' be bad wait till they rebuild in the same spot and it happens again. Please don't misunderstand me. IF they REBUILD in the same location IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.

 

The same can be said in most flood areas however I'm not sure how the wetlands would have prevented the spread of wind blown rain and waves.

But yes you are right most river delta systems once had wetland areas within their contributing watershed areas. When these areas were drained, usually for farming, the ditching systems that were put into place decreased the collection time for the runoff. Basically all of the rain that fell on that area reached the river in as little as 1/100th of the time it used to take. (The fraction used is for mountainous ares in the Red River Valey the fraction is about 1/14th to 1/20th, 2-3 days instead of 2-4weeks)

This decrease in collection forces way to much water through one area at a given instant, hence the river expands and causes overland flooding. So YES wetlands, swamps , are important not only to the birds but to the people as well. Plus it's about time other people learned to value the wonderful state bird of Minnesota. The Mosquito.

 

Wetlands (and dry land) don't prevent anything, per se but they can and generally do slow a storm down and lessen the intensity (providing a buffer). Less buffer means a harder hit once it does reach areas in danger. Natural flooding keeps the buffer in check (to some degree) and preventing flooding causes problems. It does (of course) prevent frequent minor flooding, but there is a trade off.

I liked the bit about "the wonderful state bird of Minnesota. The Mosquito." heh. Reminds me of my years on the East Coast. Very few here in California (we can actually go outside during the summer without being eaten).

 

I'm not sure you can answer the question "should New Orleans be rebuilt" until you first answer -- by whom? One answer would be to pay out all of the insurance, both private and federal flood, clean up the mess for public health reasons, help the truly needy through the transition back to normality, and leave the rest of the decision to the owners of the property in the city. Some may wish to rebuild, some may wish to sell their land to others who want it for one purpose or another. New Orleans wasn't founded through the effort of some soviet-union-style master plan executed by the government throwing money at it. It was build by private citizens with their own money because they wanted to be there. Except, of course, for the government build flood control systems that failed and resulted in the destruction of property.

I know it is highly unpopular to suggest that anything can be accomplished without government. But it is worth remembering that the private sector did a pretty fair job of building this country in the first place, and they could do it again if the local, state, and federal do-gooders would just stay out of the way and let the people who own the property decide whether or not to rebuild.

FEMA is purchasing 200,000 mobile homes at a cost of a few billion dollars when there are 1.4 million vacant apartments within 300 miles of New Orleans that could be rented at a fraction of the cost to provide temporary housing for anyone requiring assistance. This is the sort of decision you get from people not spending their own money.

 

Um I hate to differ on this issue but the "Flood" protection did exactally what it was designed to do. The reality is it was never intended or engineered to hold back a category 5 huricane. The frequency analysis of such an event hitting the area was so slim that the considerable added expense would have been unjustified. Course hind sight is twenty-twenty. Data acquired after the dikes and leeves were built may have sugested that the initial frequency analysis was incorect, but once this was determined a study should have been done to evaluate weither the effect would or could warrent further protection. This was the local and state governments job not the Federal governments.

The Federal Government has to ballance cost with property loss and lives. There is no other way. They can not protect everone from everything. Learn to protect yourself by not being in the wrong place every day of your life. Chances are eventually you will be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As I said before there is no way to be perfectly safe you can not engineer anything to prevent all damage. I will admit the response and evacuation were handled horably, but the engineering was not to blame. The engineers could only work with what was there. The reality is instead of building the dikes and levees they should have moved the people. They didn't then and we can see the result. They should move them now.

Nastilagia is not worth life! Culture is not worth your loved ones. Would you be willing to give up your brothers and sisters, parents, spouses, or kids because you feel that an area of land is more cultural, even though you can place that culture anywhere. In fact the only thing I know of that is worth that much pain and suffering is freedom. Yes you could say people were excerising their freedom to live where they wished but you can also say they were the dumbest bunch of morons for living there.

Before I get crucified I would like to make things clear. When I speak of people I do not refer to individuals but societies. The governing figures and ruling bodies involved with New Orleans for the last 200 years had, at some point, the option of relocating the city. They had the privilege of information that the general public was unaware of. They knew. They are the idiots for not acting. They are responsible. Especially the mayor and governor. Imagine not having an evacuation plan for the jails. No instead lets just open the doors. No wonder people didn't want to leave or let the police back in. Why would they want to go back to jail?

 

Sorry for the rant but this issue really spins me up. I have a hard time watching people die just because people want to do something just like they have always done it.

 

Please don't apologize...

It is easy to say we will rebuild, but it is more difficult to ask "why?" and how will we way pay for it?" or "does rebuilding near the bottom of a 'bath tub drain' that is sinking an average of an inch per year BELOW sea level make sense?"

You ask people that live there and they all KNEW this could and would happen, it is just a matter of WHEN. At least the French were smart enough to build on ground above sea level when they first settled the place. Once you started expanding the city limits into the swamps with the attempt to live where once water stood is the issue.

 

Kinda like how people who live in Oklahoma know the area is prone to hurricanes? Or the people who live in California who know the area is prone to earthquakes? Or the people who live in the Northeast and many other areas who have experienced killer blizzards, and yearly problems (accidents) due to snow and other weather-related issues (which over the years have results in billions of dollars in insurance claims over the years)?

Just offering another view.

Now, I'm not advocating people go beyond what is reasonable (and to some, rebuilding a sinking city below sea level with water all around it might just be unreasonable), rather I'm just pointing out that there are relatively few "safe" areas that won't be affected at some point (maybe next year, maybe 300 years from now). Someone at work mentioned that the Northridge earthquake (a relatively small one compared to what is possible) had a greater economic impact than the NO disaster (though I'm not sure where they heard that). It could be.

Maybe we should all move to another planet as it is likely an asteriod will smash into this one sometime?

:: packs bags ::

 

The reality with things like blizards and tornadoes is they are random and can occure anywhere, they are random. Earth quakes are specific to an area but anyone with any knida of media exposure knows how prone there are is to earthquakes. The New orleans situation is a little different, They created the fragile situation then believed nothing would disrupt it. But I do agree, no place is safe, but I'd rather take my chances on a 1 hour tornado that leaves a path of distruction than a hurrican that destroyes every thing for miles over a 2 to 3 day period. Especially when it brings the damn ocean with it.

The trick to living with extrem weater is learning to cope with all the possibilities not ignoring them. I spend a lot of time in blizards but I am prepared for what the blizard has to offer.

Samjimmy your right the northridge quake had a bigger impact because the quake did point out nomerous engineering errors which were then studied extensively. Heck every sky scraped had to be inspected and a huge number had to be retrofitted with different beam-coulmn connections. Thats a lot more money than a couple thousand houses. Also imagine having to rebuild all the major transportation corrodors before being able to repair the city itself.

The hurricain was much nicer to NO the city than an earth quake would have been, financially speaking. In fact if NO were hit by an Earth quake I think a good portion would just disappear. I am sure the fluvial sediment the town is built on would no be stable under a significant vibratory load.

The reality is the hurricain destroyed more personel belongings. Peoples possesions were washed away. This is hard to deal with. We as a soiciety put a lot of store in our possesions and as a result we have a hard time realizing that even though we may have lost every thing we own we haven't lost everthing. Financially an earthquake is worse but it doesn't destroy lives quite like a flood or fire does.

BTW which planet? If it's purple I'm in.

 

I know personally that after a hurricane(s) has come and gone, I could go back to my home or what's left of it. I didn't have to deal with standing water because I was ABOVE sea level. Water receeded and the land dried out to normal .

Being BELOW sea level is one issue. Being in a city that is sinking is another, and since water flows to the lowest point...well if that is YOU and YOUR CITY, does it really make sense?

When Galviston was hit over a 100 years back, the city planners made provisions to rebuild their entire city at much HIGHER levels than the 4 to 6 feet that they were situated at...ABOVE sea level. They did it!

Do you think New Orleans which is sinking and below sea level makes sense? If so...I would love to know how?

BTW...I grew in Buffalo and saw my share of blizzards. NEVER did one damage my home or houses about. If snow killed a person, it was because they descided to take a drive, got stuck, and died from the elements (idiot). We had shovels and snow plows. We dug out and nobody died except for the occasional heart attack from somebody shoveling snow. For fun, we played pool, ping pong, poker, or fools ball in the basement and threw an extra log on the fire. Big deal! Actually we had a neighborhood party and did quite well.

 

I brought blizzards up because I wouldn't be surprised if winter related insurance claims total more per year than the NO disaster. After all, it's really all about the $$$. Much of this issue is about the $$$ (though the sinking below sea-level issue can't be ignored, heh).

I gew up in Connecticut (25 years there), but now live in California. I suppose the best analogy to the NO thing here is when people build houses on the top of unstable hillsides, which are subject to landslides. Smaller scale, but I think the point is the same. Of course it doesn't make much sense, but people rebuild. Go figure.

:: moves to the purple planet ::

I really don't have any answers to any of it. I surely don't mind throwing $10 into the pot to help someone rebuild their home if it was destroyed, though I do wish that more of the 1/3rd of the income they take from me, plus the 8%+ that I get charged in sales tax (unless I buy fuel in which case it's much more than 8%) would go to things like this.

Another topic...