9 Weeks to Pump Out New Orleans?

Cr0w T. Trollbot asks: "It looks like New Orleans is going through something very close to the worst case scenario right now. This somewhat prescient study, written well before the hurricane, describes some of the challenges (engineering and otherwise) facing New Orleans. 'In this hypothetical storm scenario, it is estimated that it would take nine weeks to pump the water out of the city, and only then could assessments begin to determine what buildings were habitable or salvageable. Sewer, water, and the extensive forced drainage pumping systems would be damaged. National authorities would be scrambling to build tent cities to house the hundreds of thousands of refugees unable to return to their homes and without other relocation options.' The hypothetical is looking awful close to reality right now. What can be done about draining and rebuilding New Orleans in light of the massive flooding, and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

Comments

Water City

[fembots]

I know this sounds crazy, but given its bowl shape terrain, instead of pumping out the water and rebuild, why don't they rebuild over the water?

Otherwise, try asking Dutch how they have been living with large parts of Netherlands below sea level.

Re:Water City

[FireballX301]

New Orleans has been living the way the Dutch have, through a system of pumps and levees.

The Dutch don't get hurricanes.

A couple of factors against simply rebuilding over the water are excessive cost and safety issues, historical purposes, and once the water drains away everything will be on stilts, since the sea level there fluctuates depending on the outflow of the Mississippi and the tides.

And the mosquitoes. Mosquitoes suck.

Re:Water City

[ben_white]

What makes more sense, is what was done in Gavelston after it was wiped off the face of the map in 1900 by a hurricane. They dredged the surrounding inland waterways and raised the entire island by some 17 feet. In areas of New Orleans that require existing structures be razed could have this done.

cheers, ben

Re:Water City

[Kelson]

The Dutch have the advantage of being on the northwest coast of a continent in the northern hemisphere, where hurricanes move from southeast to northwest. While hurricanes do sometimes turn northward (remember the one last year that ended up near Iceland?), the Netherlands generally don't have to deal with storms of this ferocity.

Re:Water City

[Freexe]

The wall around the Netherlands is longer than the Great Wall of China and is thought to have cost 1.5 trillon dollers to build.

(Source: The Guardian Newspaper, Monday 29th August)

Re:Water City

[apoc.famine]

If they don't want to rebuild *above* sea level, they can just rename it Atlantis and sell tours.

Re:Water City

[DiveX]

Why not rebuild over the water? Well, it has been tried before.

"When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get."

King of Swamp Castle

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Dutch have had way more fatalities due to flooding:
from Wikipedia:

In years past, the Dutch coastline has changed considerably due to human intervention and natural disasters. Most notable in terms of land loss are the 1134 storm, which created the archipelago of Zeeland in the southwest, and the 1287 storm, which killed 50,000 people and created the Zuyderzee (now dammed in and renamed the IJsselmeer - see below) in the northwest, giving Amsterdam direct access to the sea. The St. Elisabeth flood of 1421 and the mismanagement in its aftermath destroyed a newly reclaimed polder, replacing it with the 72 km Biesbosch tidal floodplains in the southcentre. The most recent parts of Zeeland were flooded during the North Sea Flood of 1953 and 1,836 people were killed, after which the Delta Plan was executed.

Here is a map of Netherlands showing the areas under sea level:

Re:Water City

[Waffle Iron]

Even more importantly, they let Galveston become a cute little tourist town, and they moved all the important stuff like the seaport inland to Houston. (Before the storm, Galveston had been one of the most important cities in Texas.) That makes things go much more smoothly when they have to completely empty Galveston Island every few years due to a Hurricane warning.

IMO, they ought to do the same here. Build ultra-stout levees around (or raise by 25 feet) the French Quarter and a few other attractions, and rebuild the rest of the city farther inland.

Re:Water City

[Bi()hazard]

The only way to deal with this problem on a long term basis, other than giving up the city, is to create a system that can't be knocked out by hurricanes. Barriers and pumps can always fall because the forces of nature are against them. We, the people of New Orleans, need to harness nature to protect ourselves. Work with it. Make it our bitch, if you will.

I propose digging a vast reservoir somewhere away from the city, in one of those barren rural areas nobody cares about. This is the US, we have plenty of those. Dig the largest reservoir the world has ever seen, larger than the second largest by an order of magnitude, thereby enlarging our national "infrastructure" by a similar degree. Think of all the new jobs! Connect this reservoir to n'orleans via underground aqueducts. Flood water will drain through the aqueducts and out of the city. This underground system, powered by the laws of physics, would be immune to hurricane and flood damage as long as the reservoir functions.

Now, the obvious problem is reservoir capacity. Luckily, the reservoir is out in the middle of nowhere, allowing us to build huge water holding tanks, pumps, and so forth to empty it out. This system will be outside the hurricane/flood zones, and since it isn't within a populated area it can be much more robust than a city pump system. Furthermore, an array of voodoo priests and druids from n'orleans will periodically bless the reservoir with charms and wards to protect it. The natural power of hundreds of voodoo rituals will guarantee the system's smooth function during crises. In addition, some of these voodoo rituals require large amounts of energy to complete, so we'll have to have massive orgies on the site to reinforce the system. Who could argue with that?

Entrance fees to the ritual orgy will cover a large portion of the costs of the project, and the remaining funding can be gathered by using it as a Sea World. It would be the largest man-made aquarium in the world! Think of the tourism potential. (cue the slashdot trolls with that dolphin link)

It's a brilliant plan. Protection from floods, protection from droughts, new tourism revenue, jobs, hot sex, awesome voodoo powers, and enlargement of the national "infrastructure." What more could you ask for? That's pure New Orleans, baby.

Re:Water City

[Anonymous Coward]

This wouldn't have happened if they were running Linux.

Re:Water City

[mikael]

Secondly, If you just build over the water, then you will have a city built upon an inherintly unstable foundation i.e. A large cavern underground. Would you want to be in an office building that is built over a city sized hole in the ground?


When you build skyscrapers or bridges, you don't just build on top of the ground soil, you dig your foundations piles deep into the groundrock below. Then you use these to build your structure. If you look at any coastal city with skyscrapers, you will see that they excavate underground for many reasons, including in order to seal the foundations from groundwater leakage and to provide underground services (car parks, metro systems, storage, communications).

Many Scottish cities were built in a similar way. Edinburgh was built on seven hills - the Victorians basically built high streets that spanned each valley, with the empty space being used as storage basements for the high street departments stores, and also as an underground rail service to deliver goods direct by train from London to the stores.

Re:Water City

[jcr]

It's a brilliant plan.

No, not really. You can't build a reservoir with enough capacity to deal with a breach that leads to the ocean.

What you could do though, is flood the Sahara, which would drop the world sea level by a few feet. It would basically create a second mediterranean ocean. All you need to do is convince Libya that it's a good idea.

-jcr

Re:Water City

[Trailwalker]

The New Orleans problem is somewhat man made. The lower Mississippi has changed course many times. The Atchafalaya river has often been the outlet for the Mississippi. If a change of course were to reoccur now, New Orleans would loose much of its commercial value.

The Corps of Engineers has for many decades built dams and levees to prevent the lower Mississippi from changing its course. Among other effects, this has resulted in the river bed raising because of siltation. This required more levees to contain the river in its present embankments.

It has become a question of time until the efforts at forcing the Mississippi into the present channel end in disaster.

Hurricane Katrina is just one more factor in what is an unstable riverine enviornment.

Re:Water City

[DCowern]

The problem isn't that it's below sea level, it's that the entire city is sinking. Without the seasonal overflow of the Mississippi, there's no new silt being built up to replace the silt that's settling. Backfilling won't help much because the fill will eventually settle, too.

In fact, this problem isn't unique to Louisiana, it's affecting most of Southern Louisiana. It's the reason why wetlands are disappearing and why there's so much coastal erosion. When the Army Corps of Engineers tried to control the Mississippi, they met limited success at great cost to the ecosystem in the region.

New Orleans, and Louisana as a whole, is facing a very severe environmental problem with complex geologic issues. Filling the area is a very temporary solution and saying "don't live there" would render nearly half a state uninhabitable (not to mention destroy nearly the entire Cajun culture). There isn't really an "easy" answer.

Disclaimer: IANAGOOES (I am not a geologist or other environmental scientist) but I did take some geology classes at Tulane!

Re:Water City

[Demerara]

Mosquitoes suck.

Forgive me, but isn't this sort of stating the obvious?

Re:Water City

[RGRistroph]

I don't think that place in Libya/Egypt that is below sea level is as big as the Mediterrean. It's more like as big as the Great Salt Lake or the Aral Sea.

I once tried to figure out how far sea water had to fall before you could get enough energy out of it to purify it. Is it possible that a canal to the depression, ending in a high dam, might make enough energy to run the water through a purification station before it goes down ? If so, we could have a man-made Great Lake of fresh water in the middle of the Sahara. That would be cool.

Re:Water City

[sessamoid]

Even more importantly, they let Galveston become a cute little tourist town

Having lived there, I've heard Galveston called a lot of things. I've never heard it called "cute". The prevailing nickname for many of us was "Galvetraz".

Re:Water City

[Mr. Underbridge]

Not hurricanes, but North Atlantic storms can still be pretty intense

Ever seen one with 165 MPH sustained winds, gusts over 200 MPH, and a 20-ft storm surge? New Orleans has sustained many storms of the intensity of a North Sea gale. This storm was very different.

Re:Water City

[Paul Jakma]

While they don't get "Hurricanes" per se, they do get what is called an Orkan, which is pretty much the same.

That would be because "Orkaan" is the dutch word for "Hurricane".

And no, the Netherlands doesn't really get that many hurricanes. The Netherlands greatest problems with flooding tend actually not to come from the sea but from the Rijn, one of the biggest rivers in Europe, which exits to the sea via the Netherlands. It floods regularly.

The way the dutch cope with this is through dijks ('dykes' in english?) and, more recently, through controlled flooding: as it's simply become impossible to fully contain the Rijn, the thinking is now to let it flood as much as possible into farmland and hence reduce the strain on dijks around more important inhabited lands.

The atlantic threat is there too, while not near hurricanes in power, atlantic storms are far more frequent. It seems easier to contain though. There are barriers in place around the entrances to the Zeeland tidal estuaries, which you can see in the map the previous poster gave as blue lines, and there's a truly gigantic floating set of metal arms, which are rotated into place and then sunk, to protect the mouth of the Rotterdam waterway. (To consider how huge these must be, Rotterdam Europoort, the busiest shipping port in the *world* apparently, can just be seen in part to the right in the picture above, with a ferry sailing down that large channel..)

Re:Water City

[Overzeetop]

Please don't give him any more ideas. He's only got 3 years left, but he can still do so much more damage if he really puts his back into it.

Re:Water City

[Ernesto5]

Thus, without the Sahara flooding solution, I would suggest the "unthinkable" to many Southern Republican politicians: Write off New Orleans. New Orleans is pretty much gone. We need to start thinking about a New New Orleans/refugee camp inland. Water will "find away" and with all the excess in Lake Pontchatrain and the Mississippi and the lack of wetlands (oh, the irony), the water will seep in and "equilibrate" with bathtub that is New Orleans. Pumping out the water there now is not cost effective. Call what happened in New Orleans for what it is: an ecological disaster in the making. Excessive industrial and residential development and erecting levees destroy wetlands that naturally buffer against post-hurricane flooding were the fault of the people in Louisiana. This maybe a stretch on my part, but I would say the unusually frequent hurricane season could be attributed to global warming and violent hurricanes like this will be the annual norm if certain government(s) do not take global warming seriously. But yeah, I'd have to say we may have to write off New Orleans. It's too sad to see all the history, culture, music, and good food (gumbo!) disappear, but Nature cannot be fooled.

Re:Water City

[Laurance]

I think that this is global warming begining to show its ugly face. On-top of that, Several key oil refineries are down right now, this could mean higher gas and heating bills down the road this year.
I think that we need sustainable energy now. So that we might curb this problems like this in the future with, renewable energies and more decentralization of energy.

Re:Water City

[digidave]

They could have chrooted the city to Colorado for a few weeks or taken hurricane off the ACL.

Re:Water City

[lgw]

You say that like it's a *bad* thing. You sound like one of them liberals. Don't worry, once we're fininshed with the *external* enemies of America, your kind is next! I've seen the camps under contstruction - ohhh, what surprises await you!

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

We don't have to write it off.

What we need to do is flood it up to sea level. Construct some levies and whatnot there to control waves and stuff, but don't try to control the level.

The parts that are underwater? Build another Venice. Correctly this time.

Make sure there's a flow through the city so you don't get nasty stagent water. And make sure that people understand the base of the city will continue to sink, so they need to either have buildings that can raise up, or buildings where they can just throw away the bottom floor every once in a while.

Build pipe systems to carry a water around, and a system of bridges to drive on. Make the pipe segments more intelligent, where if pressure drops they'll immediately turn that section off, so nasty water doesn't backtrack into the system.

Aternately, we can just require everyone to build water-proof houses, and attach boats to their roofs. When bad weather is coming we can just preemptively slowly open the levies and turn off the pumps so that they don't break.

Because, seriously. We 'protect' New Orleans as long as possible, but we can't design a 'break-proof' system. We either need a system that can't break, or a system we're willing to turn off when horrible weather hits. Either way require New Orleans delibrately being underwater some of the time.

What we must not do it build the damn city back the way it was. Yes, it will probably be cheaper right now. It won't be cheaper in the long run.

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

Even if the Mississippi was flooding through New Orleans on a regular basis, that wouldn't magically put silt under buildings.

There is absolutely no way to stop the buildings from sinking barring some sort of thrusters attached to the sides of the building pulling them up, or digging foundations that are a few hundred feet deep.

What we could is a Rome solution. When the city sinks a story, we throw dirt down and build all the roads a floor higher. ;)

In fact, I rather hope they build on top of the rubble instead of clearing it away.

Re:Water City

[DavidTC]

The city didn't get hit with a hurricane. It barely missed them. But it passed them safely by.

Then the system of levies and pumps couldn't handle the amount of water and two levies overflowed and broke, flooding the city.

Any other city would be drying out and restoring power about now. New Orleans is stuck underwater, and will be for the forseeable future, until they fix the dikes and pump the water out.

However, you are correct in that the dead we know of now are because of the hurricane. Something like 30 people alone died in a building that blew over, and you obviously can't blame that on the flooding. Many of the dead we know about we learned about before the flooding.

However, we don't know how many people drown until the city gets back to functioning. There could be thousands of people who got trapped in their houses and drowned.

And a lot of people are going to die because of lack of drinking water and power.

Re:Water City

[boner]

While the North Sea does not get 200 MPH gusts, or even 165 MPH sustained winds, the North Sea has one nasty aspect. In essence the North Sea is a funnel, open at the north end and constricted at the south (the channel). South of the channel high and low water tides can actually be more than 10m apart (33ft).
In the Netherlands, the height of the dykes has been determined based on the requirement to withstand a superstorm coinciding with high tide (the lunar type, not the daily ones). Therefore, depending where you are in the Netherlands, the height of those dykes is between 5m (16ft) and 10m (33ft) above sea level, depending on the probability of being breached (must be less than 1:10000 years).

So, if New Orleans had followed a similar approach, it would have been clear that their defenses were woefully inadequate given the level of the risk.

Global warming has nothing to do with it, this is pure risk management and making informed choices. I do pity the folks in New Orleans and the general area and wish them good fortune in getting their lives back together.

Re:Water City

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Water City

[HardCase]

Actually, this is not global warming showing its face. We've gone through several decades of below normal hurricane seasons (in terms of strength and quantity) and now we've had a few seasons above normal - for the gulf region. Worldwide, although ocean temperatures have risen, the overall number and strength of cyclones have not. There are plenty of other reasons for a more active hurricane season, but, at least at this point, global warming is not one of them.

There's been quite a bit of discussion on this subject in the news outlets. On the one hand, it seems like the global warming hand wringing is being done by, to put it nicely, non-scientists, while the oceanographers, geographers and meteorologists have pointed to the fairly meticulous statistics that don't show a causal link to hurricanes and global warming - yet.

Also, the whole oil refinery issue could have been avoided if not for the NIMBY problem. Don't want an oil refinery in your area? Suffer the consequences.

-h-

Re:Water City

[kahanamoku]

throwing money at a flood is a nice way to liquidate!

Re:Water City

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

here was a catastrophic failure during the 1950's which lead to a major redesign and fortification of the who dyke system.

At which point the Dutch, recognizing the importance of dykes to their society, becoming the first nation to legalize gay marriage, giving dykes all the same legal rights and privileges as straits.

Re:Water City

[Skagit]

Rebuilding it any other way than how it was is going to be very difficult. The worst problem I think is that New Orleans and a segment of the population at large is going to demand that the fundamental character of the city remain unchanged. NO wants it to remain because it makes money, with Mardi Gras and Superbowls and the like. People at large like it because it has these things. Plus, some of it, such as the historic register buildings, can't be changed, ene if they are built in the worst possible location.

Not only can we not changed the fundamental character of the city, by custom and law, we won't have funds to do it. FEMA and insurance aren't designed, by and large, to upgrade after a disaster, they are designed to return the status quo. If newer methods and technologies, like better impermeable earth cores and geotextiles in the levees are incorporated, that's a fringe benefit. The money won't be there to put in deep foundations (though they might be required in new building codes) and bigger levees. There certainly won't be enough money to create a change from a below-sea-level city to an above-sea-level city. We'll get back almost exactly what we have.

The only thing I think we can get done in this aftermath is to restore NO to its pre-storm state (and hope the bath scrubbed out some of the nastier stains) and augment the existing flood control methods as allowed within the existing funds. We aren't going to get a New Venice, We're going to get New Orleans v1.01.

If true improvements are to come, they'll be from the ACoE and their funds, but those upgrades are going to be tacked on after the restoration. Before the storm, the Old River Control System and Atchafalaya system were on the list first, but since this happened, NO will get the focus. The ORCS is the real lynch pin, because if that fails, the Mighty Muddy Mississippi goes through the Big Easy, easily. It'll make Katrina look as harmful as a girl with beads on a Bourbon Street Balcony.

If you're interested in some of the workings of the local Army Corps of Engineers and the Atchafalaya and Mississippi interaction, look up John McPhee's book The Control Of Nature.

Re:Water City

[theonetruekeebler]

Several key oil refineries are down right now, this could mean higher gas and heating bills down the road this year.

The refineries aren't that badly damaged. The problem is that they have no power. As for higher prices, there's a more immediate concern: The gas and oil pipelines in the region have no power. They may not get power for another two weeks. Atlanta has not received new gasoline in two days. Retailers typically have a ten day reserve.

So my immediate concern is not how much gas will cost but whether there will be gas to buy at all. I guess we won't be driving to Grandma's for Labor Day after all.

Re:Water City

[IPFreely]

Global warming has nothing to do with it, this is pure risk management and making informed choices.

Global Warming should have something to do with it though. Take current sea level, add 30 feet, recalculate.

At that level, the coast will be dozens of miles inland of where New Orleans is now. The city will be in a hole out in the middle of the ocean with no surge protection at all. This can be expected before the end of the century.

Now is a pretty good time to take a deep breath and decide whether New Orleans needs to be saved or abandoned. If they do a half assed job of rebuilding, then they will only be doing this again every few years until they are just flat under water and nowhere to go. Even if they do it rght, New Orleans will be just a hole in the ocean with a city in it. Take this as a sign and get out while the getting is good. If they want to do a half assed job of rebuilding the walls, then do it and use the time you have left to salvage anything worth salvaging from the city.

BTW: New Orleans is not the only city within 30 feet of sea level.....

Re:Water City

[ccarson]

Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineerand during my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.

Re:Water City

[nester]

Please explain just how some treaty, or any action whatsoever by humans, could have prevented this storm.

I can't believe people post such ignorant crap.

Re:Water City

[letxa2000]

I agree completely (at least with the part about not rebuilding New Orleans). It was insane to have a lower-than-sea-level city build right on the edge of the ocean, a lake, and a swamp in the middle of a hurricane zone to start with. It's now been destroyed for those very reasons. A bigger tragedy than what happened this week would be to not learn the lesson, rebuild, and have the problem recycle itself in 40 years, 20 years, 10 years, maybe even next year or next month.

Looking at the pictures of pretty much the entire city under water, and recognizing that most of the dwellings are made of wood, and recognizing that wood doesn't like to retain its structural integrity after days, weeks, or months underwater, I think we need to recognize that most of the structures are going to have to be demolished anyway. We're probably watching the death of a city. Amazing, really.

It goes agaisnt human nature--or at least against American nature--but I think at times like this one has to make a sensible, non-emotional decision and realize that this city should not be rebuilt. At least not at its current location.

Re:Water City

[hans_e]

Worldwide, although ocean temperatures have risen, the overall number and strength of cyclones have not.

Ahh, but total energy consumption by hurricanes over the last few decades has increased worldwide because they are lasting longer. Here's a quote from an interview with Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

"[When you look at] their intensity and you look at how long the hurricanes lasted and you measure the total amount of energy released by the hurricanes, that is going up decidedly in most of the world's oceans, and we have tried very hard to see whether this might be an artifact of the way hurricanes are measured or the data, but no matter what you do, you get this signal. And that signal lies on top of regional phenomena."

Re:Water City

[iminplaya]

Don't want an oil refinery in your area? Suffer the consequences.

Yeah, bright, clear skies can be a real hazard. We don't need more refineries. We need more alternatives. I shouldn't have to put up with dangerous machinery in my back yard just so you* can enjoy a three hour commute every day in your* monster truck. There are many here that are telling content producers to find another way of doing business. The same goes for the rest of us. It's time to find another method of transporting our bodies from here to there. The present method is obsolete, just like their business model. Why we continue to cling to and fight wars over this, is disturbing at least.

*editorial

I wonder...

[Rick Zeman]

...how many foreign countries are sending aid to the US now?

Re:I wonder...

[krakelohm]

are we requesting it?

Re:I wonder...

[phatwuss]

Much to Mullah Robertson's dismay, the infidel Hugo Chavez has pledged aid in the form of food and fuel. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050829/pl_afp/usweat hervenezuelaoil

Re:I wonder...

[MillionthMonkey]

...how many foreign countries are sending aid to the US now?

I might take this opportunity to point out that all our troubles are the fault of the French. Yes, the FRENCH.
If those French colonists hadn't chosen such a poor location to found a city in 1718, we wouldn't be flooded right now!

Re:I wonder...

[Colonel Panic]

Much to Mullah Robertson's dismay, the infidel Hugo Chavez has pledged aid in the form of food and fuel.

Robertson says: "Communism! You can't just go around giving away food and fuel like that! Another reason to get rid of Chavez!"

Re:I wonder...

[williamyf]

I am a venezuelan.

As per rules and regulations of foreign policy. The Aid will not be delivered until it is requested.

When we had our desaster here (Vargas 1999), Mr. Chavez was ofered aid from the USA, and he declined it because his administration feared that there would be spyes infiltrated in the relief personel.

I guess Mr. Bush will go by the same token. The only difference being that the USA is in a much better position to reject the aid than venezuela was in its time.

Think of it as just another outburst in an already agitaded foreign policy between the two countries.

If you all did not notice, I do not like Mr. Chavez, or Mr. Bush, albeit, for different reasons in each case.

Suerte a todos y feliz dia!

Re:I wonder...

[Monkelectric]

You must be one of those foreigners who thinks that all Americans are rich.

Re:I wonder...

[MKalus]

Besides,

since when is Venezuela a communist country?

Re:I wonder...

[theolein]

Chavez is mainly pissed off by the way the US condoned the coup attempt in 2002. His policies inside Venezuela may be socialist but why don't you wait and see if they actually help people first before screaming communist all over the place?

Venezuela has a huge amount of poverty and he is actively doing something with state money to change that. If it works, good for him. If it doesn't then you can unfurl your anti-communist slogans and cry for war or something.

Re:I wonder...

[timeOday]

How is any kind of federal disaster relief NOT communist, or at least socialist? We just don't call it that because those are bad words.

In a pure free market, we wouldn't have FEMA, we'd have entreprenuers demanding families' life savings in exchange for life preservers and clean water.

Re:I wonder...

[Doc Ruby]

The people in the White House, Bush & company, backe the coup that deposed Chavez for 2 days a few years ago, despite his large majority election victory, overseen as fair by many foreign representatives, including American. After he was returned, showing his actual control of the government as recognized by its members, including the armed forces, he was reelected, by an even larger margin. Chavez is the popularly elected leader of Venezeula, without a doubt. And the White House you'd have "call his bluff" has actually persecuted him, and thereby Venezuela. Not to mention the comparative differences in legitimacy of their respective elections. These are among the many reasons that Chavez' credibility is only increasing, while Bush's credibility is plummeting.

Remarks like Robertson's, who represents a sizeable fraction of Bush's base, are among the other reasons. It's hardly a persecution complex when popular American leaders demand that our government assassinate. If anyone's bluff has been called, it's America's, and now the whole world can see the Ace of Spades up our sleeve, even if it's not in the hand of the dealer sitting in the White House.

Re:I wonder...

[vinlud]

Considering he is the democratically elected leader of a souvereign, peaceful and poor country i find it highly disturbing that some American politicians want him dead, only because he has a socialist policy. So much for spreading democracy. :-/

Re:I wonder...

[RexRhino]

Don't get caught up in the propoganda.

While Chavez is making some token attempts to help people, if real significant portion of oil revenues were being used to help the poor they could garantee every person in Venezuela western style medical care, diet, and education. There are serious questions about were all that money is going.

The main reason why people outside Venezuela love him so much is not because he is some kind of people's hero, it is because they like his anti-American rhetoric. It gives people in countries married to the U.S. economicly and politically a vicarious thrill to have Chavez stand up to the U.S. when their own leaders will not. Chavez could be running death squads all over the country (and some have even made the allegation), and I don't think anyone would take issue with it as long as he kept up the anti-American rhetoric.

Re:I wonder...

[lawpoop]

I used to volunteer for a program through the Methodist Church called ASP -- Appalachian Service Project. We would have crews from our church go down to poor areas of Appalachia and repair and rebuild homes. These people were poor by our standards, but they would have refridgerators, microwaves, cards, etc. But certainly no extra income to fix a leaking roof or rotting floorboards.

Then I spen two summers in Ecuador. The first summer I was in the tourist section of Quito in a Spanish immersion class. I saw families -- families -- mom, dad, and kids -- living homeless on the street. On the street. The little girls would lift up their skirts, squat, and pee, right on the sidewalk. That's something you don't see very often in the US.

The next summer I spent with an indigenous family, living in thatch-roof huts, playing cards by candle-light at night. These people had absolutely nothing. Their huts were built of wood they had cut down themselves. They carried babies around in shoulder sacks made of sheets. Their children were malnourished -- a 5 year old kid looked like a 3 year old.

I'll bet you're one of those Americans who have never been in a 3rd world country, witnessing actual poverty -- people literally living in dirt. Americans are incredibly, incredibly wealthy. Even the 'poor' ones.

Re:I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better to be poor and free than slightly less poor and enslaved.

This is something that only somebody who's lived under tyrannical socialism can understand.

Charles (from Budapest)

Misread...

[Psychor]

Did anyone else misread that headline and think the networks had started a "Pimp my City" show?

Sinking

[AutopsyReport]

My memory is muddy, what's this river that I'm in, New Orleans is sinking man and I don't wanna swim!

Re:Sinking

[gvc]

The Tragically Hip are correct. New Orleans is sinking, and will continue to sink.

The land is a flood plain. It depends on annual Mississippi flooding to deposit silt and moisture to maintain the land mass. The river levees cut off this replenishment and the land sinks.

The problem will only get worse, and there's no obvious solution.

cities on floodplains?

[myowntrueself]

"what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?"

Well what I do in Civ3 is to disallow building cities on floodplains and swamps. Helps heaps.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[_Sharp'r_]

At the very least, stop taxing everyone else to subsidize flood insurance for people who insist on building in flood-prone areas.

If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves.

Of course, we'd probably have to transition such a system into place by instead of banning existing structures from getting the current subsidized insurance, simply telling everyone who got flooded out that if they insist on rebuilding in their flood-susceptible location, they're going to have to do it without flood insurance. Otherwise, they can turn their property over for parkland and take it's pre-flood value to go rebuild somewhere else.

I know that a lot of not as wealthy people also live in flood-prone areas, but can't the taxpayers stop paying for rebuilding millionaires beach and river-front property over and over again in the same locations?

Re:cities on floodplains?

[vrmlguy]

This was done is several areas along the Mississippi River following the floods of 1993. The government bought out a lot of flooded land and turned it into parks and such. Hopefully, something similar will be done in N'Orleans.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[olympus_coder]

Actually, that is exactly what happens (and I have been through several floods). FEMA bails you out ONCE and only ONCE.

If your house is a total loss, they generally won't allow you to rebuild there. They settle and turn your land into a park. There is a hole neighborhood across the river from my parents (my parent's house doesn't flood) that is now a park.

I have friend's who homes (in Houston) were CONDIMIED because, after essesive development around their aera, there was not enough drainage and so everytime it rain their neighborhood would flood (it didn't do this until the last 10 years). The land and homes were purchased using emminent domain, and then buldozed.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Phronesis]

At the very least, stop taxing everyone else to subsidize flood insurance for people who insist on building in flood-prone areas.

If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves.

Get with the times. For almost three decades the federal law has specified that houses built after 1975 pay actuarial rates for federal flood insurance, so FEMA breaks even. There is no taxpayer subsidy on these houses.

The problem for older houses is more difficult. Suppose you built your house when an area was not flood-prone, but then the Corps of Engineers built levees upstream that channeled other people's floods onto your doorstep? Now you live in a floodplain because of someone else's action. Is it your fault that someone else built levees or paved over wetlands?

In the case of New Orleans, they have mostly themselves to blame for the flood hazard---the city has been subsiding because of the levees and pumping out ground water and has been perhaps the most active supporter of building levees and channelizing the Mississippi---but people living elsewhere, such as on the Bayous, are suffering from the environmental effects of the federal government's decisions about managing the river and thus deserve some relief.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[_Sharp'r_]

One of the continual options the OMB lists at budget is to stop subsidizing insurance on repeatedly flooded properties at a cost of a couple hundred million every year.

See http://www.cbo.gov/bo2003/bo2003_showhit1.cfm?inde x=450-05

You're right, they have started trying to charge more realistic estimates of insurance recently, but they still have all those grandfathered structures that they subsizide.

They also keep rebuilding destroyed structures. That's the real loss, when they let people build their newly re-insured structure in the same place the last one got washed away and get the same insurance again.

Re:cities on floodplains?

[Guppy06]

"If they want insurance, let them pay the real cost of it. If they don't, let them take the risk themselves."

You're assuming that people have the option of moving elsewhere.

Louisiana ain't exactly the richest state in the Union and New Orleans is among the worst of it (as the bumper sticker says, "New Orleans--third world and proud of it!"). A lot of the families living there have been living there since they were emancipated, and were the unfortunate ones that couldn't afford to move north or west during the Nineteenth or Twentieth Centuries. They don't live in houses, they live in shacks (or, in the city, "blighted housing") for which moving into a trailer would be an improvement. They sure as heck wouldn't see any money from selling their homes in an effort to move inland (even less if we follow through with your motion to eliminate subsidized flood insurance), and if they could afford to move out, they would have done so in the past hundred years or so.

And even away from New Orleans, the parts of rural Louisiana ravaged by the storm are those parts where the primary language isn't English; Cajun and Creole country. And, again, these people don't exactly have luxury houses on prime real estate. They never had any money because there's been a history of language-based discrimination longer than and almost as violent as Louisiana's history of race discrimination. And while there's been a bit of reconcilliation in recent decades, there's still a whole mess of Indians and Pakistanis that speak better English than they do.

Their job options consist of shrimping, welding, or getting shot in Iraq (ever wonder why the Deep South has such large military and National Guard enlistment rates?). They couldn't afford to move even before their shack was knocked down by a tropical cyclone. The government's options are either to help them rebuild their "houses," or allow them to wander homeless, possibly scraping together enough money for bus fare so they can wander the streets of your town, since they have little else keeping them in Louisiana.

Or I suppose we could also throw them all in jail...

Telling them to simply move somewhere else is like saying "Let them eat cake." Yes, there are fools who have second homes on Grand Isle, but Grand Isle is not indicitive of that part of the state.

one word:

[Tumbleweed]

SPONGES.

Really, just a massive airdrop of sponges over the city, et voila, your problem, she is solved!

I LIVE in New Orleans

[Anonymous Coward]

I Live in New Orleans and I was just planning on staying at Taco's house. This membership is good for something, right?

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[ZosX]

Oh fucking well. People need to move on. If the changing climate is any indication we should expect more hurricanes. What's gonna happen when NO gets a major hurricane next year? The year after? When does it fucking end and when do we keep wasting our federal taxes on rebuilding something just to be destroyed again? So the tourism is a boon to the economy? So fucking what? Maybe they need some new industry that pays the damned taxes. What would have happened if a nuclear bomb went off? The land surely wouldn't be inhabitable then and they really shouldn't view it as reinhabitable now. Earthquakes can be mitigated (for the most part), so can a great deal of other natural disasters. A hurricane is pretty all encompassing. Same thing goes for florida. There are still many, many houses there that are not recovered from last year, with no real roofing, etc. What's to happen when the next Katrina rolls through Florida? How many times do you keep rebuilding before you say enough is enough? I say make it all into a natural habitat. Let the evergreens and the gulf coastline become a huge national refuge. Christ knows that very few national parklands exist in the east and this would be a great place to start one.

All those coastal towns that were wiped out, do you think that they will all be rebuilt? What would be the fucking point? So they can all be destroyed again? It is not like the problem is going to suddenly disappear. Give up on New Orleans. It is going to cost far more money to rebuild it than it would to relocate all of those people.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Hehe.

What's even funnier is the roadsign leading to the airport:

"NO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - THIS EXIT"

No kidding.

Re:I LIVE in New Orleans

[Fastball]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt - the dangerous radioactivity doesn't actually last that long.
Little Boy and Fat Man were one time events. Hurricane season lasts from June-November every year.

Donate

[Omega1045]

Salvation Army Online Donation - Money goes directly to help with Katrina relief.

One suggestion

[Toasty16]

The Army Corps of Engineers is working on better flood detection and protection, and anyone with expertise in this area could contact them and lend a hand.

Prevent?

[JanneM]

Only way to really prevent something like this is to not build densely in high-risk areas in the first place.

Of course, the very features that makes for high risk - river deltas, earthquake areas, active volcanism - tend to produce really desireable areas to live in.

Re:What can be done about it?

[grub]

We all know why this is happening to us.

Yep, because terrorists hate our freedom.

Re:The future....

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

The US government through FEMA gives these dopes the money to rebuild in the flood zones. End the subsidies, and restore the environment.

Re:This is a pointed quote right now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blaming it on Bush is a joke. The levees haven't been properly funded for decades.

Re:Leave it alone

[RGRistroph]

You forgot the Mississippi river on the 4th side. That is often at a higher level than any of the other three (always higher than the sea, which not a direct neighbor yet -- needs a few more storms for that).

As for insurance, the US gov has bailed out every insurance company that hit bad times insuring Florida or Texas or California property, so why not ? It's a win-win situation -- nothing happens, you get the premiums, something happens, the Gov pays for you.

I predict people will move right back in, rebuild with easy gov-backed credit, and repeat all these mistakes again while our national deficit balloons.

Move New Orleans

[Colonel Panic]

Maybe they should seriously consider moving the whole city to someplace more stable (not below sea-level and not sinking).
Yeah, that'll be very expensive, but if they don't do seriously consider the moving option now, they'll probably have to consider it some time in the next 50 years anyway. Given the location and parameters (below sea-level and below Mississippi level much of the time) it's amazing that NL has lasted this long. Perhaps we should consider NL to be the first victim of Global Warming (which produces stronger hurricanes and higher ocean levels).

Don't miss this Popular Mechanics article

[H0NGK0NGPH00EY]

Popular Mechanics also did a piece on the disaster that was just waiting to happen in New Orleans. Check it out.

Send your AOL CD's to New Orleans...

[Dr. Zowie]

... together with back-issues of National Geographic. That should avoid the problem in the future by raising the grade level by 5-7 meters.

Re:Leave it alone

[LWATCDR]

Gee no practical value. I guess the whole port thing is useless now that we no longer use ships. Oh and the oil and gas terminal is also useless now that we have Zero Point Modules at every WalMat
There are some real practical reasons for New Orleans to exist.
There are some things that can be done to reduce the impact of hurricanes like this. The biggest one is to restore the delta and the wet lands. The messing with the Mississippi caused a lot of this damage.
Building codes can also make a big difference. My home got hit by TWO hurricanes last year. I had no damage. Lots of older homes near me get a lot of damage.
BTW if we are going to condemn cities that are could be damaged by natural disasters lets start the list with most of California and let's face it New York is just a giant target for terrorists. How many Billions did 9/11 cost the US? Oh and Seattle is next to a chain of volcanoes.
Cities tend to be where they are for a reason. Lots of cities tend to be on rivers and the Ocean because water transportation is so useful. New Orleans would have done just fine with a CAT 2 or CAT 3 Getting hit by a CAT 4+ is a very rare event for anyone location.
Saying that these people should "just" move on is uncaring, mean, and stupid

Re:My .02

[DerekLyons]

Long term: I think a massive public works project will come out of this. Something along the lines of the Netherlands Delta Works Project. Only on a much more massive scale.

There has been such a massive public works program going on for over a century. The Mississippi is constrained by a massive system of levees, dams, flood control channels, etc... etc... The Netherlands Delta Works Project is little more than a scale model of this system. (In total volume, the levees along the Mississippi river and it's tributaries considerably exceed that of the Great Wall.)

Something along the lines of a massively huge dike between New Orleans and the ocean.

Such a dike would be a waste of time and money - as the main threat to New Orleans is the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain. (It's breaks in the levee that protect the city from the latter that are currently flooding the city.)

Re:My .02

[BenFranske]

Scientists will tell you that the leevees caused the problem in the first place. The Mississippi is supposed to flood naturally which builds up the marshes that protect the city from the ocean. Settlers have been building leevees to stop the flooding for hundreds of years, this is just what happens when you do that. It's the cost of doing business when you mess with nature.

Re:The future....

[SpaceLifeForm]

You forgot that the 'soil' is constantly sinking. It is just silt from the Mississipi River that must be replenished. The levees prevent that re-silting which could maintain the elevation. New Orleans will eventually either disappear or have to be maintained in a different manner.

In the long run, it probably would be best to abandon the city entirely, but that won't happen, so, all the taxpayers in the U.S. will have to pay for it even if they don't live there.

Re:The future....

[Waffle Iron]

Better not live anywhere that has any natural disaster at all.

Are you at all familiar with the statistical concept called "odds"?

Re:The future....

[ben_white]

A) Don't live by a freaking ocean. Oceans have hurricanes. B) Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level. Flooding WILL occur. Problem solved.

Nice if you plan cities in the 21st century based on an information economy with satellite recon of all flood and tidal basins. Not realistic in the real world where cities appear and evolve over centuries, and ocean side locations were vital to the economy, as they still are (check out this link from the la times and see if you still think it is reasonable to think that costal areas can be sparsely populated).

I do agree that most people who flock toward the coastal areas now do so for reasons other than that they make their living from the sea, but expecting people to suddenly see the light and move to Oklahoma is not realistic (besides tornados suck too).

cheers, ben

Let's blame Congress

[i_like_spam]

Congress cut the fiscal year 2006 budget to the US Army Corps of Engineers in the New Orleans district by $71 Million, the largest single year cut ever.

Ironically, a study to determine the effects of a Cat 5 hurricane was also shelved.

Moreover, the New Orleans district imposed a hiring freeze back in June, the first time in 10 years.

Congress may be partially to blame for the failed pumps and the long clean-up time.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[frankie]

taxing people in North Dakota and Virginia to pay for protection for people who built homes below sea level.

Funny that you should pick North Dakota as your first example. For every dollar that those badlands leeches pay in income taxes, they get back about TWO dollars in federal largesse.

Care to know which states really deserve to complain about their tax dollars being handed out to others? That would be Wisconsin, Delaware, New York, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the most robbed of all, New Jersey.

Re:Let's blame Congress

[aminorex]

The blue states giveth, the red states taketh away.

This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes?

[FunWithHeadlines]

Folks, think about what it would be like to be forced from your home and told not to come back for a month, knowing that all that time your house is partially underwater, and fairly toxic water at that. Think about the suffering that must be going on at this very minute by people who were unable to evacuate, and now find themselves unable to even walk out of the city. Think about the tens of thousands of people stuck in the Superdome who have been without air conditioning, most power, in stifling heat and dark, with little notion of when they will ever be able to return to their homes, or even if they have homes any more. Think about those who are crippled, or sick, or elderly, and who are stuck in this slow-motion disaster.

Think about the fact that a major U.S. city that many people love is slowly being destroyed almost completely. Think about how when all is said and done probably thousands of people will be dead from this. Think about how a husband feels knowing his wife is dead, or a wife feels seeing her husband die, or a parent who sees a child sicken and die.

Think I'm being overly dramatic? Think again. This is going to wind up being the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, and what I'm seeing on /. are jokes? I know the usual flippant response is 'hey dude, this is a valid response to tragedy.' Yeah, I understand that, but man, people are actively dying right now. How about just a tad more respect at this very moment, and then make your jokes? Why not wait to see the full impact of this disaster before you reflexively respond with sarcasm and wit? Please.

Not a global warming issue.

[LWATCDR]

These storms are part of a natural Hurricane cycle. These cycles have been seen going back centuries. Not really a case of Karma. If so wouldn't it have been more far for a massive hurricane to have hit California and New York where lots if this oil and gas is burned?
These poor people need help just a bunch of morons judging them and making stupid comments.

Re:Not a global warming issue.

[SashaMan]

Au contraire. A good study from MIT about how hurricane wind speeds are 50% stronger in the past 3 decades, partially due to global warming (although I realize there is a 50% chance this study is false):

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/hurricanes.html

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[spisska]

Or more to the point, does it bother anyone that our tax dollars will be used to pay for people who do have insurance, because the insurance companies will run to the government to bail them out when that $20 billion bill comes due?

It's not helping the folks who have no insurance that bothers me. It's helping out comapnies whose business is selling risk, but who end up short on cash when their policies have to be paid out.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[wytcld]

Flood insurance is provided by the federal government. You still have to buy it, but private insurers won't touch it. So if the feds stopped providing it large sections of, for instance, the Florida coast would cease to be attractive to development - you can't get a mortgage on something you can't get flood insurance on if it's anywhere that can flood at all.

So, yes, the government should stop providing flood insurance. Except then there would be millions of people in houses suddenly without much value since they can't sell them for much since the new owners couldn't get mortgages. And the banks holding the current mortgages wouldn't be too happy either. And Florida would be in a terrible way, which would be a hell of a repayment for the favor its government did for W back in 2000.

Re:The future....

[Sarcastic Assassin]

Why was this modded Insightful?

A) In the 18th and 19th century (when this city was being established by the French), its location (ie, near the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico) meant they could charge big $$$ for letting people use it. Also, according to Wikipedia, "The site was selected because it was a rare bit of natural high ground along the flood-prone banks of the lower Mississippi". So they were worried more about the "flood-prone Mississippi", not a rare and powerful hurricane.

B) This borders on stupid. Don't you think that people living in New Orleans (business owners, residents, etc) know and accept the risk? Or were you expecting them to be psychic, and forsee Katrina months before it occurred, and promptly sell all their property there, and move somewhere else?

Though, in the future, your comments will be noted, and greatly appreciated for their insight.

Re:Leave it alone

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

New Orleans would have done just fine with a CAT 2 or CAT 3 Getting hit by a CAT 4+ is a very rare event for anyone location.

Dude. Hurricanes. Not network cable. No need to uppercase CAT.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

I was just wondering, what exactly COULD have been done? Have everybody face southeast and blow really hard to make the hurricane move further east?

The only thing that you can do when there's a hurricane coming is GET THE FUCK OUT. A mandatory evacuation was announced at least 36 hours beforehand. Anyone with half a brain had ample opportunity to GET THE FUCK OUT.

Knowing that there are plenty of people with less than half a brain, they opened up the Superdome so when those dipshits finally realized, too late, that the governor really meant it when he said GET THE FUCK OUT, they'd have something to cower in besides their single-story wooden houses left over from the Great Depression and earlier.

3/4 of a million MRE's, millions of gallons of bottled water, etc. etc. were all staged at nearby locations (as close as they could get without being just as fucked as the idiots who stayed in the city).

So, my question to you is this: What else was the government supposed to do to save the stragglers from their own stupidity?

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[malakai]

Louisiana has 65% of their national guard troops at home. Only half of those will be activated for the relief effort (~3,500). The fact is, we're set up to handle two simulataneous wars at the same time and a natural disaster. No states national guard troop level is below 60% even witht he war in Iraq (and it's not just Iraq, troops are in 40 countries).

But bitch away anyhow, it's surely helping the situation.

(and Alabama has 70% available, Mississippi has 65% available. Far more than will ever be called upon).

America "chernobyl". Just walk away

[DigiShaman]

I say we just abandon New Orleans if the damage is too extensive to rebuild. Basically, call it Americas "chernobyl" and move on. Ya, there are fond memories in that city...but sometimes it's best to not fight nature. Just leave it be. But up a memorial, rebuild refineries in other areas...but slowly, just walk away from it.

I doubt this will happen, but it would be better in the long run then supporting a city BELOW see level.

Re:Bigger Pumps?

[Xugumad]

Where from? Pumps on the scale we're talking about aren't exactly lying around, they're manufactured to order. Then there's the problem of power, given the extensive damage. Then we can start talking about working conditions for installing those pumps...

My little voice about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me put in here my (little) experience about floodings.

I live in Venice, well in the hinterland of it. As you may know, it's a city build "on" the water. Or, better said, on a group of islands (107, exactly) in a laguna, directly connected by three connections to the mediterranean sea.
The area suffers from geological bradyseism (sinking) of few centimeters per year.
It's an irreversible process, simply leading to a worse situation as time goes by.

The city suffers an average of 50 floodings per year, with peak heigth of the water of more than a meter in the lower zones.
"Just" 40 years ago, the count of floodings per year was less than a dozen.
Lots are the analysis, conferences and general discussion on which should be best ways to limit the effects of such situation.
Well, the most common answer is: there's no solution.
It is just possible to extend the agony, not to dry up the city.

So, I agree with the cynical comment red so far: if you consider it worth, go and rebuild some kilometers faraway.
Sad but true.

Back to New Orleans - which is not Venice indeed - surely it will be possible to clean the city, polish it up and recall it to normality, but nothing assures you another similar (or even worse) flooding won't occur again, vanishing every effort.

Good luck to whose are still there.

Oh please!

[Luscious868]

Typical American attitude. "Every man for himself!". No sense of community at all.

Get real. There is a differnece between donating your money to those in need and having your money taken from you. If I stick a gun in your face, take your wallet, but give 25% of it to a charity, I'm I not guilty of theft? That's the point the of the original post. I have no problem giving to charitys that will help the people of New Orleans get back on their feet. What I, and many others, have a problem with is that money is taken from us without our permission by the goverment and given to these people when their is a 100% chance that a similar event will happen in the future because of the location these people choose to live in and do business in. Theft is theft, no matter how good you believe the cause to be. Let those who wish to give, give. Let those who do not, keep their money. Nobody is entitled to anyone elses hard earned property or earnings under any circumstances, period.

I realize that's hard for you to wrap your liberal head around but I don't work 8 hours a day , 5 days a week so other people can decide how to spend my hard earned dollars. I work so that I can.

Re:Oh please!

[mrchaotica]

African hunting and gathering tribes survive by working 3 to 4 hours a day. The rest of the time they sit around chatting, or dance around their campfires. They're not subsidized in any way whatsoever; they don't even trade with their neighbors, except for unnecessary luxuries. So if you're working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, you're obviously a big, fat chump!

(I'm not making this up, by the way -- they said it verbatim on today's episode of Going Tribal on the Discovery Channel.)

Re:Oh please!

[Dasher42]

You must be one of those completely independent, self-made American pioneers. Please tell me how you built your career without government-built-and-maintained roads, sewage, or water, and ate healthfully at home and away with no FDA standards. Or this nice internet we're on; perhaps you invented it, and not Al Gore, but how did you build such a powerful global economy about it? And how did you accomplish all these feats alone with no public libraries or schools to assist you? And how did you keep big companies from dumping toxic waste near your back yard? These are staggering accomplishments for one individual.
 
Yes?

Americans need to quit this ludicrous whining and appreciate that their tax dollars are actually some of the best investments they make. You can accomplish what you do because you stand on the shoulders of honest citizens before you. You are not a victim for paying the dues needed to live in a stable, prosperous civilization. That's not communism, that's just the basic needs of developed society.

I'm sure a tax break could let you afford more electronic trinkets in the near future, but when public services get gutted like they did in my home state when politicians pandered to this kind of drivel, high school and college education got badly stripped, environmental cleanups vanished leaving just barebones monitoring, and our economic future took a turn for the worse. Other expenses, especially for those of us taking college courses to adjust to this changing economy, rose and more than ate up our token breaks. Some of us even had to forgo buying more electronic trinkets.
 
Nobody will win my vote with that nonsense after that.

why did all the pumps shut down?

[SuperBanana]

Don't live in a city that is 8 feet below sea level. Flooding WILL occur.

...and if you do, build your pumping stations so that they can work submerged and without grid power, so that next time, they don't ALL FAIL. It's not like we don't have the technology- submarines, for example.

How much can it cost to build a solid foundation, and put a big diesel engine with a big fuel tank either in a sealed container with a snorkle, or put the engine bits up top a high tower (with substantial reinforcement)? This ain't rocket science.

Also, why don't the levees have anything but dirt in 'em? Why can't they have periodic concrete segments or something to stop breaks from spreading and to use as a base for emergency repairs?

Re:why did all the pumps shut down?

[oRdchaos]

The 17th street canal levee that broke was solid concrete... A large number of the levees that are actually directly up against water (most of them are some distance from the water to allow for some flood area) have a concrete facing up against the water to protect from erosion.

A large number of the pumps seemed to have worked fine for a while... Some pumps on the west bank of the river are manually controlled diesel pumps (they're rarely needed) so those couldn't be started up...also their roofs blew off and they were claiming that no one could get to them to start things up.

They just built a brand new pumping station along the interstate along the evacuation route, and I believe those failed pretty quickly.

The last ones to go were just overwhelmed by the breach in the levee. Basically they were constantly pumping water into the lake, only to have it flow right back in. I can understand that a little bit more... They eventually overheated and shut down I believe.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing to remember is that while 65% of the current Louisiana National Guard are in country, the total number of troops in the National Guard have been shrinking over the last few years due to a few years of recruitment shortages.

The second thing to remember is that numbers alone aren't the whole story. One has to consider that those soldiers trained in the kinds of specialties that are going to be needed over the next month, such as transportation, medical support, military police and aviation are more likely to be in demand in Iraq and therefore are more likely to be on their second and third rotation over seas.

The final part comes in the form of equipment. The National Guard and Reserves have always been subject to hand-me-downs from the active duty units. When something big happens and large numbers of AR/NG units are deployed, they often do so with equipment gathered from non-deployed AR/NG units in order to be at full strength. So large amounts of AR/NG equipment that could be used in this emergency are going to be sitting in the desert right now and won't be getting back any time soon.

In the end, I'd put the actual effectiveness in terms of soldiers and equipment of the current Louisiana National Guard at around 30-40% of what they were prior to Iraq.

Re:Leave it alone

[cosmic_0x526179]

Like most cities with a long and distinguished history.., the folks that got there first (i.e. in the french quarter) took the high ground... FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON ! Now we have folks being sold condos and split-levels all over the city and while they know (somewhere in the back of their mind) that they (and their house) are below sea level, it usually never occupies that much thought... until the shit really hits the fan. It just hit the fan... big time.

Some reports are saying that the govenor wants the entire city evac'ed. I am *guessing* that they may have to let the bowl fill up before they can get decent repairs on the levee. The only event I can even imagine of this scale is for the San Andreas to let loose right under LA (and I reallly hope that does not happpen in my lifetime). This is way beyond a catastrophe. This is functionally (if not literally) the destruction of a major US city. Other than the act of god bit, it would take a nuke to equal what just happened. How would you like to flee your home, then get told that it may be months before you are allowed back, and then to see what all that water did to the carpets, drywall, etc.

Folks, it doesn't get much worse than this.. except for death... and some folks bought that ticket.

Helicopter flyover video

[Kremit]

I posted a torrent to the helicopter flyover video of New Orleans (from a news station earlier today) in the other hurricane-related discussion:

http://wrpn.net/~kremit/files/wgno26flyover.wmv.to rrent

It's about 46 minutes long and in Windows Media format (I didn't create it and didn't feel like converting it).

Salon: The Battle of New Orleans

[Anonymous Coward]

The Battle of New Orleans

The battle of New Orleans
Long before Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was in a precarious state -- caught in an ongoing war with the mighty Mississippi River.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John McPhee

Aug. 30, 2005 | For those watching the near-cataclysmic results of Hurricane Katrina, and wondering how New Orleans ever fell into such a precariously vulnerable position, John McPhee's great 1989 book "The Control of Nature" offers concrete answers. Each of the three parts of the book deals with a different region where man has been at war with nature: in Los Angeles, Iceland and, most important at this moment, the lower Mississippi River. Katrina is, of course, a case of nature waging war on man. But its damage and devastation may be felt all the more in places like New Orleans, where sturdy and deeply rooted men and women have faced off with the great river we call the Mississippi again and again. In this excerpt from "Atchafalaya," the first chapter from "The Control of Nature," McPhee draws affectionate portraits of the men of the Army Corps of Engineers and others who toil on behalf of "progress." Yet, it's clear which side he comes down on in these fights. His work reminds us that there are things more powerful than we are, and that nature, however hard we try to control it, will run its course.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Something like half of New Orleans is now below sea level -- as much as fifteen feet. New Orleans, surrounded by levees, is emplaced between Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi like a broad shallow bowl. Nowhere is New Orleans higher than the river's natural bank. Underprivileged people live in the lower elevations, and always have. The rich -- by the river -- occupy the highest ground. In New Orleans, income and elevation can be correlated on a literally sliding scale: the Garden District on the highest level, Stanley Kowalski in the swamp. The Garden District and its environs are locally known as uptown.

Torrential rains fall on New Orleans -- enough to cause flash floods inside the municipal walls. The water has nowhere to go. Left on its own, it would form a lake, rising inexorably from one level of the economy to the next. So it has to be pumped out. Every drop of rain that falls on New Orleans evaporates or is pumped out. Its removal lowers the water table and accelerates the city's subsidence. Where marshes have been drained to create tracts for new housing, ground will shrink, too. People buy landfill to keep up with the Joneses. In the words of Bob Fairless, of the New Orleans District engineers, "It's almost an annual spring ritual to get a load of dirt and fill in the low spots on your lawn." A child jumping up and down on such a lawn can cause the earth to move under another child, on the far side of the lawn.

Many houses are built on slabs that firmly rest on pilings. As the turf around a house gradually subsides, the slab seems to rise. Where the driveway was once flush with the foor of the carport, a bump appears. The front walk sags like a hammock. The sidewalk sags. The bump up to the carport, growing, becomes high enough to knock the front wheels out of alignment. Sakrete appears, like putty beside a windowpane, to ease the bump. The property sinks another foot. The house stays where it is, on its slab and pilings. A ramp is built to get the car into the carport. The ramp rises three feet. But the yard, before long, has subsided four. The carport becomes a porch, with hanging plants and steep wooden steps. A carport that is not firmly anchored may dangle from the side of a house like a third of a drop-leaf table. Under the house, daylight appears. You can see under the slab and out the other side. More landfill or more concrete is packed around the edges to hide the ugly scene. A gas main, broken by the settling earth, leaks below the slab. The sealed cavity fills with gas. The house blows sky high.

"The people cannot have w

Re:This is a massively sad event, and we get jokes

[WatertonMan]

The difference is that this disaster has been widely expected. When I lived in Louisiana everyone talked about this in matter of fact terms. In fact most expected things to be far worse. Just be grateful it wasn't a cat 4 or cat 5 storm that hit a bit further west. I remember talking to the guy in charge of disaster planning for the state back in the 1980's. I asked what happens if a hurricane goes over Lake Pontchartrain. He said almost everyone dies because there is no way out of the city and no time to evacuate a few million people.

This was in the 1980's.

Everyone has known this would happen eventually but pretended it wouldn't.

I understand that for the people there this is of no comfort and we have to turn our hearts to them. I agree we should. But it was like 9/11 when many people had been trying to warn the public for years and everyone turned a deaf ear. Typically these sorts of things are well known about in advance years earlier. What's tragic isn't just the people killed and displaced. What's tragic is that this could have been prevented by not building up an area in which we knew this would happen.

We should be grateful that most of the predictions didn't happen. Because it easily could have been much, much worse.

that has nothing to do with New Orleans

[Trepidity]

What you're talking about is the Port of Southern Louisiana, which is located along a 50-mile stretch of the Mississippi river. Most shipping is not actually in the city of New Orleans (at least not for the past few decades). This sprawling port does not require the city of New Orleans in order to operate, although some debris will indeed have to be cleared out of the river.

It's true that it does require people in the vicinity to operate the various facilities, but there is no reason they can't be located further inland. New Orleans is in just about the worst possible spot in the region, located below sea level, in a bowl, in a swamp, between a river, lake, other lake, and the gulf.

If New Orleans were rebuilt 30-40 miles upriver, the port could continue to operate just fine, and the residents would be in a safer and more sustainable location. There is absolutely no reason to continue to maintain a city that is an average of 10 feet below sea level, when there is perfectly good above-sea-level land not very far away.

Re:How about moving off the flood plain?

[CiXeL]

my girlfriend and i used all our savings to get here to where the cost of living was cheaper. we are from los angeles, my girlfriend has a four year degree in telivision and film which has been outsourced and people are doing it on a volunteer basis while working at mcdonalds. i am a tech worker who's job has been outsourced. we moved from los angeles looking for more opportunity because of the hellish conditions of paying 1175 for a 650 square foot apartment.

i used to be just like you. its only when everything falls apart do you open your eyes and see how very fragile your lifestyle is.

there are many people like me discovering this right now. working hard will get you nowhere these days, only backstabbing will which is something i refuse to do because of my morals.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[koreth]

Natural disasters happen everywhere. Earthquakes, for example. Only in California, you say? Of the largest quakes in US history, California barely makes the top 10. (Missouri and Alaska are much worse places to be, quake-wise.) Volcanoes erupt. Rivers overflow and dump flood waters into cities.

Speaking as a Californian, I am happy my taxes are paying to help out the folks in Louisiana and Mississippi. And should disaster strike where I live -- which it will, given enough time -- they'll help me out as well, and we'll all end up better off.

Now, that said, I'd hope that the rebuilding effort takes this disaster into account and that whatever replaces the devastated areas will be built such that it comes closer to withstanding another big hurricane. (Obviously it's impossible to build a city that'll survive unscathed if the storm is big enough.)

The federal government spends billions on a lot of stupid things I feel are a total waste of my money. This isn't one of them.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[JonXP]

Here's the thing, it wasn't PUT there, it settled over time. I could go into all the reasons why (involving sediment, flooding and such) but just a logical view would let you realize that they couldn't have built it in the first place if it'd always been below sea-level because it would have been underwater. The levees were built up over time to prevent flooding from the Mississippi, and the city just kept sinking under the protection of the them.

Re:No joking? Yeah, right.

[FunWithHeadlines]

As a local resident, I defer to your local expertise. But while you joke on, may I suggest you get out if you are able? As you say, the flood waters are coming, and this bad situation is going to get much worse for you. Please be safe.

Re:Keep the national guard at home

[DMUTPeregrine]

And why the HELL can a war outside the US affect the STATE'S national guard? Those are supposed to be for the state's defense, not wars in other countries!

Re:Sinking :Look at this from popularmechanics'01

[yorugua]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1 282151.html http://www.popularmechanics.com.nyud.net:8090/scie nce/research/1282151.html

They don't bury the dead in New Orleans. The highest point in the city is only 6 ft. above sea level, which makes for watery graves. Fearful that rotting corpses caused epidemics, the city limited ground burials in 1830. Mausoleums built on soggy cemetery grounds became the final resting place for generations. Beyond providing a macabre tourist attraction, these "cities of the dead" serve as a reminder of the Big Easy's vulnerability to flooding. The reason water rushes into graves is because New Orleans sits atop a delta made of unconsolidated material that has washed down the Mississippi River.

Think of the city as a chin jutting out, waiting for a one-two punch from Mother Nature. The first blow comes from the sky. Hurricanes plying the Gulf of Mexico push massive domes of water (storm surges) ahead of their swirling winds. After the surges hit, the second blow strikes from below. The same swampy delta ground that necessitates above-ground burials leaves water from the storm surge with no place to go but up.

The fact that New Orleans has not already sunk is a matter of luck. If slightly different paths had been followed by Hurricanes Camille, which struck in August 1969, Andrew in August 1992 or George in September 1998, today we might need scuba gear to tour the French Quarter.

"In New Orleans, you never get above sea level, so you're always going to be isolated during a strong hurricane," says Kay Wilkins of the southeast Louisiana chapter of the American Red Cross.

During a strong hurricane, the city could be inundated with water blocking all streets in and out for days, leaving people stranded without electricity and access to clean drinking water. Many also could die because the city has few buildings that could withstand the sustained 96- to 100-mph winds and 6- to 8-ft. storm surges of a Category 2 hurricane. Moving to higher elevations would be just as dangerous as staying on low ground. Had Camille, a Category 5 storm, made landfall at New Orleans, instead of losing her punch before arriving, her winds would have blown twice as hard and her storm surge would have been three times as high.

Yet knowing all this, area residents have made their potential problem worse. "Over the past 30 years, the coastal region impacted by Camille has changed dramatically. Coastal erosion combined with soaring commercial and residential development in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have all combined to significantly increase the vulnerability of the area," says Sandy Ward Eslinger, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Services Center in Charleston, S.C. Early Warning

Emergency planners believe that it is a foregone conclusion that the Big Easy someday will be hit by a scouring storm surge. And, given the tremendous amount of coastal-area development, this watery "big one" will produce a staggering amount of damage. Yet, this doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a massive loss of lives.

The key is a new emergency warning system developed by Gregory Stone, a professor at Louisiana State University (LSU). It is called WAVCIS, which stands for wave-current surge information system. Within 30 minutes to an hour after raw data is collected from monitoring stations in the Gulf, an assessment of storm-surge damage would be available to emergency planners. Disaster relief agencies then would be able to mobilize resources--rescue personnel, the Red Cross, and so forth.

The $4.5 million WAVCIS project, which is now coming on line, will fill a major void in the Louisiana storm warning system, which was practically nonexistent compared to those of other Gulf Coast states. A system of 20 "weat

Perhaps it is time to abandon it

[N3Bruce]

As difficult as it is to think about abandoning New Orleans, the grim reality is this:

1. Almost the entire city is inundated. Except for some tall and modern downtown buildings, most of the residential areas are going to be not worth salvaging,they will have to be rebuilt from scratch, even if the city is pumped dry. These buildings will be soaking the the fetid stew of stagnant polluted water for weeks, if not months. Anything made of wood will be turned to mulch.

2. Most of the major highways that serve the city are heavily damaged. It will take many months, if not years to reconnect the city properly to the rest of the world, and cost billions of dollars.

3. Same can be said for the other infrastructure, such as water, sewer, electrical, and communications infrastructure.

4. Even if the downtown high-rises are relatively unscathed (and most have pretty serious glass breakage) who will stay in the area to work in them or occupy them.

5. The levee system needs extensive repairs to hold back even another tropical storm or category one hurricane. It is not unreasonable to expect another tropical cyclone to form in the gulf and affect that part of the coast before repairs can be completed.

6. Even if the levees are reinforced against another Category 4/5 hurricane, New Orleans faces other threats to its viability as a city. Upriver, the Mississippii River is held back by huge dikes to prevent it from finding a new route to the sea. Someday, these defenses will be overwhelmed, and Old Man River will take a shortcut to the west, abandoning its current channel, cutting off New Orleans and the water flow that keeps its shipping channels clear.

To abandon New Orleans would mean abandoning over 400 years of tradition, history, and a unique and quirky culture unlike anywhere else in the country. Without a vision to keep the survivors in the region, most likely they would disperse throughout the rest of the country, as the article noted. The geography of the area provides no easy answers, there is not a whole lot of good buildable land that can be used to build a new city nearby, but there are better locations to build than the current location.

Perhaps it is the Sim City enthusiast in me, but perhaps the destruction of New Orleans would give us a chance to rebuild a city from scratch, and avoid some of the mistakes that were made in the original town. It would be a mistake as well though, to rebuild New Orleans in the same sterile and souless style as many modern suburbs are, as it would be to try to rebuild an exact replica of it upriver somewhere.

Amazing moderation!

[FunWithHeadlines]

I find it amazing that a sincere plea for someone else's safety was modded down.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

Well, I think you're sort of right. The Feds waste a lot of money, and this is HUGE waste of money in the sense that it didn't have to happen. But given that it did, I totally agree that we need to help them. But the originally poster wasn't suggesting we don't help them, he was pointing out the obvious: the nation shouldn't pay, repeatedly, the bail out people who live in uninhabitable parts of the country. If these people actually had to pay for their own insurance, I bet a lot of them wouldn't live there.

Do you really think people in Denver are as likely to suffer a natural disaster as people in San Fran or along the banks of the Mississippi? Only a few areas in the country recieve federal disaster funds, and it's always the same places. Maybe people, in the future, should pay for their own risks, the same way the rest of us do. Just a crazy right wing idea.

Good thing they had that Superdome!!!

[Brian_Ellenberger]

I'm one of those people who complain about 100+ million dollar sports teams who force taxpayers to build stadiums for them from taxdollars, but there would be 10000+ people who would be SOL without the Superdome. I'm sure people would have scoffed at the idea of funding the dome because "it might come in handy in a natural disaster" but it has definitely saved alot of lives.

Re:The future....

[albion_t]

Do you not have any empathy? Can you imagine bringing home less than $200 dollars a week in the city you were born in and having a car that won't make it more than a few miles without fixing it yourself? Can you imagine being told to pack everything in your POS car (if you're lucky enough to have it)and get away from the only thing you've ever known? Not everyone is fortunate enough to be born and raised in privelege. Even in your own country. I know a little about it. Born and raised in rural Arkansas.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Washizu]

"I stayed in their hotels, ate their food and patronized their stores."

You forgot "looked at their boobies"

Holiday Inn!

[Agarax]

Or did you just spend the night at a Holiday Inn?

Re:Your figures are a little off...

[vinlud]

I'm Dutch, and considering the 1,5 trillion pounds is spread over _50_ years i think this is quite good estimate, the Zuiderzee works are only a small part of our total infrastructure against flooding.

Let the Bush Bashing Begin

[Alien54]

It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004

Let the Bush bashing begin, at least, according to some.

Funding for work on New Orleans' flood prevention system slowed to a trickle in 2003, and many people (long before Monday) claimed that was due to the Iraq war. Did GW bet that he wouldn't need the money for New Orleans levees, and decided to shift it to the war instead?

Looks like a bad bet.......

Wonder if Congress will look into this?

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[photon317]

Yeah, but you'll notice there are bajillions of people living in Missouri or Alaska. Most people are fairly smart, at least smart enough not to live by choice directly on a major geologic fault line (or in a city below sea level on a coastline known for hurricanes, or in an arctic wasteland, etc).

I have very little sympathy for people who lose it all in New Orleans Hurricanes or California Earthquakes, and I don't feel any desire at all to open up my pocketbooks to help bail you guys out of trouble either.

Unexpected and extremely rare natural and manmade disasters can and will happen just about anywhere, and I'm all for aid in those situations. But don't build (or live in) a city like New Orleans (or the population centers along the major CA faults), and pretend like you didn't know this shit was coming and beg for help when it does. All the rest of us knew better and made the wise choice not to be there in the first place.

A *really* ironic thing was on the news Sunday during the pre-hurricane coverage. The reporter was shooting a scene off of a beach off of either Louisiana or Missisippi. Even though the hurricane was still at least 18-24+ hours out, the water was already surging and rolling violently, and the public had been warned to stay out of the water. Yet there were 5-6 dumbass 16-25-ish looking males on *Jetskis* out there playing in it. The reporter pointed out their irresponsible actions, and said something along the lines of, "Folks, listen to the authorities and don't do dumb things like this. You may think it will be fine, but if or when you get in trouble out there, the authorities are going to have to come out and risk their own lives to save you, as well as divert considerable resources from what they have available to deal with everything else they have to do today".

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw that segment was to metaphor-ize that into the population of New Orleans out there on the Jetskis, and my tax-paid resources having to divert their efforts and risk their necks over the stupidity of building a city like that and filling it with people.

URGENT -- PLEASE RELAY.

[Anonymous Coward]

****ALL RESIDENTS ON THE EAST BANK OF ORLEANS AND JEFFERSON REMAINING IN THE METRO AREA ARE BEING TOLD TO EVACUATE AS EFFORTS TO SANDBAG THE LEVEE BREAK HAVE ENDED. THE PUMPS IN THAT AREA ARE EXPECTED TO FAIL SOON AND 9 FEET OF WATER IS EXPECTED IN THE ENTIRE EAST BANK. WITHIN THE NEXT 12-15 HOURS****

Jeff Parish President. Residents will probably be allowed back in town in a week, with identification only, but only to get essentials and clothing. You will then be asked to leave and not come back for one month.

FEMA numbers to begin assistance process 1-800-621-FEMA or http://www.fema.gov./

(Disclaimer; I'm not associated with FEMA. Message copied from wwltv.com. AFAIA conserned this message is provided "as is".)

I think ive got enough karma....

[Jeff Benjamin]

Your forgetting, this is the U.S. We dont need to CONVINCE libya of anything, we just need to liberate them.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Guppy06]

Because the FEDERAL government collects a lot of tax on gasoline that comes out of Louisiana refineries. A lot of gasoline and other petrochemical products come out of the region and Louisiana historically doesn't see very much of the tax money collected on it.

If you think Louisiana should pay for it all itself, then give them back their money, stop taxing their oil, and let the state with the most offshore oil operations in the gulf excise the heck out of oil sales inside and out of the state.

Where the heck else are you gonna get your oil fix, Florida? For better or for worse, Louisiana is the only state that has consented to allow things to be built in "their backyard," and the nation as a whole has benefitted from it. If you don't think federal money should be involved in upkeeping the state, realize that sword cuts both ways.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[coaxial]

Excuse me, but why should I have to pay tax dollars to a state who put a city 17 feet below sea level? This was an inevitability, and why should the FEDERAL government have to suck it up? Sure, you could 'fill in the blank' with all sorts of pork projects, but seriously, more socialism isn't the answer here.

You cavalier attitude shows you don't seem to understand the situation, and your incorrect use of the word "socialism," shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Here's why the federal government must, should, and will pay:

1. New Orleans is a major sea port. It is pretty much THE agricultural export port for the entire United States east of the Rockies. The loss of the port is a major hinderence to not only the national economy, but the world's, since the United States is the world's number one agricultural exporter. The federal government has a duty to maintain the health of the national economy.

2. All the states, except for about 5 (I know, Vermont and Delaware, but I don't remember the others. They were all small states though.), don't have any money. In fact, they're bankrupt. Even if they did have budget surplus, they wouldn't have nearly enough (early estimates place the amount of damage at 1 trillion dollars). With the complete loss of the major city and several of the major industries (tourism, agriculture and trade, oil and gas, and tourism), Louisiana doesn't have tax base anymore, so even if they had to come up with their own funds, they have no way of doing so.

3. This is a humanitarian disaster the scale of which is unseen in the history of the United States. The devastation is vast. Litterally millions are homeless. With high, stagnent water, in what is effectively swamp land, could lead to wide spread outbreak of disease. This means that the longer it takes to clean up, the worse the situation is going to get.

4. One of the roles of government is doing what others can't do for themselves. The people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and all those along the Gulf Coast, can't clean help themselves. They are our countrymen, and they're in dire need. If you were a civilized individual with any ounce of decency, you'd recognize that.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[vinlud]

What else was the government supposed to do to save the stragglers from their own stupidity?

Provide proper transportation and shelter? Most people staying in the city had no cars and were too poor to pay for hotels (which increased their prices for more profit). It is entirely logical they had no other option than to stay in the city. Don't call them idiots, not every American has the possibilities you apparantly have..

panamanian liberation

[dj_virto]

Our government liberated Panama from Columbia so we could dig a big ditch.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[Gr8Apes]

Sure, natural disasters happen everywhere, but their impact can be lessened by, say, not building your city on a sinking landmass that's under sea-level to begin with.

Unlike the Dutch, those in New Orleans have a choice to not live under sea-level. Also, unlike the Dutch, those in New Orleans live in a regular "hurricane alley". Allright, so Florida took that trophy over the last two years. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to pass it on, it still doesn't change the fact that the gulf coast gets hit regularly with hurricanes.

As for helping the victims, sure, but only once, with a generic yellow truck, ie move out to a new safer place. I don't want to help them rebuild so this can happen again, perhaps as early as next year. (I'm guessing it's going to take at least past this hurricane season before anything meaningful will happen.)

Another reason this won't work

[commodoresloat]

If you were dealing with just building over water, you might be fine, but this is New Orleans we're talking about. The alcohol content of the water there makes this entirely impractical.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[jlanthripp]

1. It's 8 miles (give or take) from the Causeway Bridge to Chef Menteur Highway. Hardly a walkable city. The tourists walk the French Quarter and think they've seen the city. I call bullshit.
2. A great majority of the people in New Orleans has feet and the ability to use them. Even getting to La Place, 25 miles west on either I-10 or Airline Highway, is better than sitting in New Orleans. At least La Place isn't under water last I checked. At a decent walking speed of 2 miles per hour, that makes it a 12.5 hour walk.
3. Those tourists tend to also have feet, rental cars, or other means of transport. For that matter, they can catch a ride with a local - most of the people I've known down there would at least give up a spot in the back of the truck or something. If I still lived down there, you can bet your ass I'd be willing to give somebody a ride if they wanted to go.
4. See number 3.
5. Causeway Bridge to Covington, then I-12 West. I-10 West to Baton Rouge, or catch I-55 North just outside La Place and take it to Hammond, or to Jackson, MS. Airline Highway West, also to Baton Rouge (or just to La Place or Lutcher). I-59 North to Meridian, MS or follow it all the way to I-24 in the northwest corner of GA. Highway 90 West to Hahnville, then 3127 West goes halfway to Baton Rouge. River Road as far as Memphis if you like. There's 7 escape routes right off the top of my head. Any able-bodied person on foot could have made it to La Place or Hahnville within 12 hours or so, depending on what side of the river they started out from. Both of those places have high schools which are used as shelters in hurricanes, and both are above sea level (and here's to hoping the East Saint John Wildcats kick the crap out of the Hahnville Tigers and the overprivileged Destrehan Wildcats this year, assuming they get to play. Yes, I know, that's 2 high school football teams in the same division with the same team name...go figure.)
6. There are, of course, those who could not walk/bike/drive to safety, and it is for them that I reserve my pity and my disaster relief donation dollars. If the idiots had gotten out when they were told to, the emergency services currently being used to airlift Boudreaux, Scioneaux and Arceneaux (yes, those are real names) off the roofs of their houses could instead be used to evacuate the few elderly, handicapped, and infirm.

My "haughty presumption of superior intellect" is based upon the fact that about 80-90% of the people down there did leave, meaning the ones left behind are the dumbest 10-20% and those who physically couldn't leave. I'd bet my next paycheck that the former outnumber the latter 10 to 1.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[birge]

First off, federal disaster aid gets spread around. It does not all go to hurricanes. That should be enough of a counter, but for the sake of argument I'm going to pretend what you base your point on is true.

What it gets spent on is irrelevent. That it doesn't really get spread around is the issue. It's basically a money transfer from good places to live to bad places to live.

Assuming that what you want happens, and federal aid for disaster relief becomes a thing of the past, what are the effects? You seem to assert that people will simply not wish to live with the risk, so they'll move. That might apply to a relatively small number of people with the means to move, but what about everyone else, the people lacking not only the means/education/whatever to pick up and move, but also most in need of aid after a disaster?

I think I didn't explain myself very well. I didn't mean to suggest individuals pay the risk alone. That's impossible, and not how things work. I was trying to suggest that the people in the area pool their risk. In other words, on the state and county level. I don't think it's a radical idea to suggest that the people of Florida should pay for Florida's risk.

Anyway, these are just some crazy left wing ideas. You know, that big things might have effects.

You know the world's coming to an end when a liberal is pointing out the notion of unintended consequences! :-) (But I guess you know the world's still in it's place when it's with regard to the unintented consequences of killing a huge government transfer program.)

Anyway, who said I was right wing? I just knew people around here would think my idea was. Remember when being left wing was about being fair to the working class and not wasting money that could be spent on UNavoidable problems? Do you forget in all of your vicarious generosity that the tax money for these huge federal transfer programs comes from the middle class? Do you realize that to a certain extent there are poor people in Virginia paying taxes to rebuild the property of rich business owners in New Orleans?

I know the mental image you have is of a rich guy paying for the clean up, but there just aren't enough of them around to pay for EVERYTHING. Most of our tax money still comes from average joes like me, and quite few below average joes who really can't afford it. A tax that you don't benefit from is ALWAYS a regressive tax since a poor person can less afford to lose a dollar than a rich person can afford to lose a thousand. So if saving the working class some tax money by having a more intelligent location of our population isn't really left wing, I don't know if there are any good wings left to be had.

But you're absolutely right: I have no idea if this can be done without unpredictable consequences. But can't that be said about any change? I guess I'm just more progressive than you.

Re:And yet nothing was done...

[Guppy06]

"It's 8 miles (give or take) from the Causeway Bridge to Chef Menteur Highway."

Nit-pick: The Causeway ends in Metairie, Jeff Parish. On the East Bank I can't remember where Jeff ends and Orleans begins, but I do know Causeway ain't it.

"A great majority of the people in New Orleans has feet and the ability to use them. Even getting to La Place, 25 miles west on either I-10 or Airline Highway, is better than sitting in New Orleans."

Uh... no. Assuming they would allow pedestrians on the interstate in an emergency, starting west of I-310 in St. Charles Parish and going well into St. John, I-10 is elevated over water, probably not the best stretch of road to be caught on when the storm starts coming.

Airline is even worse. For example, the Airline/I-310 exchange is notorious for being the first place in St. Charles to go underwater when it starts to rain, even though that's supposedly part of the hurricane evacuation route for St. Charles Parish. Closer Orleans, I hear Airline is closed and sandbagged over in order to suplement the levees there.

As for LaP lace itself, if Lake Pontchartrain has breached the levee in Orleans Parish, why do you believe the situation is any better for other parishes on the lake?

"the emergency services currently being used to airlift Boudreaux, Scioneaux and Arceneaux (yes, those are real names) off the roofs of their houses"

You forgot Thibodaux, or is he still waiting for the airlift? :)

I honestly don't know...

[sheldon]

"I don't think anyone would take issue with it as long as he kept up the anti-American rhetoric."

Frankly, this should concern us. How is it that someone can gain popularity by saying they hate America?

Sigh... I remember when they used to cheer for our President when he went on trips to foreign nations. Sad that was only 5 years ago now. :-(

Raise the entire city (cf. Chicago)

[pomo monster]

Okay, New Orleans was built at sea level, only to subside under the weight of the built environment. Why, then, didn't anyone take action to raise the city back up before the inevitable occurred? The idea isn't as crazy as it sounds. Chicago did exactly that between 1850 and 1880--raise its street level by up to 14 feet with vaulted roads and sidewalks, and jack up all of its buildings, inch by inch, to match. A building's occupants often weren't even aware it was being raised until they left work in the evening.

So how come wasn't this done in New Orleans? Lack of funds? Engineering problems? Structural instability?

Re:Shoe is on the other foot now...

[John Newman]

In the 1830s-1840s over 90 % of federal tax money was collected from the south, while most of the federal spending was in the north.

Got links? I find this rather difficult to believe, since so little of the South's wealth was in mobile, taxable assets. That was exactly why the South had such a hard time raising hard money by taxation duing the war, and finally settled on taxes-in-kind in the form of food and slave labor requisitions. Unless you're referring to customs duties, which I again have a hard time believing were concentrated in the South. The volume of trade to/from the North was much, much larger. And most of those Southern customs duties were paid by the Northern merchants that carried the goods, anyway. Southerners may have screamed about the Tariff, but the reality was that they were "among the most lightly taxed peoples on Earth."

I'm also not sure about most of federal spending being in the North. The North had far more infrastructure, to be sure, but it was paid for parimarily by private money, and secondarily by state funds. The age of federally funded improvements really only came in 1864, when the Republican Congress enacted the Homestead Act, transcontinental railroad subsidies, land grant schools, etc. And then, as now, most military spending was concentrated in the South and West.

So in the absence of sources, I don't believe a word of your snark.

looting vs. finding

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out these pictures:

"Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store in New Orleans, Louisiana."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/ph otos_tc_afp/050830194101_mzffh1jl_photo1

"A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday. (AP/Dave Martin)"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/19 13/w083049ajpg

So when it's a young black man it's called looting, but when it's a white woman it's called 'finding'?

Venezuela

[Artemis3]

What williamyf conveniently ignored, was the fact that Chavez, in 1999 actually accepted USA aid, machinery and engineers; but USA also insisted in deploying US Marines, something unacceptable for us.

Our offer to the United States is sincere. I don't know what George W. Bush will do, or not, but its not an offer to the USA central government, its an offer for the people, the organizations helping people, local governments, religious groups, etc.

This type of aid has been offered to the countries in the Caribbean who had been suffering the past hurricanes. We have helped with supplies and rebuilding in Jamaica, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, etc. We also sent people to Sri Lanka and India after the tsunami, along with monetary donations.

Let me return you the favor: if you ever come to Venezuela, look me up and i would gladly show you around, so you can see the truth by yourself.

Let me clarify that we in Venezuela have no problem with the people of the United States. What we have issues with, is with the current administration, because they have actively worked against our country. It is not a personal matter either, if Bush stopped attempting to force his vision of what a country should be, and started respecting our sovereignty, i'm sure normal relationships with the administration would be restored. As it is right now, they don't even accept talking with our ambassador in Washington D.C., despite permanent attempts and support from Democrats and Republicans in the US congress.

If you are interested in knowing more about Venezuela, let me suggest these links:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
http://www.vheadline.com/

Calling Captain Obvious, come in please.

[Qbertino]

... and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?

Well, let's start with number one:

Have that Airhead that is in charge over there at your place finally sign the Kyoto protocol and reduce greenhouse reason nummero uno, which is CO2. I'd like to add that the US has the highest per capita output of CO2. Y'know, global warming, change of climate, stronger storms and all that ... rings a bell?

On goes it with

Don't build below sea level. Maybe? No?

Then:
Don't build with egg-carton but with real bricks.

I could go on, but those are the most pressing.

Re:Why are all the looters black?

[Peregr1n]

Indeed... have you seen this?
(Summary: News clipping showing a black man pulling food through the water, captioned 'A young man wades through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store...'; and another clipping showing two white people pulling food through the water, captioned 'Two residents wade through chest deep flood water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store...')

Double jackass back at ya

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the GP point. GWB decided to start a war. That has to be paid for (otherwise you are unamerican and against "our brave boys" - bad mojo). Therefore congress has to cut the budget because of a decision they could not stop. A decision that shrub made.

Re:How about blaming Louisiana?

[westlake]

Most people are fairly smart, at least smart enough not to live by choice directly on a major geologic fault line (or in a city below sea level on a coastline known for hurricanes, or in an arctic wasteland, etc).

You build a port where you can land an ocean-going vessel, ideally, at the mouth of a navigable river that provides deep penetration inland.

Geography defines what is possible, not what is safe.

The natural flow of trade in the central United States is defined by the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi, with the terminus in New Orleans.

Answer:

[Overzeetop]

Don't bother trying to fix it. You're fighting a losing battle. Same goes with the Atlantic coast beaches.

I have two words for you: PRIVATE FUNDING.

You want to live below sea level in a hurricane zone? Fine by me, but don't ask me to bail you out. Want to build a million dollar house at the beach? Fine, but don't ask me to spend billions of dollars to rebuild the beach for you.

It all goes back to foolish people doing foolish things. If it were me, I'd deny insurance claims to anyone wanting to rebuild, and I'd require that anyone rebuilding MUST place their first floor above sea level on a flood-resistant foudnation which can withstand 145mph winds.

What? That sounds too extreme? Guess what, dumbshit, THAT'S THE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL (i.e. US) BUILDING CODE!* They rebuild all these historic strucutres without these requirements because they've been "grandfathered". They shouldn't be rebuilt.

*I happen to be a strucutral engineer, and have the building code next to me. I design flood foundations. I design for hurricane winds. I happen to know that most builders and building officials outside of Florida wouldn't know proper high-wind construction if it fell on them. And as for the 145mph winds...well, grab a copy of ASCE 7-02 "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures". Page 37. The 140MPH contour happens to pass right over Lake Ponchitrain. The next contour, which covers the entire coastal area is 150MPH. In fact, the entire coast from Houma, LA through MS and AL all the way to the FL border is a 150MPH zone. If all the buildings were up to code, there wouldn't have been anything but extremely isolated structural damage. But you don't listen. So you die.

I'd like my 7mil in cash, if you wouldn't mind.

Re:Has the President gone back to WORK yet?

[EricTheGreen]

Ptooey. What do you expect him to do--pile sandbags?

FEMA has been mobilized. Disaster spending has been authorized. What other "significant" work do you expect him to do?

He'll probably visit at some point; but, right now, do you really want the circus of a presidential visit on top of the war zone that is the gulf coast? Better to stay out of the way and let the disaster relief people do what they need to do first.

Grind your axe on something that makes sense.

It's time to do the right thing - bury it

[Electric Eye]

New Orleans was built by morons who thought they could outwit Mother Nature. The city's time finally came due. Why should my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of every citizen in this country, go towards rebuilding a city that shouldn't have been built? It's going to literally take trillions (not billions) of dollars to rebuild the city. And what happens when another major hurricane strikes? We do this all over again?? We've already done enough damage by building flood levies along the Miss. River and choked off VALUABLE wetlands that not only could have lessened the damage of this hurricane but also keep the Gulf of Mexico healthy. We've allowed silt from the Miss to pour into the Gulf, choking off valuable wildlife and natural resources instead of letting it replenish the wetlands. It's time to reverse that damage. The city should remain permanently evacuated, the remains of buildings and infrastructure torn down, the levy system removed and let nature take its course.

I'm sure there's enormous political pressure to rebuild this city, but like many places that learned their lesson after the great tsunami, there are just certain places that should NOT be rebuilt. And that includes the coastlines from Texas to Florida and beyond. It's time we stopped supporting frivolous and dangerous development. We have to pay each time a Florida beach is wiped out by a strom. Why? Because special interests demand it. It's time this maddness ends.

Solutions, bad and good.

[goodmanj]

The Europeans posting here with comparisons to the Netherlands fail to understand the problem. New Orleans *is* built like the Netherlands. But a really bad North Sea storm surge (like the 1953 surge which killed 2000 people) raises sea level by 3 meters. New Orleans has had *two* storm surges *twice* that high in the last 50 years.

The people saying "it's their own damn fault for building below sea level" don't understand how cities grow over centuries. When New Orleans was founded, it *was* well above sea level -- the original settlers found it a bit risky, but acceptable. The city is sinking, and the people living in lowlying neighborhoods have always been among the poorest -- for them, it's a choice between a home which might flood, or no home at all. Tight city planning restrictions might have prevented this, but the decisions were made 50-150 years ago, in a climate of intense racism and class division. It's specious to say "it's their own fault", since those at fault aren't the same "they" as those who suffer.

People who suggest jacking up the city like Chicago are on the right track, but fail to understand the magnitude of the problem. Chicago did this in the 1850s, when its population was 30-60,000. Something like half a square mile of downtown Chicago is now raised above the river. Here, we're talking about half a million people, and 50 square miles of city. And even then, remember that Chicago's basement level totally flooded due to a tunnel rupture in 1992.

New Orleans is an engineering and planning failure, but probably not one which could have been prevented. People have no choice but to make the best of existing situations, and what seems wise at one point in a city's long history may only be proven foolish years or centuries down the road. Long-term plans also conflict with short-term needs, and short-term needs usually win.

There is no silver lining to this tragedy, except that it gives us a chance to start over, essentially completely from scratch, and do things right this time. New Orleans is now more or less a horribly blank slate: almost all the buildings in the city will need to be torn down after soaking in water for weeks. As I see it, there are three long-term ways to solve the problem of New Orleans.

1) Abandon the city. This is almost inconceivable. In addition to the massive impact on Mississippi River and Gulf Coast commerce, what do you do with the million people displaced? Even if they scatter across the country, a million poor homeless refugees will be catastrophic to the already-struggling state and national poverty programs. If they all move only to neighboring states, state governments will collapse under the load. Nevertheless, this might actually be the cheapest long-term solution.

2) Stilt houses. No, don't laugh. In Hawaii where I grew up, many coastal houses are built on 10-foot timber or concrete stilts to keep them above the height of storm surges and tidal waves. We could rebuild every single house in New Orleans as a stilt house. It would make the houses more costly to rebuild, but not by much. The next flood would still destroy roads and utilities, but the houses and their residents could be saved.

3) Jack and fill. Like Chicago, but more so. Demolish all the flooded houses. Grab every dredge, barge, and dump truck you can, and start on one end of the city, dumping Missisippi Delta mud onto the ground ten feet deep. On the other end of the city, start building houses with sturdy frames on concrete pier foundations. When the landfill reaches a rebuild neighborhood, jack up the houses ten feet, dump in ten feet of landfill, and continue on to the next neighborhood. As the city keeps sinking over the next centuries, keep jacking up houses and dumping more dirt. It's probably a $100-$200 billion project (it'd be more, but most of New Orleans' houses are very cheap), but it's a solid long-term solution for keeping New Orleans above water forever.

The one thing we can't afford to do is the one thing that will almost certainly happen. The levees will be plugged, the pumps repaired, and the city rebuilt as it stood a week ago. And forty years from now, this will happen again.