Rebuilding New Orleans With Science

EccentricAnomaly writes "The New York Times has a discussion of flood control methods in use in Holland, England, and Bangladesh that could be used in the rebuilding of New Orleans. Of particular interest is the $8 billion Delta Works built by the Netherlands in response to the North Sea flood of 1953, which almost destroyed the city of Rotterdam, but for a heroic captain who plugged a breach in a dike with his ship." From the article: "While scientists hail the power of technology to thwart destructive forces, they note that flood control is a job for nature at least as much as for engineers. Long before anyone built levees and floodgates, barrier islands were serving to block dangerous storm surges. Of course, those islands often fall victim to coastal development."

Comments

Learn from nature

[fembots]

Long before anyone built levees and floodgates, barrier islands were serving to block dangerous storm surges. Of course, those islands often fall victim to coastal development.

Is it time to learn from the nature and build some artificial barrier islands, rather than further changing the face of the earth?

Re:Learn from nature

[Rei]

The best protection the New Orleans area used to have against storm surges was its wetlands *and* its barrier islands. As the city has expanded, not only has it increased the volume and depth of its below-sea-level "bowl", but it has at the same time cut down its buffer zone of places that the water can safely flood into in the immediate area. Thus, not only do you have a larger area to protect, but more buildup of the surge as it hits the coast near you. Around New Orleans, a single square mile of wetlands restoration would have reduced the storm surge by about a foot.

Of course, the bowl problem itself is a side effect of development; almost all cities sink, but building on delta land you sink much faster. The river would normally lay the area over with sediment, but it's diverted ,dumping the sediment out into the gulf instead. Deposited in deeper water, it doesn't replace the eroding barrier islands as well, thus allowing the surge to approach unhindered.

Wetlands and delta conservation has long been a favorite target of dittoheads and other conservative groups, who have viewed it as a liberal waste of money and barrier to economic development. I wonder if they'll start to change their tune after this.

Re:Learn from nature

[WillAffleckUW]

Wetlands and delta conservation has long been a favorite target of dittoheads and other conservative groups, who have viewed it as a liberal waste of money and barrier to economic development. I wonder if they'll start to change their tune after this.

I'm going to bet the answer is no, they won't learn.

Sigh.

Re:Learn from nature

[hanshotfirst]

The storm surge wasn't the problem - the breach in the Lake Ponchatrain levee was the problem. The brunt of the surge missed, then the floods came a day later when the Lake filled up.

I do agree with your points on erosion in general (and I am one of those evil red-state conservatives), but wetlands wouldn't likely have made a difference in this situation - Levee maintenance might have.

Re:Learn from nature

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Wetlands and delta conservation has long been a favorite target of dittoheads and other conservative groups, who have viewed it as a liberal waste of money and barrier to economic development. I wonder if they'll start to change their tune after this.
 
The National Flood Insurance Program is responsible for the explosion in development along the nation's coasts, as no other insurer in their right mind will offer coastal coverage. (you can thank LBJ and the dem controlled congress for that one)

Re:Learn from nature

[Rei]

Lake Pontchartrain didn't "fill up". The storm surge overran it, and without wetlands to flood into, the water piled up to six feet over its normal level. The levee didn't just break - it overtopped.

Re:Learn from nature

[pete6677]

I say let people build there, but they're on their own if the place gets destroyed. No taxpayer assisted insurance, and it's likely that no private insurer will cover them. Somehow I think that pretty view won't be worth it anymore.

Re:Learn from nature

[lgw]

Actually, levee maintenance was fine, according to the Army Corps of Engineers and others. The Lake Ponchatrain levee was complete and well maintained, exactly as specified in the 1970s plan. It failed exactly as it was expected to!

City/State management chose to build a levee that was only designed for a category 3 hurricane. Sure enough, a category 4 hurricane broke the levee. This danger was understood when the levee was built, and considered an acceptable tradeoff for cost savings.

We seem to have a real problem building infrastructure in this country when it's not needed on an everyday basis. Does any major city have roads capable of evacuating it's populace in a hurry? Remember the recent East Coast blackout - has any building of redundant capacity begun? Will any other city that decided protection from some hurricanes, but not others, was "good enough" change their minds? I doubt it - such programs are regularly denounced as pork. We just don't appreciate infrastructure, to the point where many people actually believe that roads cause traffic!

Re:Learn from nature

[Mr. Slippery]

Actually, levee maintenance was fine, according to the Army Corps of Engineers and others.

No. Levee maintenance and flood control for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project was about $250 million dollars behind, due to the war in Iraq. Specifically, the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project was funded by the Bush administration at levels far below those requested by the Army Corp of Engineers.

We just don't appreciate infrastructure, to the point where many people actually believe that roads cause traffic!

Well, they do. Poorly planned infrastructure leads to development in ways that stress that infrastructure; our road-building boom of the past few decades created a car culture that leads to more driving, thus more traffic congestion, thus more demand for roads.

Re:Learn from nature

[lgw]

The "white flight" turns out to be a myth. During the time when cars were a new idea, there was massive white immigration *into* cities. While the car enabled the suburbs, that was a small effect comapred to Americas massive shift from an agrarian country to an industrial country. Millions of people left the farms and moved to the cities because that's where the jobs were.

If you're just talking post-WWII (which is when oil started to matter), the cultural evidence is very clear. Americans loved cars because it allowed a life away from one's home and one's place of work. The car alowed teenagers to escpe from prying eyes and make out - and there is no more powerful cultural force than horny teenagers!

Doing what is right

[sdirrim]

We should take a lesson from this. Expanionism can be bad. Has anyone noticed the tred of increaingly powerful storms over the last 50 years? Global warming is one possible factor. I am not saying it caused Katrina, but warmer waters may have contibuted.

Re:Doing what is right

[m50d]

Kyoto Economic Suicide Pact.

Hmm, the analysis I read said that at most over the 50 years it would delay the US by 6 months, reaching in December 2050 the level of wealth you would have got in July of that year without Kyoto. Big difference.

Re:Doing what is right

[Cruciform]

Hurricane strength has followed a roughly 70 year cycle for hundreds of years.

This was recently covered in National Geographic. It's not a global warming issue.

Re:all they needed

[ackthpt]

was someone to stick their finger in the dyke...

I think they Dutch Boy found better pay selling paints and posing for Meiji Thrifty Acres...

Really, if you've seen the dykes they have in the netherlands it's a wonder a boat actually managed the job. Dutch engineering firms rule big jobs.

There's no point rebuilding...

[going_the_2Rpi_way]

Until you commit to proper management of the New Orleans area. The land under the whole area will continue to subside until this is addressed.

Can we refuse?

[rtkluttz]

I wish there was a way to refuse to allow any of the tax dollars a person pays in to be used for something so stupid.

Why rebuild it. It WILL happen again. Spend the money to relocate the people and I would happily watch my tax money being spent.

Re:Can we refuse?

[opiespank]

Why rebuild it?

How can you say that. New Orleans is not a town that can be forgotten. It is a working port town, on the Mississippi river and Gulf that is full of history. All kinds of US resources come though and to New Orleans.

Would you say the same thing if San Francisco, CA had been ravaged by a earthquake. Why build it back up, it WILL happen again. You build back to learn from your mistakes. In the case of New Orleans, too many resources come though and to that city to just forget about it.

Re:Can we refuse?

[adpowers]

Because most tax payers don't want to have to pay to pump out and rebuild a below sea level city every twenty years. Comparing this to SF is different. We can build buildings to withstand earthquakes. Also, the hurricanes hitting New Orleans will only become more forceful and commonplace. Earthquakes don't happen nearly as often nor cause as much damage.

You can leave parts of New Orleans in place, like the French Quarter and other parts that were on higher ground. However, the majority of inhabitants should move farther inland to higher ground to avoid the loss of life and property damage which happened this time. As someone in another thread mentioned, ports can be run with very few workers these days.

Re:Can we refuse?

[bit trollent]

New Orleans is a national treasure, unlike any other city in the US. If we lose it, we lose some of the very limited culture this country has left.

I guess it would probably be cheaper to move everyone to another generic suburb with Walmart, a Chiles, a Gap, five Starbucks, amd a cookie cutter mall with faux stone exteriors. Generic suburbs like the one you likely live in are replaceable, expendable, and boring. That may be fine with you, and I don't mind them too much either.

There are, however people who want to live in a city with houndreds of years of history behind it, with a culture all its own. There are many others who wish to visit such a city and learn about a world different from there own. This history and culture is worth protecting. We shouldn't just pave over Burban street and say to hell with Mardigras. Lets celebrate Fat Tuesday at TGI Fridays.

New Orleans is worth presevering, and can be made resiliant against hurricanes and natural disasters. Jest because 100 year old levees couldn't hold back the waters in a Catagory 5 hurricane doesn't mean levees built today can't.

Prophylactic measures

[LithiumX]

You could never get that kind of money allocated towards a protective non-millitary venture, not in the US.

At least, not until something happens. Now that we've had our distaster, and once we've counted the casualty list, I'm sure congress will be more willing to talk dollars.

Then again, it's easier to allocate massive funding to protect your entire country from flooding (ie Holland, etc), than it is to allocate it to protect one relatively poor area. And admit it, that is one of the poorest areas of this country, and without more electoral votes they don't stand a chance.

Re:Prophylactic measures

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical Bush/Congressional stupidity. Refuse to spend some money up front on prevention, and pour billions in a half assed way at a problem after it occurs and thousands die. Want to bet that Haliburton will be the primary contractor?

Why spend all that $$?

[Red Flayer]

(1) I'm not so sure we want to be taking flood control advice from Bangladesh.

(2) I'm not sure that attempting to control nature is the best route here. Sure, there are significant historical and cultural aspects of NOLA that we don't want to lose, but wouldn't it be cheaper (and safer) to move them to a different location?

Flood plains, barrier islands, river paths: all of these are not static features. We have an abundance of land (as opposed to some of the examples cited). If we rebuild NOLA in the same location, aren't we just pissing into the wind?

Re:Why spend all that $$?

[Tx]

(1) I'm not so sure we want to be taking flood control advice from Bangladesh.

Based on what I've been seeing on CNN the last few days, I honestly can't see why not.

(2) I'm not sure that attempting to control nature is the best route here. Sure, there are significant historical and cultural aspects of NOLA that we don't want to lose, but wouldn't it be cheaper (and safer) to move them to a different location?

As the article mentions, half of Holland is below sea level - obviously they don't have the option of relocating, but they prove that adequate flood defences can be built. The cost really isn't that big, a tiny fraction of what Bush is spending in Iraq would provide adequate flood defences for the area. Seems to me like a perfectly reasonable way to spend money, compared to some things I could mention.

Re:Why spend all that $$?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about the cultural aspects of New Orleans? It is the US's largest port for a reason. Until teleportation becomes a viable technology or the Midwest becomes a desert there's going to be a city there. The fact that its culturally viabrant and has maintained much of historical character is just a bonus.

Absolutely Stupid to Rebuild

[Anonymous Coward]

It is absolutely, utterly, and totally stupid to rebuild New Orleans.

The only city that exist below sea level is Atlantis... :}

There are many reasons not to rebuild New Orleans, but a few that easily come to mind are:

1. It doesn't make sense. There is plenty of space for cities elsewhere (and plenty of other cities). If a port needs to be there, fine, but a city that size definitely does not.

2. It's very, very expensive. Why go to all the expense to rebuild and upgrade the dikes? It isn't worth it.

3. It's dangerous. Nature will find a way to destroy whatever dikes are put there, and if nature doesn't, the terrorists now have a blueprint for destruction in New Orleans.

Truck bomb + lake = dike breache = mass death and destruction.

4. The unique cultural aspects of New Orleans can just as easily be rebuilt somewhere else as there. Much of what was unique about New Orleans is completely gone anyway.

Just my $.02

One difference...

[rapturizer]

New Orleans sits on hundreds of feet of muck (about 600 ft) and lacks access to the bedrock. Combined this with the channelization of the Mississippi and the levees, the city will sink if water is continuously pumped out. Ultimately, if we do not address the issue that the above have caused the wetlands to decrease, New Orleans will be a coastal city that sits below sea level in 2040. Best solution: rebuild on higher groud. Moral of the story: man can attempt to thwart mother nature, but like all parents, punishment may be severe.

Much To Learn, But Will They Learn It?

[ausoleil]

New Orleans has been a disaster waiting to happen, as everyone now knows. And it is a city that lies in palpable danger during any hurricane season, now or in the future. Sure, we could learn from the Dutch and from others, but will we?

Our country has a history of trying to do things on the cheap, to pay as little as possible now and to postpone the inevitable for another generation. Now, New Orleans paid the price. We have bridges, highways, water systems and any number of infrastructure needs in the US that we quite effectively ignore on a daily basis.

Don't believe me? Think about how long it has taken California to replace the Bay Bridge after the '89 quake -- it was deemed unsafe then and it was decided to build a new one. This is comparable in scope to the levee system of New Orleans and the new Bay Bridge has taken over fifteen years to replace. Expect the same, Big Easy.

Blame is being passed around, something that politicians excel at. However, the Feds are not the only ones at fault. One must consider the city's priorities when they built a sports arena and did not work on their levees. One must also consider the refusal of the citizens to pay higher taxes to do both. The federal government cut funding, but if the city had REALLY wanted to fix their levees before Katrina, they could have made some hard choices. Instead, they chose to court the Charlotte Hornets and get them to move to the Big Easy. Just as a "for example."

Now, a massive rebuilding effort needs to take place, and one after the rescue and mitigation efforts are completed. The rebuilding will probably outpace the fortification of the levees, as people will want to rebuild their homes and that doing that on an indiovidual basis is smaller and easier than re-engineering levees.

However, before they do that they should consider that their new homes are in as much danger as the ones that they lost until they get their flood control issues resolved. This should be priority one for the city, the state of Louisiana and to a large degree the federal government. The cost will be in the billions, and I for one will be very surprised if the money is easily available.

Even if it is, it will take the better part of two decades -- or about twenty hurricane seasons -- for these new systems to be in place. In the meantime, NOLA better hope that another Katrina does not find their city.

Fault is historical

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that the levees weren't built for this kind of hurricane. That they could have been overcome anytime in the past decade with smaller surges than they suffered with this storm.
(See links in earlier /. stories.)

So, the fact that there have been so many people in New Orleans for centuries may be a symbol of laziness and short-sightedness.

The fact that the levees weren't designed for such a huge storm may mean the same thing, or something else.

The fact that residents of Louisiana and New Orleans felt it was just to require ME (who have never lived in any state bordering the Gulf of Mexico, or the Mississippi) to help pay for their levees and pumps is probably a symbol of greed and selfishness.

It is likely that I will be required to help pay for reconstruction of the city in the same spot. What does that symbolize?

I will donate money (and if I can see how, time too) of my own free will, to help those that are suffering from this tragedy. But it will not be right when my money is TAKEN from me to help them.

Re:Fault is historical

[Anonymous Coward]

moron, i see only 1 person who is greedy here.
you pay for their flood protection, they pay for my quake protection (or the occasional rebuild), and I pay for your terror retaliation.

that is how a country works. Otherwise, go live on a island in the pacific and be happy.

Science can't trump corruption

[grumpygrodyguy]

Science: Rebuilding New Orleans With Science

Editors...please, that's got to be the cheesiest title yet. We have the science, we have had the science, but a republican dominated government refused to provide the funding that would have allowed the Army Corp. of Engineers to Build levies that both the Governor and Mayor have been requesting for years before this happened.

Instead of fanning the typical Slashdot "We're so cool because we know science" circle-jerk, maybe you could greenlight an article that focuses on the issues.

Re:Science can't trump corruption

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

The funding problem has been going on for 50 years. Sorry, dont blame Ronald McDonald for your shitty hamburger.

There is a fact that is constantly being ignored on /. that is that New Orleans was/is a disgusting shithole that nobody cares about. The Dutch have one of the highest concentrations of wealth in Europe, hence the 3 trillion dollar dike.

Re:Science can't trump corruption

[MightyYar]

New Orleans has needed flood control for hundreds of years. Blaming a man who has been in office for 5 is hardly fair. Blame people like me, who would have voted against spending so much federal money on a project, even in hindsight.

The real problem here is that people failed to evacuate. We should be having a discussion about why these people did not/could not evacuate, and how to prevent such a scenario in the future. A hurricane is one of the easiest natural disasters to avoid, and we really have no good excuse to get caught by one.

WARNING: Ignore Nature at Your Peril

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons that flooding in New Orleans was so severe is that industry and government colluded to destroy most of the marshlands that acted as a natural barrier to prevent flooding in the low-lying areas.

Without this barrier, the waters just poured right into New Orleans, killing tens of thousands of people.

For years, ecologists and environmentalists have warned us to preserve nature; otherwise, we will be hurt. Unfortunately, their warnings fell on the deaf ears of politicians in the pockets of big business.

Now, we are screwing up the oceans. The ecologists and environmentalists are warning us about overpopulation. Teaming populutions tend to produce a huge volumes of trash, pollutants (e.g. dioxin), and waste. The oceans have become a huge garbage can. Meanwhile 3 billion people in Asia are eating fish into extinction.

That little salamander, the spotty owl, and the plankton in the sea that you are saving might one day save your life. When they are extinct, you just might be next.

Re:Hypocracy of the NYT

[Anonymous Coward]

Definition of ironic: using a Fox News article to point out hypocracy.

Who knew NYT had so much power in Congress. Fox News is overflowing with credibility.

Rebuild? There's a Bright Idea.

[Mekkis]

What's the point in rebuilding? The city's already been destroyed and the increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the central Atlantic & Gulf of Mexico means that we're just asking for another disaster. Whether or not you subscribe to global warming being human-induced is beside the point; the temperature of the Earth is increasing, as is the destructiveness of the weather.

The Netherlands argument just doesn't hold water (no pun intended) because that part of the world isn't subject to the same type of weather conditions - in other words, there ain't no hurricanes in the North Sea. There are also the economic factors to consider. The United States is in debt over its head and frankly doesn't have the financial resources to waste on rebuilding a city which would then require greater and greater expenditures of capital to keep from being inundated as the ocean level rises.

Rebuilding New Orleans shows stubbornness well beyond the border of idiocy and is a stunning example of the old axiom: "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It also shows the tremendous amount of greed involved; whether or not New Orleans is rebuilt, the impoverished who have borne the brunt of this disaster will be left out of the process, except maybe as a disposable work force to exploit in the building of new condos and upscale developments that the real estate markets in New Orleans have been looking for an excuse to install -- especially since builders can use such low-wage exploitation as a tax write-off.

Then there's also the fact that developers were allowed to build in hazardous locations to begin with -- what with the Bush Administration doing away with the Federal land easements (wetlands) that existed as a storm surge buffer and turning it over to developers.

Sacramento, California is an example of just such short-sightedness. The Sacramento River flood plains are catastrophically inundated every ten to fifteen years or so. Despite this fact, developers have been allowed to build there because they've bought and/or sued the city & county into letting them do whatever in the hell they want. The developers have also stifled the environmental and news reports as well as done their best to obscure the historical record because such information conflicts with their immediate profit interests. The result? Houses get flooded, families are ruined and the taxpayers are left with the responsibility.

Frankly, developers don't give a shit whether five or ten years down the line those houses are flooded out and destroyed, incidentally sending into financial ruin the families gullible, desperate, uninformed and/or stupid enough to be living there. They've made their profits and get to hide comfortably behind the lawsuit protection laws established to prevent consumers from holding developers responsible for faulty and/or dangerous housing. Besides, the government will pay for disaster relief and subsidize the rebuilding efforts for a new generation of suckers -- because once those houses have been built, by God they've got to stay there.

With the the Bush Administration doing the best it can to aid unscrupulous businesspeople by circumventing legal measures set up to prevent people from putting themselves into harm's way, is it any wonder there's such a cry to rebuild New Orleans? You've got people who stand to make a killing by exploiting this very preventable disaster. But then again, I guess caveat emptor is the ultimate answer and anything else is heresy to the religion of the Free Market.

Let this also serve as a reminder those who believe overpopulation is a myth that not every square mile of the Earth's surface is inhabitable or arable.

What Makes You Think Holland Has The Answer?

[the eric conspiracy]

The Dutch are facing some pretty severe long term issues with their system of flood control - the land behind the dikes is subsiding, and the global warming is causing sea levels to rise. To me the whole proposition that you can build for long term stability in a location like New Orleans is very questionable.

Re:I've found this somewhere on the net, is it tru

[tazanator]

gee if the mayor would have used the city school buses they may have saved all those people, intsead they ruined a few hundred busses that they now expect the US taxpayer to replace. I'm sorry but they had 3 days notice it was coming and more than enuff resouces to EVACUATE like they had been told to do. Too many people belived it was someone elses job save everyone's lives. Than when they realized they had to do for themsleves they went overboard.

no thinking person would wish to refuse

[carmaggedon]

parent is being absurd.
how many cities in this country are 100% 'safe' from disasters? should people all abandon san francisco? an earthquake will hit the bay area again at some point. should we never again build a tall building for fear of terrorists? perhaps all floridians should be relocated? i seem to have noticed florida getting hit by a hurricane or two. saying that new orleans should not be rebuilt is heartless and dumb. this is a major port city, which are built by water for a reason. (a port where the mississippi meets the gulf has a certain logic to it, no?)

besides which, it's a beautiful city. i'd say the best in the country. abandoning new orleans would be a loss for the entire world. a suggestion to relocate a city of 500,000 permanently is not 'insightful.'

Re:no thinking person would wish to refuse

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the parent is absurd in the least. Asking how many cities are 100% safe from disasters is not the correct question to ask. The correct question is whether it makes sense to build a city using federal tax dollars when there is a relatively large chance that the city will be wiped out in a few years.

N.O. has just been devastated by a hurricane near-miss. This event will probably happen again within the next 50 years. Maybe it makes sense to avoid this destruction by building in another location.

As for Florida, yes, I think it makes sense to consider whether it's a good idea for the federal government should continue to rebuild the coastal sections every few years. It's time for people to start considering the consequences of risky behavior such as building a city in a sinking bowl below sea level.

I don't really care about the use of state tax dollars, it's only federal dollars that concern me.

Re:Hypocracy of the NYT

[42Penguins]

I noticed that Fox didn't reference the NYT articles in question. Even so, they DID mention that at least one of the two articles was an EDITORIAL. You know, an opinion? It's entirely possible that the NYT has employed more than one reporter since 1993.
Just a thought.

I wonder...

[StarfishOne]

I really wonder if, besides the water/flooding problem, there's another problem:

poisonous/contaminated deposits of mud which will have found it's way into every corner of every building by now.

If that is the case, you'll have to remove -assuming the correct approach- the top layer of soil after the city is dry. :O

perhaps that mud could be stored securely and contained in an island just before the coast though..

but ultimately, I'm not an engineer .. so I'm just thinking out loud.

In this case it wouldn't have helped.

[LWATCDR]

The breach was not on the wetlands side but on the lake side. Even if the Delta was fully restored it wouldn't have made any difference this time.

If the storm had come in more to the west then it might have made a difference but I really doubt it. A category 4 or category 5 storm hitting a major city is going to cause a vast amount of destruction. Fixing the delta is valuable for many reasons including protecting New Orleans from floods it's just that in this case it wouldn't have made any difference.

We are in a natural cycle of more and stronger storms. It has happened before. As strong as Katrina was she was weaker than the Galveston Hurricane, the labor day Hurricane, and even Camile. Of course that is like saying an atomic bomb is smaller than the Ivy Mike test bomb.

The thing that cost lives in New Orleans where the actions of the Mayor of New Orleans, and the Governor of Louisiana.

No one that lives in New Orleans should have been bussed to the Superdome! The same buses that took people to the Superdome should have taken them out of the city to shelters outside the flood zone.

The lack of police, food, water, and medical care in the Superdome was the fault of the Mayor of the city and the Governor of the state.

FEMA's failure was in not realizing that the Governor and the Mayor cared more about the French Quarter than about people's lives. I get sickened every time I hear the Mayor say, "The good news is the French Quarter is is good shape. New Orleans will live again." Frankly I would have traded the French Quarter for the hospitals and peoples homes any day! What people that have never dealt with a Hurricane don't understand is FEMA is supposed to come in after the disaster and send supplies and help where the local authorities tell them. In this case the local authorities where criminally stupid or just criminals.

Re:In this case it wouldn't have helped.

[Rei]

Apparently you're woefully unaware that Lake Pontchartrain is (well, was) surrounded by wetlands on all sides. Oh, and in case you don't know what FEMA's job is and what they were *supposed* to be doing, here's a link:

DISASTER. It strikes anytime, anywhere. It takes many forms -- a hurricane, an earthquake, a tornado, a flood, a fire or a hazardous spill, an act of nature or an act of terrorism. It builds over days or weeks, or hits suddenly, without warning. Every year, millions of Americans face disaster, and its terrifying consequences.

On March 1, 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA's continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.

Certainly the local and state governments deserve a huge amount of blame for not having concrete evacuation procedures ready for the poor, but the federal response - FEMA's only serious duty - was outright embarrassing. And I know you don't want to fault the administration, but their vacation schedule while people were dying was outright embarrassing - Bush, flying over *two days* after New Orleans flooded, was among the first, with Cheney still vacationing in Wyoming, Andrew Card vacationing in Maine, and Condi spending the day shoe shopping at Ferragamo's and watching Spamalot.

The bomb wasn't just dropped - it was negligently tossed aside. As the city drowned and went to anarchy, no active duty military were sent in, and only a handful of poorly equipped national guard (the 256th's support brigade having most of their disaster recovery eq). FEMA toyed with the idea of getting school bus drivers to pick up people while squallor gathered at the superdome and thugs terrorized the convention center. Food and water weren't anywhere to be seen. Etc.

There's a lot of blame to go around. A damn lot. People have a right to be furious, at a lot of people - local, state, and federal. And I join them.

Re:In this case it wouldn't have helped.

[Anonymous Coward]

"And why on earth do we have people with no emergency management qualifications heading FEMA at all?"

And why does the new chief justice (Roberts) have close to 0 (None) experience as a judge in a court of law? And the list goes on forever. John Bolton hates the UN and he is our representative there. Apparently, if you are big in an oil company (on the board), then you get a top job.

People have been hoping that the majority will wake up to the lies that we live in for a long long time. It is a strange world.

Re:In this case it wouldn't have helped.

[Rei]

And if Bush had cut have ended his vacation 24 hours sooner would it have made a difference

Heck yes! FEMA was, by all standards, completely blowing a humanitarian disaster, and he was sitting on a ranch! When he first started to comment on it, what did he do? He praised "Browny" (pet name)'s 'great job' and stayed on vacation. Only after essentially a political riot in the media for the neglect of dying people did he actually get off his freaking ranch and do something - and even minimal "something" at that.

It was not in his power to call up the National Guard

It was in his power to call up the active duty army, which everyone was calling for him to do from the day that the violence broke out but wasn't done until several days later.

Put police in the shelters

All of the police force was busy (at first, trying to do rescues to make up for the lack of federal aid), so lets not try and pretend that there was some surplus police force sitting around. I don't fault anyone for that - I fault the mayor majorly for such humiliatingly bad evacuation plans (even with 24 hours notice, if they had prepared bus evacuations well in advance they could have gotten 90% of the remaining people out) and the governor for such a bad guard deployment.

The Governor and Mayor are guilty of manslaughter

And so is FEMA, more than anyone else. This is FEMA's *sole job*. The administration is in charge of who runs FEMA, and Bush was *congratulating* them as late as the 31st. It was sickening to watch, them going on about how peachy everything was, and how everything was getting to better, as the situation turned to hell. They put a fired horse lawyer in charge of disaster relief (and the rest of the cabinet-level FEMA positions also have no qualifications for the job - they're all campaign managers), and when they predictably bombed at the task before them, he *Congratulated* them for their fine job, on national TV. Literally, not figuratively.

Note that I'm not getting into the deployment of the national guard to Iraq. I'm not getting into army corps budgets. Anything like that. I'm soley talking about how they reacted to things *when they happened*. It was humiliating. People were dying and he didn't even stop his vacation. They were dying and he was congratulating "browny". They were dying, and the sec. state was watching "spamalot" and shoe shopping. How the hell can this not make you furious? Seriously? YES, the governor and mayor are incredibly culpable for such bungled preparation. But when this happened, *At Least They Weren't Congratulating The Handling Of The Unfolding Disaster While On Vacation*. How can that not get under your skin??

Re:Hypocracy of the NYT

[forand]

So you want us to trust Fox News that it has got BOTH the facts and the context straight? I can't look at the NYT articles because they were not linked to, quoted, or otherwise referenced in the article you linked to, but it is possible that the NYT would be against flood control spending in general but not discuss New Orleans in particular. This might makes sense if you were talking about flood control to stop flooding in places like Marin County in California which does not need federal dollars to fix its problems with flooding, or any number of projects that are not related to flooding inhabitade areas.

Now to address your last statement: So you are saying that changing one's mind after getting new evidence is arguing both sides? Some people are able to admit they are wrong, perhaps that is what happend here. Regardless none of this can be checked because the Fox News article you linked to does not quote or reference its sources. Not to mention the fact that the Fox Article clearly states that it was an editorial. There are many editors at the NYT and I am sure they have had differing opinions over the years. Perhaps we don't all need to jump on the "bash the other side!" bandwagon.

Hypocracy of the NYT

[Leers]

Long record? Two editorials in 15 years? Saying a bill that had God knows what else in it besides flood control was "bad legislation?" Oh and are they opt-ed or actual editorials? opt-ed are the opinions of the editorial writers not the paper. Two editorial writers do need the non-conflicting view points. In fact, one of the signs of an unbiased paper IS having editorial writers that disagree!

It will take more then a random quotes from the Fox news spin factory to make me believe that. NYT may be a bit biased but its way more objective then anything that ever came out of Fox news.

NOLA: The New American Venice

[thelizman]

First off, anyone asking the question "why rebuild" ought to be thumped soundly with a good sized stick. N'awlins is a strategic point economically. It only makes sense to build there, even with the 50 year risk of major flooding. Secondly, what needs to be rebuild represents a fraction of the total value of what is already built and has survived. So rebuilding is simply not an option - it's an inevitability.

The answer to "how" might seem more novel - and less expensive - than most people think. Simply accept that the area is going to flood. Now build the city such that water and flooding becomes an integral part of the urban planning. Canals and locks can move heavy goods more efficiently than trucks. Build physical plants on elevated earthen damns, and just accept that streets and parking lots are going to flood out. Ban residential construction in flood-prone areas (should be a no brainer). Convert existing structures such that the first two floors above ground (or within the 20ft flood stage) are used for parking and industrial plant works. Lastly, use locks on the channels so that when (not if) a levy breaks, that section is automatically sealed off.

Engineering a city isn't impossible. It's hardly difficult. It merely takes the will to do it.

Re:Hypocracy of the NYT

[vertinox]

They will argue all sides of an issue if it suits their political agenda, but they have no credibility.

I'll take someone who will argue both sides of an issue than one that does not.

Someone is cheating, but its not who you think

[nwbvt]

I used your link to search for the first line of his quote ("Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health") and got an article dated April 15, 2005 titled The Untouchable Corps.

Then I searched for the similar section of your article ("Anyone who cares about sound budgeting and about the health") and got a different article dated August 19, 2002 titled Taming the Untouchable Corps.

So either the Times published two stories with very similar titles and eerily similar lines by coincidence, or someone felt lazy and just changed a few lines and republished the same article. If you have a subscription, feel free to read them and determine which is the case. Since the latter seems more likely, I'm not in the mood to pay them.

Congrats - you're propagating a newly created urban legend designed by left-wing groups to pretend that right-wing groups are misrepresenting the holy New York Times editorial page in a attempt to pretend that Bush really *was* on top, and it was the evil liberal's fault!

Wow, that was a mouthful.

Re:Hypocracy of the NYT

[learn fast]

This article is intentionally misleading propaganda.

"New Orleans' local newspaper, the Times-Picayune (search), says every FEMA official should be fired for their, "feeble response to Hurricane Katrina." And the paper's editors say the aftermath is "ultimately the president's failure.""

I don't know if that's true because I can't find any google hits for these quotes. The article where they call for the firing of every FEMA official is here. Maybe they did so also somewhere else, but those quotes are not in the article. The actual article is worth a read, by the way.

"But the paper has had nothing but praise for the performance of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, finding no fault with his failure to enforce the mandatory evacuation order he issued last Sunday."

They only mentioned Nagin once, praising one thing he did, assuming it's the same article as above. This is described as "nothing but praise". They didn't mention the evacuation in this particular piece, this is described as "finding no fault" with the evacuation. Nagin put a mandatory evacuation into effect, but some people stayed anyway, this is described as a "failure" to enforce the evacuation.

"And Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard (search) says officials at the top of the totem pole, "need to be chain-sawed off," federal officials, he means."

Brit Hume knows what he really meant because Brit Hume has PSYCHIC POWERS. Broussard did not specify federal officals. The full quote was "Whoever is at the top of this totem pole, that totem pole needs to be chainsawed off and we've got to start with some new leadership. It's not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here. Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now." see the video. Look at how Brit Hume chose to quote that.

"Senator Mary Landrieu says, if the president criticizes her state's handling of the disaster, she, "might likely have to punch him.""

She was talking about criticizing the sheriff for evacuating the New Orleans prison. This is described as critizing "her state's handling of the disaster". Here's the video

Is there anything more serious you could lie about than this? No really, is there anything more serious you could lie about than this?

Re:Rebuild? There's a Bright Idea.

[patternjuggler]

With the the Bush Administration doing the best it can...

It's funny to hear people try to defend incompetence with the 'they did the best they could' line- that's the point, the best they could is not good enough. Even if someone else would have done the same, or just as poorly, the one who was there in control at the time has to take their share of the blame- and there is plenty of blame to go around, don't worry.

Re:How much safety is enough?

[Ihlosi]

What if Katrina had grown no bigger than a tropical storm. What if Bush had then funded those levees in NOLA, cut funding for the war in Iraq, and Iraq degenerated into civil war because the US had inadequate troop presence? I suppose you'd think that would've squarely been Bush's fault too?

Of course not. It would be squarely the fault of whoever invaded Iraq to search for those elusive stockpiles of WMD ... ... hey, wait a minute ...