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

[AKAImBatman]

Did you read the next sentence?

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.

That kind of destroys the entire point of a break island. :-)

Re:Learn from nature

[VJ42]

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

Firstly how is building artificial islands not "hanging the face of the earth", secondly, learning from us here in Europe isn't a bad thing, building flood gates and better costal defence like those in london and the Netherlands is worth it in the long run. From TFA:
"[the Netherlands] erected a futuristic system of coastal defenses that is admired around the world today as one of the best barriers against the sea's fury - one that could withstand the kind of storm that happens only once in 10,000 years."

it cost them $8bn, but it's lased over 50 years and counting, and they havn't suffered any New Orleans type situation. Pay the money now to invest in the future of your country. Generations will thank you for it

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

[Red Flayer]

"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. "

Levees and floodgates, as used in the US, do not generally mitigate the damage caused by storm surges -- they are used to block flooding from inland sources like rivers.

"...some artificial barrier islands, rather than further changing the face of the earth"

Artificial barrier islands = changing the face of the earth

Barrier islands migrate into the land over time. They are really just giant versions of the sand ripples you'll see at the edge of almost any (near still) body of water. If we really want our coastlines to operate in a natural fashion, we've got to allow barrier islands to form, move to land, and respawn.

The real problem with NOLA is that the Mississippi River delta is not allowed to regenerate itself by silt deposition. Most conservationists would argue that less flood control is necessary, not more.

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

[mysterystevenson]

Learning from nature is something I agree with 100%. Water tends to return to old pathways after having been re-routed time and time again. This has to due with the path of least resistence and the nature of gravity. One failure in the man made alteration is all it takes.

      It would also be wise to learn from NASA in it's systems designs and applications of triple redundancy in every system involved. Failures occurred here in several areas and there was not sufficient redundancy built into the plan to handle anything.

          There will now be toxic matter in the soil and drainage systems / structures, etcetera of the city, with potential of poisonous releases with every rain, unless massive areas of the landform are sealed with heavy barriers such as concrete to prevent water intrusion below. This may cause the need thereafter to raise many areas of the city above sea level with multiple partitioning of the city.The costs would be enormous.

      Right now we are pumping tremendous amounts of poison out of the city and while much of the Gulf Coast depends on fishing , this may end soon, if we create a far worse disaster, by our unthoughtfull nonconsideration of nature now. Let us hope the Gulf of Mexico does not become a poisonous Dead Zone of Toxic fumes that will spread over Florida, Mississippi, Louisianna, Texas, and Alabama, whereas we used to get healthfull oxygen from the Gulf.

Re:Learn from nature

[lgw]

There was actually a plan for storm surge control put together for the defense of New Orleans in the 70s (when the current levee system was planned), based on what works in Europe. It was shot down because of environmental concerns.

A similar plan was proposed this year. The New York Times hated it. Here's the quote:

Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects - this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.

The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands - usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.

This is a bad piece of legislation.

Hard to tell whether it was genuineely a bad plan, or the NYT hated it simply because it was Bush's proposal, but we are at least considering the ideas used in Europe.

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

[nietsch]

apart from the rethoric and aversion against BabyBush, they have some point about the environmental aspects of big floodgates. The delta works in the netherlands have turned one sea-arm into a freshwater lake. The westerschelde floodgates were supposed to leave the water behind it free-flowing. It's realtively small obstruction to the flow of water and sand had drastic influence on the sandplates behind it.

Because the current is now less, the channels and gullies between the sandplates are too big. As a result the plases are losing sand to fill these big channels. on some places the maintainers have started to supply extra sand to valuable sandplates.

Once you start to do that, you are no longer maintaining a nature reserve but you have just become a garderener with a big & unusually wet garden.

But on the other hand, if you want to keep the current environment, you will have to accept the occasional flood. But with those levees around the rivers that was not happening much either.

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

[Rei]

Actually, FreeRepublic and other sites are misreporting the date on the article ("The Untouchable Corps", with that text, as "April 13, 2005", and heavily alter the text. The actual article was from August 19th, 2002. You can read it without paying here. If you don't believe me that they've changed it, check the New York Times for that text you cited. Congrats - you're propagating a newly created urban legend designed by right-wing groups to pretend that Bush really *was* on top, and it was the evil liberal's fault!

It wasn't "Bush's Proposal", it was a Corps proposal. The article was actually critical of Bush ("He fired (and has yet to replace) Mike Parker, the agency's civilian chief, mainly because Mr. Parker asked for too much money."). The article wasn't critical about the money, but about the environmental impact of the chosen designs. The article didn't even discuss actions on the Mississippi River or flood prevention - their big faulting of the corps was on the subject of Delaware dredging.

Re:Learn from nature

[lgw]

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.

Specifically the Lake Ponchatrain Levee was finished some time ago, and 2005 funding was irrelevent.

Sure the Commanding general of the Army Corps of Engineers says funding levels were fine, but what does he know? He's just some engineer, uneducated in the overriding requirement to hate Smirchimply McHitlerBurton and all of his actions.

GEN. STROCK: The other question is, in general is the civil works budget of the Army Corps of Engineers suffering because of the war in Iraq? Not in my opinion. And the reason I say that is that if you look at the funding levels of the corps from pre-war days of 2001 and 2002, it has been a fairly steady level. We are spending a lot of money and the Corps of Engineers is involved in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're able to balance that with our human resources and it is not directly affecting our budget. ...

Q Two questions. Wasn't that study to look at upgrading the levees delayed for funding reasons?

GEN. STROCK: You know, I talked to the study manager about that now, and again, it's a tough thing to talk about. He feels that he has had an adequate level of funding to move that study ahead. The nature of the work we do in both the studies and the engineering, some of it is not a question of throwing money at it, there is just analysis that must be done, coordination that must occur. And so I would prefer to let the people at the level really talk about that from their perspective. But it's my understanding that that was not a significant issue in this. And even if that study had been finished three years ago, it would not have made a difference in this event.

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.

Our desire for freedom created a car culture. The ability to travel where you like is a significant element of freedom. The road building boom may have enabled this desire for freedom, but it didn't create it.

People want to drive because they want to get to their destination. Building more roads always reduces traffic congestion. People with an irrational hatred of cars and/or freedom will of course hate roads for what they represent.

Re:Learn from nature

[Rei]

First off, please format properly, and use links whenever possible.

A lot of pork ... Robert Byrd

West Virginia's annual "pork" is about 6 billion dollars per year (assuming that 60% of federal expenditures on WV are "pork", since they pay $1 in taxes for every $1.6 they get in federal spending). The short time we've been in Iraq so far has accrued 192B$ in direct costs (and this doesn't count things like the economic recession from the uncertainty leading up to it, the effects of the oil shortage afterwards, the economic loss of the removal of so many reserves, etc). This also doesn't count the rapid DOD growth, which is not included; we now spend half of the world's total military spending.

welfare reform

All programs together, state and federal, are about 20B$ a year, a little over half of that (11B$) on children (between TANF, CCDF, and SSBG). Sorry, not even close.

I always am amused by people who blame "pork" and especially "welfare" for our government woes.

nowhere close to the cost of the war in Iraq

Oh, so is your plan to take the entire cost of the war in Iraq out of a single budget item? That'd require eliminating a large branch of the government. Meanwhile, back in the real world, you have to take some out of everything. War costs hard choices, especially when you *cut* taxes during a war (an almost unheard of act).

Re:Learn from nature

[Mr. Slippery]

Sure the Commanding general of the Army Corps of Engineers says funding levels were fine, but what does he know?

In any engineering project, you never ask top management how things are going, you ask the guys on the ground. June 8, 2004 Times-Picayune:

What's new, said Morehiser [Mervin Morehiser, who manages the "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity" levee project for the Army Corps of Engineers] and Naomi [Al Naomi, the corps' senior project manager], is that the agency has run out of money for the next round of lifts. Naomi said this is the first time a lack of money has stopped major corps work on the levees since the project began in 1967.

..."But I can tell you that we would be better off if the levees were raised, . . . and I think it's important and only fair that those people who live behind the levee know the status of these projects."

..."This project isn't expected to end for another 13 to 15 years," Morehiser said. "They aren't really finished levees at this point. We don't even turn them over to their local sponsors until we consider them stable, which is years from now."

The Bush administration's proposed fiscal 2005 budget includes only $3.9 million for the east bank hurricane project. Congress likely will increase that amount, although last year it bumped up the administration's $3 million proposal only to $5.5 million.

"I needed $11 million this year, and I got $5.5 million," Naomi said. "I need $22.5 million next year to do everything that needs doing, and the first $4.5 million of that will go to pay four contractors who couldn't get paid this year."

...The challenge now, said emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri in Jefferson Parish and Terry Tullier in New Orleans, is for southeast Louisiana somehow to persuade those who control federal spending that protection from major storms and flooding are matters of homeland security.

"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," Maestri said. "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."

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!

after I submitted this...

[EccentricAnomaly]

I noticed another NYT story on lost cities, which would be interesting to the 'abandon New Orleans' camp:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/science/06lost.h tml

Re:after I submitted this...

[interiot]

For what it's worth, 50 years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers had to do quite a bit of work to keep the Mississippi River flowing past New Orleans. If they would have let Mississippi move to the west, New Orleans would have dwindled economically, and shipping would have moved over to the new branch of the Mississippi. I don't know if New New Orleans would have been terribly much safer. It would still probably be stuck in a bayou, though it at least wouldn't have been stuck between the river and Lake Ponchartrain.

Re:after I submitted this...

[Moofie]

Uh, right, because "we" live on a small, isolated, rocky island with no natural resources. I can totally see the parallels.

I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fill everything up with Jello Powder!

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Of course warmer waters contributed. The question is "did we somehow make them warmer" and the answer is, "if we did, it was by an amout too small to measure."

"Trend" is much, much too strong a word to use in conjunction with weather over the past 50 years. "Noise" is a more accurate way to describe how observed weather has changed over the course of human history.

Poor planning is 100% responsible for the loss of life and property due to Hurricane Katrina. It wasn't some unforseeable accident, or America's come-uppance for not signing on to the Kyoto Economic Suicide Pact. It was the result of building a bunch of shit in a place where several hurricanes will strike within a single person's lifetime, and having no Plan B when they do.

Re:Doing what is right

[amightywind]

your right, we should definitely be hoping for another ice age.

Most of countries who bellow loudest about global warming (Canada, Scandanavia, Germany, France) would cease to exist in the next ice age. That's reason alone to fight global warming!

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.

Got To Go There

[lbmouse]

...a heroic captain who plugged a breach in a dike with his ship.
 
Sounds like the trashy novels my wife reads. Was his ship full of sea men?

Re:Got To Go There

[jimbolauski]

Most of the sea men were on the poop deck

Re:Got To Go There

[Gorath99]

It wasn't a ship-shaped hole. It was a 15 meter (50 feet) breach that could not be filled with sandbags, so a ship was commandeered and stranded length-wise next to the breach, thereby mostly plugging it. Sandbags completed the job.

Details can be found here. It's in Dutch, but there are lots of pictures.

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.

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.

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.

Re:Why spend all that $$?

[Da Fokka]

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.

Right on! After the 1953 flooding of over 2000km2 of polders, planning of the Delta Works was started. Dikes (or levees) along hundreds of kilometers of shore were raised by as much as 5 meters. Several flood barriers were built, some of which can move in order to permit sea traffic to pass during normal conditions. The American Society of Civil engineers considers them one of the seven modern wonders of the world.

The delta works took over 40 years to complete and the costs were huge, but not more than the $100 billion one year of Iraqi war costs.

Jetskis for everybody!

[Thud457]

Like The Palms?

Hypocracy of the NYT

[amightywind]

It is interesting that the NYT is now dispensing advice on how to fix flood control problems in New Orleans when they have a long record of recommending against improvements. They will argue all sides of an issue if it suits their political agenda, but they have no credibility.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[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.

Should've listen to the Native Americans

[drgonzo59]

The Native American tribes told the French not to build there because they've been there enough to know...but did anyone listen?... of course not.

I understand that it was the intersection of trade routes back in the day, but what is there today? I would move away from that place, I am sure so will other people. There still will be a "New Orleans" but from now on it will be known as the "Flooded New Orleans." I don't think it will ever recover completely...

New Orleans was on the top of my list of places to visit in the next couple of years, but not anymore, I think I'll wait 10 years or so.

Re:Should've listen to the Native Americans

[Mr. Slippery]

Good idea listen to the people who sold Manhattan island for some beads.

Except they didn't.

Anyway, have you traded anything for little green pieces of paper lately? Or even wackier, for a piece of paper that promises green pieces of paper? Or an electronic promise of green pieces of paper?

Re:Should've listen to the Native Americans

[drgonzo59]

Trade routes for what? Lumber and oil. Do you really need a metropolis at the intersection of such a trade route. Do you really need 1 million people living in the path of hurricanes and below sea level because lumber and oil comes in there?

But of course you know history so well, you know that back in the day the steamboats on Mississippi where just about _the only_ reliable way to travel inland until the railroads were built, so the trade wasn't just oil, lumber and such things it was _everything_: food, consumer goods, and besides there was a large passenger transport. When is the last time you bought a ticket to travel from Ohio to New Orleans by river? That is why there was a city built there. Today there would be a small town where people who service the docks would live and not a big metropolis...

Good idea listen to the people who sold Manhattan island for some beads. -- Even better don't listen to them and build in the path of a hurricane and below sea level. You can go either way with that "Indians are stupid. -No French are the stupid ones" argument... Anyway, slashbots might have modded my post at 4, but you didn't even make past 1 last time I checked...

Re:Absolutely Stupid to Rebuild

[wed128]

If we don't rebuild, Katrina wins!

Re:howmuch science is needed?

[argStyopa]

OK a light hearted comment, but I just read in the NYT a great column on the contrast: NYC was hit with fire, NO hit with water.

NYC could deal with fire, because we've learned to fight fires locally. We build to prevent it, and we all pay a premium on goods and services through the system due to the costs of sprinkler systems etc in the supply chain. We spend city $$ on fire services, and emergency response capabilities.

NO couldn't deal with water, because since the 60's the Federal gov't has taken over response to floods. Local officials are reduced to writing plans that ultimately read "wait for the Feds to arrive with help".

Moreover, with an agency like FEMA, and federal subsidies for flood insurance, he makes a persuasive argument that US gov't policies have, in effect ENCOURAGED the building of homes and businesses in flood prone and coastal regions.

If those homeowners and businesses had to pay a MARKET cost for insurance, how many would have built there? And if there wasn't a FEMA (which has historically compensated flood/hurricane victims even or especially if uninsured) would people be so lasseiz-faire about their families, dwellings, and belongings in the path of destruction?

Persuasive reading.

Let's not make this a "Swamp Castle"

[sleighb0y]

" Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands."


Let's use this tragedy to move the people to some place that is safer, preferably ABOVE sea level. I can understand the "Let's rebuild it and make it stronger!" spirit, but the money it will take to rebuild and then make flood protection that we THINK is adequate ( you know, like they THOUGHT was good enough back in the late 1960's ) would be much better spent in relocation.

Bottoming Out

[Doc Ruby]

The broken canal walls are all up near the Lake seawall built in the 1930s, reclaiming land once swamp (and lake bottom). City Park is a giant park through which the Bayou St. John still flows, along its ancient path, into the middle of town (thru some big pipes in places) to the center of the bowl, the bottom of New Orleans. All that is totally under water now: the 17th Street Canal was the main burst that flooded the town, and runs along the West edge of City Park, past the Bayou.

We should expand City Park to encompass the entire Bayou area, with no development, and lots of canals. Expand the Bayou itself in the bottom to become a giant reservoir. When storms approach, pump out the reservoir. Make all drains pass through the reservoir, a giant buffer. When rain and failed seawalls allow water into the city, funnel it into the reservoir, buying time. Pump the reservoir into the Mississippi and the Lake.

The seawalls and levees themselves are not fault-tolerant. They're static, brittle, and take the whole city with them when they break. Those walls should all have rail lines along their inhabited sides, separated from the water by the wall. When a storm approaches, dumpable sandbags can be rolled into place behind risky sections, or into broken sections, or just into staging areas for delivery by helicopter, boat or amphibious vehicle, or even human "bucket brigades" when all other vehicles fail. Ahead of the storm, the rails can carry cars of evacuees out. And the other 99.5% of the time, without emergencies, they can carry cars instead of highways (most cars on I-10 are "just passing through"), passengers and freight.

Or we can just put the Dutch in charge of the city. Then they'll do all those things I mentioned, and probably something with windmills. Amsterdam and New Orleans have a lot more in common than just negative elevation - and I'm not referring just to decades of Spanish dominion ;). But at least the Dutch will actually do it: they actually do things. Instead of leaving it up to the Army Corps of Engineers, which now must be spelled Corps e , which totally failed their mission - though it looks like they were set up for failure by the civilian leadership, for decades.

Or we can just let New Orleans rot. Along with the rest of the country. If it can happen to a city everyone loves so much, that's so important to our economy, where everyone knew it was RISK #1, why shouldn't it happen everywhere eventually - and not as slowly as in the old World Capital of Molasses.

Re:Bottoming Out

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, no - the White House *is* the "civilian leadership", along with Rumsfeld. Personally, I want to see all those criminals drowned in an alligator tank. But that's not going to get New Orleans rebuilt right, except for the part where they're removed from office.

I've already heard that Halliburton is getting the contracts to rebuild "Baghdad by the Bayou", which is a crime itself. These people look at disaster mitigation neglect as marketing. And our lives (now undeniably) hang in the balance. We've got to get as many incumbents out of Congress in a year as possible. If the Democrats (who have their share of blood on their hands) take the House (where every seat is in an election) by greater than 10%, they could impeach Bush. Maybe force him out, if they take the Senate (where 30 seats are in an election) by greater than 10%. But at least keep Bush bottled up in defense, where he can do less damage. Then the cleanup in 2008. By then, they'll probably have pumped out New Orleans.

Re:Bottoming Out

[Doc Ruby]

I agree that the canal walls were too low, and were designed to collapse in a F4 or F5 hurricane (whether intentionally or not is immaterial). But the fact is that they are collapsed, and your neighborhood is flooded. My old neighborhood is half flooded: at the edge of the Quarter, my house is apparently intact, and not standing in water. But across the street, Armstrong Park is a wasteland, the Treme is a swamp. Many of my friends' neighborhoods in Midcity, around the Bayou, and in the 9th Ward are under water. Fundamental changes are likely necessary to make New Orleans liveable in the 21st Century. I'm not glibly throwing out a plan without thinking of the consequences. But certainly some sacrifices have to be made. And someone's neighborhoods probably won't be coming back (many someones).

I think that reclaiming the old Back of Town from the Lake was executed in an unsustainable way. I think you misunderstand what I'm talking about: Bayou St. John isn't the source of the water flooding the neighborhoods. It's where the water goes. Rather than pretend we can fight the vast power of nature head-on, we must learn from our mistakes to do what we actually can, to get what we want. Like allow the water to enter the city when we can't prevent it, and spend our energy on making those floods controlled and manageable.

New Orleans once was already compartmentalized with neighborhood levees, as you suggest, in the wake of an earlier flood. When the next flood came through, people broke holes in the levees keeping the water in their neighborhoods (which was keeping downhill neighborhoods dry). So the next neighborhood flooded, and those levees were broken, and so on. These strategies that merely meet the force of Nature with force of engineering show how powerful ins Nature: a 90MPH/40mi-wide hurricane contains 200x the global electrical generation power; Katrina was many times bigger.

So I suggest we plan for "failover". That means sacrificing some land areas in populated New Orleans while it's manageable, rather than all of it when the crisis hits. Many of those areas we can't keep are really desireable property now: quiet, modern neighborhoods near the Park. And of course it's easy for me to say, since I already said my tearful goodbyes to the city when I moved back to NYC. But whose neighborhood should go? Just the poor people, even if their neighborhood isn't as useful a sacrifice in the engineering to protect the city?

I know what it means to miss New Orleans. I've cried often this past week, screamed at the set, sent money, helped find people, helped find people places to stay. I didn't think I could be more furious with Bush and Congress than the past 5 years, but this storm surprised even me - in revealing just how through was their failure. I've got other wheels in motion here in NYC that hopefully will have immediate and longterm benefits to saving the city - in my own relatively puny way. I hope every one of us is also doing what we can - together we can save the coolest, most unique city in America. But we have to accept that we might have to amputate to save this patient. No one's going to like it. Until I hear about a better operation, that's at least as likely to preserve her life, I'm sticking with this one, painful as it is.

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.

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.

Protection against the sea is half the story

[Fjan11]

... flooding caused by rivers is equally dangerous, both in New Orleans and in the Netherlands. The article mentions the Dutch Delta works, which are now in place and protect against the sea. But last decade the Netherlands had a pretty close call when flooding of the Rhine almost created a disaster of a scale similar to that in New Orleans.

Interestingly, the answer to river flooding is not building higher dikes. It is prohibitively expensive to build them high enough and you would have an "iron curtain" in your countryside. The Netherlands now has designated certain sparsely populated areas as flood zones, and built dikes around those. In case of another imminent disaster those areas will be flooded draining water form the river. The people that live there will be reimbursed, it's much cheaper than building and maintaining higher dikes.

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.

And fox news has credibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read the blurb and it's totally unconvincing. the NYT was against the recent highway and energy bills because they're piles of waste, nto because of any one project involved.

Fox News has such a hard-on for the NYT it's unbelievable. When they put together any kind of reporting operation instead of 4 hours of loudmouthed opinion on prime time I'll think about taking them seriously.

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.

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.'

Why build skyscrapers?

[StevenMaurer]

The low-built Pentagon was hit just like the WTC buildings on 9/11 and it didn't collapse to the ground. So if we're going to say New Orleans shouldn't be rebuilt under water, why are we building gravity-defying skyscrapers?

And remember, "nature" doesn't want so many people on the Earth. We're way beyond what most species' population limits. Should we just let half the human population die off?

Personally, I'm all in favor of respecting nature. But I don't think we should surrender to it.

Rebuilding New Orleans with...

[SamAdam3d]

voodoo magic.

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.

[electroniceric]

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.

Volume flow: to move the same number of people 10 times further in approximately the same amount of time, you need 10 times more moving capacity.

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.

Mightn't it have just a little bitty bit to do with so much of the National Guard being over in Iraq, and with FEMA being run by a group of Bush campaign workers (read their bios) with no disaster management experience?

For Pete's sake, this kind of thing is exactly FEMA's mandate: provide resources to avert and mitigate emergencies. In other words, FEMA should have had the place crawling with responders and National Guardsmen the moment the state of emergency was declared on August 26th. I'll bet you 25 bucks that the head of the agency not only keeps his job but gets a raise. Seriously, I'll make that bet.

I say this and I'm one of the people who thinks that FEMA is way too quick to offer people money to rebuild their waterfront condos every time a flood or hurricane happens. But when push comes to shove, it is our nation and our government's responsibility to avoid the kind of human tragedy that happened in New Orleans, and that job primarily belongs to FEMA.

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

[Rei]

After the first day after the storm New Orleans said they where okay.

The storm struck on the 29th. The very next papers said they survived with heavy damage, but the levees held. That evening, the levees overtopped, and by morning on the 30th the city was starting to transform into a hellscape. The news was full of scenes of devastation, people stranded in New Orleans, the first reports of violence. Everyone was wondering the whole day why Bush had been spending his time posing for pictures and giving speeches on unrelated topics while we had our own little hellhole brewing on every network.

On midday of the 31st Bush finally decided to cut his vacation short, but simply flew over the area. Cheney was still on vacation. Card was on vacation. Condi was shoe shopping and watching Spamalot. The list actually goes on, but I don't have it on me.

The 1st? Bush held a press conference, but nothing else. It wasn't until the 2nd that he actually went on-scene. Meanwhile, Cheney and the other vacationers were still on vacation.

It's a horrible response - it makes them look insensive self-focused, especially combined with the fact that the whole time FEMA, the military, and the national guard were botching the relief effort and pretending that everything was going peachy. Every time I heard them speak about how wonderful things were, and then saw people crying and literally dying, the immediate question comes up: why on *earth* do these people still have their jobs? How can there be such a ridiculous disconnect? And why on earth do we have people with no emergency management qualifications heading FEMA at all?

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

[LWATCDR]

"On midday of the 31st Bush finally decided to cut his vacation short, but simply flew over the area. Cheney was still on vacation. Card was on vacation. Condi was shoe shopping and watching Spamalot. The list actually goes on, but I don't have it on me.
"
And if Bush had cut have ended his vacation 24 hours sooner would it had made a difference? If he had visited it would have take resources away efforts to save people. You said it. "it makes them look insensive self-focused". It makes them look. Again are you trying to fix the problem or find what you can blame on Bush? Are you letting these people suffering serve your goals?
It was not even in Bush power to evacuate New Orleans. It was not in his power to call up the National Guard. It was not in his power to put Police in the shelters.
If he had done any of these things it would have been abusing his office and breaking the law.
The majority of the blame for the deaths are clearly on the heads of the Governor and Mayor. The Federal Government made mistakes and could do better. The Governor and Mayor are guilty of manslaughter. What I am seeing is people wanting to ignore the criminal negligence of the Governor and Mayor because they think it will take the heat off of the President and the feel that laying blame on the Republican party and winning the next election are more important than showing where the real problem was and fixing it. The feel that their greater goal is more important then the truth.

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:In this case it wouldn't have helped.

[d34thm0nk3y]

It was not even in Bush power to evacuate New Orleans. It was not in his power to call up the National Guard.

This website disagrees with you.

And I quote:
In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard to participate in Federal missions.

Re:WARNING: Ignore Nature at Your Peril

[MROD]

The problems with New Orleans runs far-far deeper than polluting etc.

New Orleans is placed on a river delta. After the sediments in a delta are deposited they are guaranteed to subside. It's a consiquence of compaction, de-watering and the isostatic response of the lithosphere below the basin to the extra load. Unless more sediment is added continuously the delta will eventually (and quite quickly in geological and indeed historical terms) sink beneath the sea.

When New Orleans was founded a few hundred years ago it was above sea level. (after all, who would found a town on a salt marsh?) Since then it's subsided continuously until today a great deal of the city is now below sea level and a great deal lower than the river (which has since built up its base by depositing sediment).

When the corps of engineers stopped the river naturally switching its channel (which it does around once every 1000 years) and straightened the current channel they put in motion a set of events which meant that the delta lost its sediment load to further out in the Gulf of Mexico as the river is flowing at a greater rate. This has caused the coastline (and all the natural defences) to not be replenished and go below the sea.

You may like to see this google cached article from a Baton Rouge newspaper in 2002. It gives a decent overview of the situation.

As a geologist, I would be in the camp which suggests that the government take this as an opportunity to move the city to higher and more stable ground and abandon the old city to be an archaeological curiosity and tourist attraction. Rebuilding it would merely prime the charge for an even bigger loss of life when, not if, the river breaks its banks. This time only the low-level lake to the north broke through which soon equalised its level.. this wouldn't happen with the great river.

How long do you want to fight a losing battle with the planet? How high do you eventually want the levees to be before you give up? When the city's subsided to the point where it's an isolated bowl in the ocean?

I know it's not going to be abandoned, there are too many politicians who have staked their carreer on the "we will rebuild it" bravardo and a King Kanute attitude.

(Before anyone corrects me about King Kanute, I know that the popular story is wrong, the King was trying to show how impotent he was rather than believing that he could actually stop the sea.)

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.

Lessons from Monty Python

[Rei]

When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a city on a swamp, but I built it 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 blew down, flooded, and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up! And that's what you're going to get lad, the strongest city in all of America!

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.

Is technology the answer as TFA claims?

[krisamico]

The article was interesting. Before reading it, I did not know anything about the North Sea Flood or the Deltaworken that came of it. Right away, I noticed that the article takes a rather particular stance on the purpose and value of big projects such as these -- the problem is the sea, and we should invest in project such as these to keep the sea out of habitable land. I think the article would have been a lot more interesting had it included at least a cursory discussion of the fact that while technology like this has a temporary benefit, the problems caused by development in wetlands cannot be permanently solved.

IMO, the real problem with inhabited wetlands is not storm surge, but subsidence, which is what allows storm surge to inundate inhabited land. We populate the wetlands, pumping out the water which would normally bring along with it silt, which accretes, contributing the the land mass that will naturally buffer storm surge. Once inhabited, the land mass gradually subsides (sinks), making vulnerability to flooding worse. I believe that no technology will stop this.

If my opinion is a correct one, there is no prevention of such disasters, only preparedness and remediation. I live in the Los Angeles metro area, and I have the same problem. The best thing I can do is buy property on land out here that the USGS has not identified as prone to liquefaction or heavy shaking and hope for the best. I do not expect my government to build an $8 billion gadget to protect me, because there is no way for sure to know that it will even work!

What I am left wondering is whether or not the people of NO expect to be protected, and would it even be worth it to try. These people live in a dangerous area, just like me, and I think that money spent on disaster education and readiness would probably be well spent, as opposed to wasting billions fighting nature in a losing battle. Our arms are too short to box with God, so perhaps it would be better to spend money on learning to roll with the punches. Based on the chaos and loss of life I saw, I don't think anyone down there was even the least bit prepared. I see the same indolence here in L.A. where I live, and a lot of people are going to die some day because of it.

Low tech solution

[HermanAB]

Stilts. Simply mandating that all dwellings must be built 3 feet above the 2005 flood level will go a long way to mitigating damage. All houses there are built on piles and a concrete slab anyway, so just make the damn piles taller. Then if they do flood again, little damage will be done.

but for a heroic captain who plugged a breach in a

[PigIronBob]

mmmmmmmmmm, I was born in Rotterdam, lived there for 29 years, never heard THAT story before, sounds about as good as plugging a hole in a dike with your finger, those that actually have seen a 'sea dike' will see the funny side of that story. Also the 8 Billion Guilders was the initial budget (1953) needless to say that they went over 'a bit' seeing the project went for more than 30 years, some extraordinary innovations were made due to some extraordinary problems they faced such as having to build on silt rather than bedrock, but in the end they were true to the creed: "Luctor et Emergo", the Lion in the coat of arms of Zeeland does stand knee-deep in water for good reason. One lesson the American people could learn from this was the fact that the entire 'Delta Plan' was enshrined in an irrevocable Law, to make sure that no one could weasel out of this when the memory of the flood subsided!

Silver lining?

[quarkscat]

The hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans at Force 4 levels. The wind, rain, and flooding were all managable, with the city's pumps clearing away the 2 to 3 feet of flood water. It was the storm surge that followed Katrina inland that breached the levees. The levee system, as well as the port facilities, were all "owned" by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and have been for decades.

Dredging of shipping channels, construction of canals for the diversion of water, and continued construction of port facilities brought new economic development to New Orleans. But officials at all levels of government have known for a decade that the levee system needed to be upgraded in order to withstand the worst that nature could wreak on the city. Enough money was never made available for reconstruction of the wetlands or barrier islands, or for improving the levee system.

Three times during the Bush administration funding has been slashed to 1/6th to 1/10th of needed levels to properly address the above issues. The loss of live may climb to ten thousand or more, with property damage in New Orleans proper that could reach $15 Billion USD. It would not be the first time that the neo-conservatives have been exposed to accusations of being "penny wise and pound foolish". The fiscal liability exposure by commercial insurance companies will likely result in several of these companies filing bankruptcy.

Whatever funds that the US Congress and the Bush administration spend on reconstruction in New Orleans will likely be dwarfed by commercial enterprises. The US Supreme Court has opened the way for local/state government to seize private property and turn it over to "more commercially viable" private enterprise. While the taxpayer burdeon may be mitigated by such actions, the notion of private ownership rights, due process, and equal treatment under the law are all due to be sorely tested as the cleanup and rebuilding of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast proceed. The current regime in power has never made any bones about favoring big commercial interests over those of the individual. Times that try the boundaries of the US Constitution and the Bill or Rights versus the power of big corporate-owned government are coming...

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:Rebuild? There's a Bright Idea.

[BulletMagnet]

I'll back him up on this. As a Sacramentan, I lived in areas that were flood prone before I bought a house in a non-flood zone. All the housing that has gone into the Natomas area (and it's a LOT - numbering in the thousands of homes) are ALL in floodzones.

In 1986, the area where my former employer is located was under 10 feet of water (hence, they never occupy building space on the 1st floor) when the levee system failed. Just over 10 years later, in 1997, we had similar record rainfall and the levees were again taxed to the brink of failure. I lived right near the river and the water was running damned near the top of the berms. We were under constant evacuation notices (not mandatory orders, but voluntary ones) I was lucky: Some of the levee system did fail in various areas of Sacramento and caused some X millions of dollars in damage.

The ACE then came in and did a fair bit of retrofit work to the existing levees by cutting them open in the centerline of the berm, trenching all the way down below the waterline, and backfilling the cut with slurry, since many of the earthen berms were weakened not by nature or or design flaw, but by burrowing animals like moles. Supposedly the digging critters could not tunnel through the slurry wall. Unfortunately, most of this work was done AFTER levee breaks during the 1997 floods.

I would wholeheartedly agree that shortsighted developers can be to blame in building up infrastructure where it shouldn't be, but if you protect it well enough (which it sounds like NO was not) it *should* stay up - but with unforseen weather patterns that the system was not designed to handle, you will end up swimming sooner or later.

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

[jcnnghm]

That's all well and good, except blaming Bush isn't going to work. An Army Corp of Engineers rep said that even if Bush had increased funding starting day 1 of his first term, this wouldn't have been avoided. Try a different scapegoat.

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:Learn from nature OR GOOGLE at least

[ankhank]

> NO DATA
Oh, for Christ's sake. Take 0.34 seconds to check what it's like BEFORE adding the toxic waste.

Results 1 - 100 of about 24,900 for "Gulf of Mexico" +"dead zone". (0.34 seconds)

NOAA's National Ocean Service: The Gulf of Mexico's dead zone swells each summer to about 18000 square kilometers--roughly the size of New Jersey....
oceanservice.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html -

The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico is a large region of water that has very low oxygen concentrations, and therefore can't support aquatic life.
www.smm.org/deadzone/

Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone," which last summer reached the size of the ...
www.fishingnj.org/artdedzn.htm

Gulf of Mexico "Dead Zone" Is Size of New Jersey
Each year a swath of the Gulf of Mexico becomes so devoid of shrimp, fish, and
other marine life that it is known as the dead zone.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0525_0505 25_deadzone.html - 28k - Sep 4, 2005

beneath the waves of the Gulf of Mexico lurks the "dead zone," a vast area off the Louisiana-Texas coast where oxygen-depleted water collects every ...
        news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2000/12/1204_fish .html

Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia
The Gulf of Mexico "Dead Zone", or hypoxic zone, is an expanse of oxygen-depleted
waters that cannot sustain most marine life. This hypoxic zone is caused ...
www.ncat.org/nutrients/hypoxia/hypoxia.html - 7k ....

7000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico. Called the Gulf Dead Zone....

Re:Rebuild? There's a Bright Idea.

[Hatta]

Rebuilding New Orleans shows stubbornness well beyond the border of idiocy

So you expect Bush will fund it then?

Re:wetlands don't replace levees

[Rei]

It would require some very complicated computer models

Actually, at it's basic level, it's really mostly a volume calculation. Just integrate over the landscape and you can tell how much additional water it can take, then factor in the influx. I believe the models that they use are more complex to accurately calculate the influx and uneven water levels at different points, but the result is that a single square mile of restoration equals a reduced surge of one foot.

In short, yes, the models already exist.

and then broke

Do you not know the meaning of "just", as in "The levee didn't just break"?

Adapt!

[J05H]

Here's the deal: we need to live with nature. One aspect of this is that cities will get destroyed - the ruins of destroyed ancient cities ring the Earth.

New Orleans as it is should be adandoned. The high ground of the french quarter might be preserved. The deep water port and industrial areas like Michoud are restored. These areas have proper seawalls built with regard to natural silt flows, the rest of the city becomes Delta again. People that live in the area live the way you're supposed to in a swamp: in boats and house-barges. The swamp dwellers seem to have faired well, and came out of the woods to help evacuate the city. If the population was competent enough to live in the swamp instead of against it, they could flourish. As it is, they have probably crippled the shrimping and subsidence issues doom much of the city. Imagine a million houseboats stretching through a restored river system. People commute to work by boat, work in hi-tech, shipping and restored shrimp industries. Let the Mississippi wander as it needs, build the deep-water port out in the ocean and have lighter barges for carrying containers and oil in-shore. If people want to live there, they should adapt to life on the water.

I want to see a JMOB/SeaHub container facility in the Gulf of Mexico. This technology can be applied to housing, shipping, huge mobile hospitals, etc. http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/01/07/wo_ schrope072501.asp

Josh

Re:howmuch science is needed?

[Rich0]

So... you're saying that the Free Market could have ensured that this disaster could have been much less worse? ;-)

Sure. Who would issue a mortgage on a home in an area prone to flooding if they knew the Feds wouldn't pay them off if there was a flood? Who would build a business there?

The disaster wasn't the flood - there have been floods there for the past several million years. It is only a disaster when you have a million people living in a spot that has severe flooding every 50 years or so.

You can try to move the water, or you can just move the people. Or, you can point out that anybody who builds their home there will have to rebuild it every few decades and then when the flood comes just stand and say "I told you so."

Human life is valuable. I'd support free bussing to get people out of danger even if they were idiots for being there in the first place. However, their homes are less valuable. If they're dependant on government assistance for having someplace to live, the government should at least find someplace cheaper to put them...

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 ...

Re:Rebuild? There's a Bright Idea.

[snarfwarg]

What's the point of rebuilding?

The port of New Orleans and environs is one of the top three ports of the united states. Massive tonnage of imports/exports flow through this port, including 15-20% of all petroleum products used by this country, the majority of exported agricultural goods; not to mention all the oil infrastructure currently existing in the Gulf of Mexico.

NO and the surrounding communities are where all the oil and dockyard works live.

Re:Learn from nature OR GOOGLE at least

[Red Flayer]

Look, the Gulf Dead Zone is scary enough to those concerned about the coastal environment. But listing multiple sources in your post that reference New Jersey?

There's no reason to make the Dead Zone seem that bad.

Yes, I'm from NJ.