Louisiana asks '60 Minutes to hold tonight's report on sinking N.Orleans

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-21/113252184829050.xml&storylist=louisiana

11/20/2005, 3:19 p.m. CT
The Associated Press

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — State officials have asked the CBS television show "60 Minutes" to postpone Sunday's scheduled segment highlighting a scientist's allegations that New Orleans is sinking and that residents should be induced to leave the city.

Tim Kusky, a professor in the earth sciences department at St. Louis University, asserts on the show that New Orleans residents should "face the fact that their city will be below sea level in 90 years."

He also recommends a "gradual pullout from the city, whose slow, steady slide into the sea was sped up enormously by Hurricane Katrina," according to a preview of the program.

In a letter to CBS, Andy Kopplin, Gov. Kathleen Blanco's chief of staff and executive director of the main panel dealing with the post-Katrina rebuilding effort, asked the network to reconsider airing it...

Isn't it already below sea level?

we should ignore science, and built there anyway just because you don't want an "Exit Strategy fiasco" ?

But seriously, it was a joke.

I'm undecided about what should be done about living in seemingly uninhabitable places, or dangerous places. Seems everywhere has some risk. Many places on earth (eg, Holland) have learned to effectively deal with living below sea level, so technologically it's feasible.

more serious issue regarding rebuilding. There was an article about the illnesses and coughing that seems to be effecting those who are returning. Having lived in a home that was flooded I know that mold is a big factor in post-flood areas. It is in the walls and the basements and crawl spaces and IT CAUSES ILLNESS. The flood that hit my home was tiny in comparison to NO so I am wondering if they will ever get the mold out of the homes and soil around the city. I for one would relocate if it were possible.

You can get a real great deal right now on almost new cars - They look great and the price is incredible. People are buying them up for next to nothing and driving them far up north to sell at a huge profit after a quick detail.

NT!

this man's claims are riddled w. errors of fact and logic, however, the self-seeker will always find an audience w. the GOP and the haters because they want to take our oil, use us as a refining and dumping ground for chemicals, and then not pay back

it is truly shameful & for 60 minutes to participate is sad

for those of you who have never seen a map of the usa -- i am shocked how many of you there are on the internets -- almost the entire financial value of this nation is on the coasts, abandon the coasts and you are left w. the desert (usa southwest) and the soon-to-desert (interior midwest)

unless you think a great nation can profit by dealing blackjack to each other, i suggest we find a way to solve this problem NOW

somehow the netherlands are a rich nation, w. health care for all & a host of freedoms, and THEY are below sea level

somehow the japanese are a rich nation, w. a huge social safety net for their elderly, and THEIR cities are subject to regular destruction by earthquake (see kobe)

yet they are wise enough to solve their problems

where is the "united" in united states if we are here only to be looted of our treasure & abandoned in our time of need?

rising sea level, climate change are NOT going to go away, maybe you choose to let yr children and grandchildren die of thirst in an interior desert where the rain never falls, well that is YOUR choice, but don't you dare call it science or anything but what it is -- a hate of the south, a prejudice of the south, a treating us like we are only a colony and not a real part of the united states

if you can prove he's wrong then great, if not, nothing else you said matters. We have plenty of land and we should build on sinking land or 10 feet near the ocean.

live in the desert. However, is it totally impossible for the city with it's great port to be moved back along the river a ways to make it safer from further flooding and what I am worried about - mold? One article today was talking about the people in interior Louisiana not having been so badly hit - surely there is room to move back without totally abandoning the seaport which handles the shipping coming down the river.

The areas that CAN be inhabited safely, should be, but the broadbrush approach to "rebuild it all" or "rebuild NONE of it" is the problem..

People have always gravitated to bodies of water.They HAD to...water is HEAVY to carry a great distance, and then water has helpful for bathing, and transporting goods, BUT most successfel "early people" built their actual homes a ways inland, and used well-worn paths to actually get to the waterfront.

On "storm coasts", it's even MORE important to make sure that housing is set far enough back so that loss of life and property is minimized.

Most of the housing I have seen in coastal communities will NOT withstand a regular pounding from Mother Nature.

If they are even able to get insurance, the horrendous losses (yearly in some places) have GOT to be impacting the insurance rates for everyone.

It's true that every place has its share of local catastrophes, but the magnitude of damage is at its worst in storm coast areas.

It might be cheaper in the long run to just buy out the people whose homes are destroyed, or buy a new home for them in a safer area..and then restore or let nature restore the coastal areas. Aside from the shipping/seaport areas that could be beefed up, it would probably benefit states to have large stretches on (relatively) unspoiled coastlines.. Hotels and tourist areas could be a few blocks inland, and still make money (as long as ALL are off the actual coast)...and Mother Nature will restore what man has tried to claim..

People LIKE unspoiled...but once they start living there and getting big box stores to serve them and roads everywhere, the very reason the moved there disappears..

many parts of the infrastructure. SOme housing should be rebuilt. But the houses in the low areas next to the levees...maybe those should just be parks or big floodplains. The French Quarter and other areas are just above sea level and should be retained and protected I think because of the cultural and historic aspects. They've made it through for a few centuries now. I think that the port itself is too valuable to give up as are the oil refineries and other industry.

Well said: "The areas that CAN be inhabited safely, should be, but the broadbrush approach to "rebuild it all" or "rebuild NONE of it" is the problem.."

am I supposed to pay for that when the next hurricane comes? People have to stop living in dangerous places, places that are accidents waiting to happen. There are many places to live that are geologically stable against earthquakes and above sea level (re hurricanes and surges). I don't think it's an anti-South thing.

Get a grip and pay attention.

We are discussing abandoning a million Americans, not a handful of idiots with summer homes.

I have a grip. You need to get a grip. The problem in NOLA and Katrina applied to that whole area hit by Katrina. That 28 foot storm surge wiped out way more than NOLA proper. Whether to rebuild NOLA is a small part of one big problem...living in places that are subject to heavy hurricane damage. I was just down in NOLA area earlier this year and I will tell you most of the residences in that NOLA area are primary residences, including the NOLA suburbs.

I'm prepared to accept abandoning New Orleans if America is prepared to begin evacuating the West Coast in preparation for the next Big One. At the least, I want a promise from our federal leadership that, when the big one comes, not a penny of my tax dollars should go to the relief of people who wish to build cities atop fault lines.

and the same thing happening over and over

In fact the last several large earthquakes in California had very small death toll, much less than a few large tornadoes (a yearly event). Most of the housing stock was immediately habitable and nobody had to be evacuated 300 miles away.

California is no stranger to disasters. I watched a good chunk of housing in the Oakland hills burn one afternoon. All the rebuilt housing is pretty close to fireproof, and earthquake resistant to at least a direct 7.0 earthquake.

Tell me the housing that you're planning to rebuild in NOLA will withstand another class 3 hurricane without evacuating for 50 years. Figure it out and get back to us.

accident waiting to happen. It was published in Popular Mechanics as I recall and If I can find it I will post it here.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282151.html

BY JIM WILSON
Published on: September 11, 2001
snip
Yet knowing all this, area residents have made their potential problem worse. "Over the past 30 years, the coastal region impacted by Camille has changed dramatically. Coastal erosion combined with soaring commercial and residential development in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have all combined to significantly increase the vulnerability of the area," says Sandy Ward Eslinger, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Services Center in Charleston, S.C."snip

There was another long article (3 parts as I recall) in the NOLA Times Picayune about the levees and hurricanes well before Katrina came in and devastated NOLA

Houses and other development never should have been built in the bayous and other low-lying areas...it should have been left as nature intended to absorb the hurricane surges.

or those subject to forest or brush fires? Do you include "tornado alley" and volcanic areas? How about locales that are plagued by severe drought and constant water shortages?

This is earth, not paradise, and for what Louisiana has contributed we deserve what it costs to rebuild our cities and coastline.

Personally, I want to hold up the oil and gas until the nation awakens from it's stupidity. (16-18% of the domestic oil and a very significant output of natural gas as well) There are a few on DU I would subsidize, but those who think it's our problem and has no viable solution...can go sit in their cars with no gas or in their houses with no heat. If you don't care what happens to us, why should we care what happens to you???

The city is basically too heavy for the ground its built on. The constant loss of wetlands and the diversion of the Mississippi make this worse.

Unscientific idiot gets on 60 minutes to help the RW money machine.
I grew up there-the place has always been soggy- it's no big deal.

needs the gas and oil that lowly Louisiana produces so you won't freeze to death. Look for solutions, don't pick at our bones; Katrina did that already.

and contract with the Dutch to reconstruct the levees and rebuild the natural land system of protection.

And I wonder if that scientist also advocates evacuating New York, Boston, Miami and Charleston because they'll be underwater as the oceans rise from global warming...

and land sinking. If, in fact, New Orleans is actually sinking, as in the land is dropping relative to other land, then we need to have an honest national discussion about what to do. Is the city worth the billions it would take to keep the Gulf and the Mississippi out as it continues to drop? it's a fair question to talk about. The Dutch don't have a choice, it's their largest city and all their fertile land at stake. We do have a choice. a painful one, but one that should be made honestly, and with all the information at hand.

the Dutch spend 2-3 billion a year on flood protection. are we willing to spend that much for New Orleans?

First, the city of New Orleans is built on a river delta - one of the largest in the world. The Mississippi created the delta by sedimentation over hundreds of years. I say "hundreds" because there is evidence that the Mississippi has changed its southernmost course repeatedly over the millenia. I know I've read a couple of stories that have indicated that the river delta in its current form is overextended and that the river itself, without man-made restrictions on its flow, would likely be about to shift again.

A sedimentary land formation such as the Mississippi delta is not stable unless the flow into and out of it is consistent. This is not the case, as we see from the previous paragraph, even without accounting for the obvious impact of storms and of human activities upstream. The Platte River is an example of this: the river is far smaller than it was only a hundred years ago, and this is largely due to human activity. Enough of this kind of activity upstream can - and I'm certain it does - have an impact on both the river itself and upon its surrounding landforms over time. To think otherwise would seem, to me, to expect to be able to pour a pint of water into one end of an open pipe and have a quart to come out of the other end. The argument against this claims that the net amount of water remains the same even when used. If this were true, then the Colorado River would still reach the sea. (It doesn't anymore; it peters out in the desert well short of its former mouth.) The cause of this is clearly manmade; one need only look at the city of Los Angeles to grasp this.

Once a sedimentary land formation loses its flow, the land has to sink as the delta dries out. Anyone who has ever watched a lakebed dry out can attest that the bottom drops noticeably during the process. This is because the water in the soil comprises part of its volume. As the water evaporates, the remaining land sinks because of simple gravity.

The process of New Orleans' sinking was probably in progress well before Katrina. How exactly Katrina would have exacerbated the process is, I admit, not entirely clear, unless damage to the surrounding engineering projects that kept the river on its current course has occurred. However, I have to point out that the probability of major cyclonic storms makes the situation for New Orleans even more problematic.

Not only does this city have to deal with the changes in the Mississippi and keep the surrounding waters out, but it also has to guard against these storms. Reducing or altering the river's flow wouldn't solve the problem; it would actually exacerbate it, because lessened flow would only increase the rate at which the land subsides.

This is a completely different, and far more difficult, problem than the Dutch currently face. There are very few storms striking Holland in any given century with even the force of a hurricane such as Georges or Betsy. Katrina- or Rita-sized storms are all but unheard-of. Moreover, Holland has been thickly inhabited far longer than America has been in any area, and many of the effects of human engineering have already taken place. Finally, Holland is not situated on a delta formed by a river the size of the Mississippi, and the inland projects affecting its rivers are far less intrusive as a whole.

In short, there is no reasonable way to compare the Louisiana situation to that of the Netherlands. I wish that I could offer a solution, but I don't have one that wouldn't require hundreds of billions of dollars, decades of construction, massive population shifts, and a single-minded commitment to its completion. In this last area the Dutch, unlike the people of this country, are at a considerable advantage compared to our New Orleans countrymen.

PsA


on edit - corrected a sentence fragment

whiff of pizza in the air if you ask me

... as opposed to ...

"They're all against us! They're cheating us! They're stealing from us!"

Maybe "they" are just thinking a bit more objectively than an
(understandably) stressed-out NO resident?

Why is "insult the newbies" the immediate response?

when one can cut and paste the same lines and use for every discussion ? ;)

Certainly the way I see it.

I have such mixed emotions about the situation. I once lived in New Orleans. In fact, my father was the Commanding officer for the Corps of Engineers in New Orleans from 1967-1970. He dealt with Hurricane Betsy and his biggest problem was raising a chlorine barge that sank.

I have thanked my heavenly stars numerous times -- since Katrina -- that it did not occur on his watch. Sadly, I have to admit that I feel relieved that neither he, nor my mother, lived to see this terrible event. It would have devastated them, and probably damaged our house on Napoleon Ave.

We all made wonderful friends in New Orleans. It was the most unique city in the US.

If you immediatly take everything in your home made from petrochemical products, place it in and around your car, and torch the pile.

The situation in New Orleans is largely a man made one to provide offshore oil production (and flood protection for the entire Mississippi valley).

So, now you want to walk away from the problem after whoring it up on cheap oil for fifty years?

seriously, just because unsustainable practices occured in the past does not mean we need to continue subsidizing them indefinately. we've subsidized range land to support the beef industry for a hundred years, should we continue that forever? maybe, but it's worth discussing. Should we subsidize the auto industry forever? what about industrial logging? commercial fishing? Think of how many people would lose their livelihoods if we stop spending 400 billion dollars a year on the defense industy? strip mining?

they are all hard decisions, but ones that we need, frankly, to make.

it is never a hard decision to be a thief of other's resources, yet that is what you advocate

loot and run, loot and run

i see you plan to abandon those people who live by the sea, by forestry, basically by every method of protecting this country or providing it with material

for shame, for shame

be a hypocrite if you please but don't expect us not to call you on it

hard decision, my ass

apparently, there are now unlimited resources, so that use of one resource doesn't mean we can't use it for something else. That's great news.

Go to the supermarket and try to buy a piece of Cod. in 1980, it was a 15 billion dollar a year industry, employing thousands of people. because we didn't make the hard decision to limit it, every single one of them is gone. Cod is no longer a commercial fishery. It happened to swordfish and stripers as well. (Patagonian Toothfish) Chilean Sea Bass is five-ten years from commercial extinction. Most salmon served in the US is farm raised, not wild. and don't forget the sperm whale. want me to keep going? Rockfish in the Chesapeake, bluefish off New England, big-eye and yellowfin tuna, mako shark, the list continues. all of them, fished to the brink of commercial extinction. because no one wanted to put anyone out of work. but now they all are out of work, aren't they? it was a loss-loss.

if it costs 500 million dollars a year to protect new orleans from flooding, then that might be worth it, to the people of new orleans, who should bear the brunt of it. but what if it costs 15 billion, more than the federal government spends on public education every year, to protect new orleans, and that those costs will simply continue to rise? 50 billion? 100 billion? every year? when does it become worthless to try and beat back the ocean simply so people can have a house there?

and reasonable heating oil, huh? Enjoy that morning cup of coffee? Thank Louisiana for that, and recall that last year there was no Katrina and the levees and wetland protection were way underfunded thanks to the short sight of political hacks. Ditto all the years stretching back to Betsy which was in the 1960's. The mull the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers did not build the levees to their own specifications, shorting the retaining walls by 16'!!!

obviously the Port of New Orleans is economically important to the US. That doesn't mean that the city of New Orleans is worth the price it will take to maintain it. the port is not dependant, any more, on the city being there. and if the cost of maintaining the city exceeds the financial benefits of having it there, then your arguement falls apart, doesn't it?

Let me begin to name of a few of the people that are necessary for port operation:
Riverboat pilots and crews
Tugboat captains and crews
Customs inspectors
Food and Drug inspectors
Customs clearing house personnel
Ships chandlers
Crane operators
Longshoremen
Forklift operators
Truckdrivers
Railroad engineers and crews

Those are just the ones that I'm aware of. Now, where do you propose those essential personnel live, Milwaukee?

I know you don't realize the importance of New Orleans, but this link should help:
http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopolitics_katrina.php
It is well worth the read, and will surely give you much to chew on.

we can find high and dry housing for ten thousand people. we can even find high and dry locations for smaller cities. the question is, do we need to support a city of 500,000, jusitifed cimply by the existance of a port, which is increasingly automated anyway? The days of needing tons of cheap labour to unload vessels are gone.

the question is not whether the port should be sustained, it's whether the terrain engineering needed to support the rest of the population for the next century, in face of the conbination of sinking land and rising sea level, makes economic or cultural sense for the entire country to support. I'm not saying it isn't, but before we spend billions of dollars on engineering, we should decide if we want to. that's all I'm saying.

Elizabeth vs using barges on the Mississippi? That's not even taking into consideration the amount of fuel your suggestion would require. Fuel that we produce so y'all have gas for your cars and heat for your homes.

They were fast, cheap, and energy-efficient. Perhaps not quite
as efficient as loading everything on a barge, but then again,
with railroads running to the East coast, you don't need to
spend billions maintaining levees in an untenable geographical
location.

There *ARE* alternatives to rebuilding New Orleans (or any other
area that is routinely, repeatedly attacked or outright wiped out
by natural disasters).

Tesha

"The economic advantage of moving coal by barge versus rail is demonstrated in the fact that it costs Dairyland about the same to rail coal 100 miles to a transfer dock as it does to barge it over 500 miles," Peterson says.

That's the result of one study; there are more if you would like to check for yourself. In other words, it would cripple business which in turn would result in more job losses.

There is no escaping the fact that the Mississippi River and port of New Orleans are critical to the economic health of this nation.

Does that include or exclude the billions of dollars in taxpayer
subsidies previously spent on the Port of New Orleans and the
many billions more that we're about to expend on reconstructing
the city and Port?

Tesha

One revenue source in particular that I have focused on to address our coastal land loss are revenues from oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). States that have mineral production on federal lands within their boundaries receive 50% of the revenues generated from that production annually. These funds are distributed annually as an entitlement and are not subject to appropriation. However, there is no similar provision in law for coastal producing states for the federal oil and gas revenues generated on the OCS. The justification for sharing with producing coastal states is the same as the justification for sharing with onshore states: they serve as a platform for these offshore resources and should be compensated for the onshore impacts. States like Louisiana provide the onshore support for this offshore oil and gas production and have suffered significant infrastructure and environmental impacts as a result of this federal activity. Also, Louisiana is the state through which pass scores of pipelines that bring federal oil and gas to shore and to other states in the union.

In addition, coastal producing states should be compensated for their contribution to the federal treasury, as well as the nation's oil and gas supply. With annual returns to the federal government averaging more than $5 billion annually, no single area has contributed as much to the federal treasury as the OCS. In fact, since 1953, the OCS has contributed $140 billion to the U.S. Treasury. Since between 80 and 90% of that amount has come from offshore Louisiana, Louisiana is in a particularly unique position to claim a portion of these revenues. In 2002, $7.5 billion in offshore revenues went into the Federal treasury and more than $5 billion, or 2/3 of that amount came from offshore Louisiana. Among states, Louisiana ranks 1st in crude oil production and 2nd in natural gas production. Today the OCS supplies more than 25% of our nation’s natural gas production and more than 30% of our domestic oil production (with the promise of more– expected to reach 40% by 2008). The OCS supplies more oil to our nation than any other country including Saudi Arabia.

So, think we deserve the funds to rebuild now?

Note: correction to state this information comes directly from Senator Mary Landrieu's website.

but a couple of details:

First, I don't think I made it clear that I would like to see New Orleans reconstructed, more judiciously than before. I genuinely would. I just don't see that it can be done without the issues I raised becoming very real. The U.S. economy is heading for very serious trouble, we have gross malfeasance and mismanagement occurring in our government, and at least 35% of our electorate can safely be called "chowderheads." Moreover, a massive, complex engineering project of this type is bound to have what we might term, in the general sense, "unforeseen side effects." Before you respond, consider the nature of the current situation and how it came to be.

And secondly, the suggestion you made to me only reached my eyes because it was entered by you on a computer which required the use of petrochemical products in every step of its design, construction, and delivery. The fact that you used a machine which you are telling me to destroy, in order to tell me to destroy it, robs your argument of much of its moral force.

I'm not saying we should walk away. I'm wondering whether we may, in the end, have no other practicable alternative, assuming that walking is an option and that we don't have to swim away. I hope very much that we have the national good sense to pull our troops out of Iraq, hurl every corporate-money-taking elected official from every public office in America, force our media to adhere strictly to the fairness doctrine in matters of public interest, and as we are doing these things, free all the funds these problems are causing us to waste to (1) develop and bring into reality a permanent, workable solution for New Orleans, while (2) putting far more effort into alternative sources of energy than we're currently expending. I work toward that end. I speak of it whenever I'm in a political discussion. Just today I was vilified and physically threatened by a family member who happens to fall into the "chowderhead" category.

Let's stay on topic. If you've got a plan, let's hear it. Passion is great, and I respect yours, but it's better if it's directed toward something more constructive than your last post.

Thanks, peace...

PsA

This is not currently permissible in the US and particularly not when referring to cities built on river deltas. River delta soils sink unless regularly replenished by flooding, silt and peat growth. This is not unique to New Orleans.

Sacremento CA. has many areas built below flood levels that were originally delta peat. Many of the suburbs west of Sac. are built entirely below the high tide line and are measurably sinking. We can throw money at these areas all we want, build massive levees, whatever.
The levees WILL FAIL and these areas will flood. There is no doubt about this scientifically.

Politically there is no will or attempt to stop building in these areas. It's too profitable.


Go!! lemmnings Go!!

it is nov. 21, 2005, and you haven't bothered to educate yourself abt what happened in new orleans so you don't get an opinion

traditional levees worked just fine, areas where we had the traditional levees, uptown new orleans being the prime example are high and dry

if you don't know what you are talking about, just stop talking until you do

you should be ashamed of yourself

the plan is not that difficult so it's odd that you choose to ignore it and claim that the coast has no plan

the plan is simple -- cat 3 protection for new orleans by next hurricane season, as it turns out the FEDERAL corps of engineers cheated us of, tho we should have had it for many years now, they CHEATED us, they did not build the floodwall to specs

the traditional levees held, they worked fine, we need to replace the crappy not-to-spec floodwalls with real levees, that is the freaking plan for the stupid people who can't understand anything unless it is spilled out in words of one syllable

my friends by the london avenue canal would still be alive if not for FEDERAL thievery

the complete plan is cat 5 protection in 20 yrs, by 2025

that is not so difficult to understand, now is it, so why play ignorant? it is not a greedy or expensive plan, compared to the cost of not solving this problem and abandoning not just new orleans (which is VERY far inland, for those who STILL as of nov. 21, 2005 have not yet bothered to look at a map) -- the problem is that we can't afford to abandon our entire petroleum and chemical producing region

when california gets off its ass and drills and refines its oil, when florida and the rest of the eastern atlantic gets off their ass, ditto, maybe there would even be a tiny scrap of excuse for your plan

but YOUR plan is pure human evil -- your plan is to abandon our domestic oil and steal it from the middle east at high cost in dollar, security, and human lives

YOUR plan will kill the planet

OUR plan will protect not just the coast, not just our nat'l security, but give us valuable lessons we're damn well gonna need to protect the entire gulf of mexico region and the entire coastal region

central america was repeatedly hammered by hurricanes also w. thousands dead, but what do you care, abandon them too, why not if you have no heart and no soul

by 2050 new york city will have the same risk of hurricane as miami but hell, blacks and jews live there, abandon them too

by 2100 washington dc will be underwater, hmm, more black people, ok, fine, again your plan is to abandon and kill them

that is YOUR plan, to destroy the usa and, since we don't go quietly, to destroy the world

so don't you DARE sit there on your fat rear end and criticize our plan to get some damn engineering on this project -- and fast

you do realize that you are being played by the racists and the freepers who would have us abandon all of our great cities, don't you, of course you do, i believe some people on this thread know exactly what they are doing and who they are speaking for

i apologize to those who whose intelligence is insulted by even having to read this post, if you have a heart & a brain, this is fairly obvious, but clearly a lot of people are missing those organs in this country

It's called Coast 2050.

http://www.lacoast.gov/Programs/2050/MainReport/report1.pdf

Failure to act on it sooner will not cost the nation probably a good half a trillion dollars.

First, I'm completely opposed to the Iraq war and all that it implies, including our own oil dependency and its exploitation by our elected officials.

Second, my point wasn't about hurricanes per se; it was to address the sinking land area in and around New Orleans. Hurricanes add to the problem New Orleans faces, but the underlying issues of a subsiding delta are as dire as the hurricane- and human-mismanagement-related problems. They're just not as clear-cut.

Third, the sinking-land issue isn't a right-now, this-second problem. New Orleans can be rebuilt, safeguarded against category-five storms, and would probably be fine for a generation, perhaps two. However, we would eventually face this issue again, perhaps in another Katrina-type crisis, and it would be much worse then even if our technology continues to advance, even if our current dependence on petrochemicals declines, and even if everything we need to do today to prevent catastrophic hurricane damage to the city is in fact done.

The issue isn't how far inland New Orleans is, or which other coastal U.S. cities face the prospect of eventual landfall of major hurricanes. The global warming issue, which is absolutely real and introduces yet another critical and dangerous variable into this already mind-bogglingly complex problem, is still only tertiary at best in contemplating the base issue. New Orleans faces a uniquely precarious situation. The only place I know of in the U.S. in even a remotely similar condition is the Everglades, and they're not inhabited by half a million people.

Hurricane floodwalls can not, and will not, suffice if they are built on or near to subsiding land. Eventually they would be destabilized by the sinking areas on which, or around which, they are built. The equivalent would be to build a seawall at the low-tide point on a beach. It might hold for a while, but eventually it will be undermined or overtopped.

Here's a little scenario you might not have thought about: the sinking of land in New Orleans eventually could cause a minor earthquake in the center of the city. That might sound crazy, but it can happen, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it did happen. A 4.0 quake centered close to a floodwall might well cause another breach. A similar occurence near Conyers, Ga. involved the sinking of land over a half-drained aquifer. The result was a 3.5 quake that I felt at my home some 15 miles away, and the affected area was significantly smaller than the sinking region in southern Louisiana. An earthquake wouldn't have to be close to New Orleans, either. The New Madrid fault line runs near the Mississippi near the Arkansas/Tennessee/Missouri/Kentucky borders. The last major quake on this line occurred about 200 years ago and was so powerful that Jefferson noticed in in Monticello. The Mississippi reportedly ran backward for nearly two hours after the quake. (I don't know immediately of the aftereffects downstream; if anyone has information on this, please enlighten me.) Many geologists in this country believe that this fault, and not the San Andreas, is the most dangerous one in the U.S., not only because of habitation in the area, but because of the effect it would have on the river. Sooner or later - likely within a century - this fault is going to act up again. So any floodwall built to protect New Orleans must also take this problem into account.

As far as the London Avenue canal is concerned: you are absolutely right. Long-standing corruption and thievery cost American lives. Period. That is the true evil of this situation and the evil we all have to guard against: the suborning of worthwhile and needed projects by the greedy, unscrupulous and incompetent for personal gain, regardless of the damage done to others. I am sorry for the loss of your friends and you are absolutely right to be completely furious about it. It need not have happened. It should not have happened. It must never be allowed to happen again.

However, don't assume that because I believe that the situation in New Orleans may be unrecoverable (not that it is, or isn't; there are just too many unknowns for me to make more than a somewhat-informed guess) that I therefore advocate the abandonment of my fellow human beings' lives and property out of selfish interest. I am willing to be part of the solution. However, if I believe the proposed solution is incomplete or inadequate or just plain wrong, I have a moral obligation to say so. If you disagree, and say so, then certainly I can't fault you. I'd rather have honest disagreement than have someone agree with me for any reason other than the merit of the argument. New Orleans is the result of such false agreements, and such tacit approval of what is less than what is best.

For me, this is not about race. I live in an area that is both very white and very much still living in the thirties. It disgusts me beyond words to see people who paint confederate flags on their barns or stick them on the backs of their trucks. It's not heritage; it's deliberate, willful and studied ignorance. I really don't care what color any individual happens to be, and I do resent your intimation to the effect that I am a racist, though again, given what happened in New Orleans, I don't blame you for making that assumption. I might not say so aloud, but I know I'd probably at least be thinking the same thing, if our places were reversed.

Finally - like I said, I don't have a plan that could simultaneously account for hurricane protection, upstream flood mitigation, subsiding land and possible resulting tremblors, rising sea levels, and the slow reduction of the Mississippi delta. I believe what you suggest only accounts for maybe a fourth of this problem, which just isn't enough for me. However, abandonment should only - ONLY - be acceptable if NO other practicable option exists. We could spend a trillion dollars on New Orleans and have a fair chance of fixing it, assuming that we don't create yet more problems in the process (see the Colorado River problem mentioned in the previous post). But will the country be willing to commit to it, and stay with it through what you and I both know is likely to be a serious economic downturn in the next decade? You must recognize this part of the problem, and try - even though I know it is both painful and infuriating - to persuade rather than abuse.

And also - I'm no newbie; my wife is doni_georgia and we co-posted under ths name for about a year, ever since we discovered DU. I didn't get my own ID until a few months ago, and I haven't had time to post much simply because my work and life was also impacted by Katrina, Rita and Wilma (I work for a fairly large shipping company and my job involves tracking and locating shipments in the Southeast). I'm not a freeper and have little use for anyone of their stripe who cottons to the damnable Bush administration.

If there is a workable solution - or one with a fighting chance to be - then I say let's do it, and let's start now. But if it is not doable - and by that I mean by addressing all of the multifold issues contained in the larger problem - then we are fools to try, throwing good money after bad. Our resources would be better utilized to benefit the people who have suffered most in this disaster, reuniting families, building homes, reconstructing the shattered economy and creating jobs and a decent and acceptable standard of living. Given the predilections of our esteemed public servants in Washington, you must forgive me for having little faith that any of these things are likely to be done before said servants are given the gate (and, if there is any justice, lengthy prison sentences in many cases).

I am trying to understand this better, and I am sorry for your loss.

Peace

PsA

I'm taking about paying the freight for what you have used up until 8-28-05.

The bill will be about $200 billion down, and 50% of offshore severence taxes until all of the oil and gas is gone from the Gulf of Mexico.

We'd love to take your check, but if GWB is one of the signers, well, he's on our NSF list and that will have to be in cash.

We could probably afford to save NOLA, give everyone health insurance, and have decent schools from sea to shining sea if we'd put our money into those efforts as opposed to Iraq!

since it's all deficit financed, we'd still be in trouble.

And if we had deficit-spent in a sensible fashion, we'd be five years into having a healthier, more intelligent workforce. Companies from around the globe would want to locate here because the kids are well educated, and the population is healthier, and the health care is subsidized. Instead, we see people losing their jobs left and right....

unfortunately, we (the big collective WE, not us in particular) have screwed it up, and now we have to find a way forward. We're a young adult who blew through his trust fund, and we can't ask daddy for help with the creditors anymore.

their situation is a lot different than it is new orleans- it's like comparing apples and watermelons.

i suggest that people who are butt ignorant on the topic under discussion, do some research before they let their ass hang out in public

here's a wiki for you to get you started --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Flood_of_1953

the wealth of the usa is on its coasts, not in kansas, by 2050 new york city will have the same risk of hurricane as miami

we must seize this opportunity to solve this problem

not tuck tail and run like cowards unless we prefer to be the next bangladesh

it's a whole different animal.

how precisely do you tell whether or not it is tropical or cyclonic.

Storm surge (driven by low barometric pressure) and wind driven water (what are called saiches on the great lakes, sorry if I have the spelling wrong) are not isolated to tropical cyclones.

If you think that storms in the north east atlantic are not predictable events, I recommend you read the Coast Pilots published by the USCG before you make any such assertion

The Dutch have a 52-year head start, and their entire country depends on solving their problem. They're a smaller and more homogenous country than the U.S. I would suggest that their electorate is also probably far more informed than our own.

Since 1953, we've had Andrew, Camille, Katrina, and hundreds of other storms strike our Gulf and south Atlantic coasts. Betsy hit New Orleans in the sixties, and Camille narrowly missed a few years later. Yet we have Katrina now.

No one is saying that the Dutch don't get serious storms (but I submit that a storm like Katrina is a great rarity). However, the past two years have seen eight hurricanes hit Gulf states (Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne, Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma). This doesn't include storms like T.S. Cindy, which made landfall in Louisiana but still packed enough power to cause millions in damage from tornadoes in my home county in Atlanta. T.S. Alberto killed 30 people and caused huge flooding in 1994 in Georgia; it wasn't even retired as a name. That should tell you something. Our problem here is larger, far more frequently encountered (judging from the shelf life of the mentioned North Sea storm) and our government is both inept and corrupt, as are a sizable minority of the electorate that voted them in. If anyone's ass is hanging out in public, it's our collective one.

PsA

Note to LA: when you make this sort of complaint, more people pay attention.

Global warming will turn most coastal cities into new Atlantis.

this planet is trying to get rid of us.

said the earth's immune system is trying to get rid of us (as if we were a toxin)

the element calling for the death of new orleans is the same element that will dance on the grave of washington d.c.

do not kid yourself

there is a racial and regional bias at play here

most cities of any great financial or strategic importance are built on coasts and waterways

groups. The people who want to get rid of NO for profit are the economic group. Many environmentalists are looking at this from another view point: global warming, rising sea levels ( possibly over 15 feet)and other natural changes that may very well make it impossible for anyone rich or poor, black or white to live in any of the cities mentioned as already below sea level. Who is going to want to live in Boston if it is 15 feet under water?

those who really believe in global climate change know we've got to solve this problem, not lay down and die

the people who want to abandon the funding to our great cities, who have been objecting to funding our great cities since at least the reagan era, are indeed the racist element of the GOP

you may pretend it's all environmentally correct to swallow their talking points but in the end you are being used by racists

it is the role of humanity to use engineering to improve their lives and their civilization

traditional levees worked fine in new orleans

the non-traditional floodwalls, used to save space and allow for more housing, have now been proven that the corps of engineers scanted on materials and didn't build to specs, so they broke

that is not an intractable problem

do you cut & run every time you encounter a dishonest person in your personal life too or is it just something special you do when it's another person's home on the line?

there is no real doubt as to what happened or how it can be solved

pretending you have a PC reason to cheat us of our ability to rebuild is shameful and you know that

boston won't be 15 feet underwater if we engineer this correctly, learn from our example, and turn to protecting our other coastal cities, where the great wealth of this nation is found

this could be a great opportunity, and it could create jobs and a new "new deal" that could be ultimately expanded around the nation to make this a great nation again, we could even learn things we could use to save island nations, central america, etc.

the damage is done, global climate change is not going to turn back, the methane is going to enter the atmosphere, greenland ice is going to melt

we can make up our minds to seize this opportunity

or we can give up

i know what i plan to do

as for the no-hopers, they should just shut up and get out of the way since they have nothing to contribute but their negativity

the penny you save by abandoning new orleans is going to look pretty damn stupid in future days, when you abandon boston, new york, and washington too

what the nay-sayers advocate is nothing less than the destruction of a nation and, of course, ultimately the world

Which is NOT the argument this man is making. He is saying that do to the SINKING of the Delta New Orleans and the areas around New Orleans will disappear below sea level EVEN IF SEA LEVEL SAY THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY. The ground is sinking, that is this man concern.

Lets first look at a comparison between the Rhine River and the Netherlands to the Mississippi River and Louisiana. The Rhine is a relativity "Clean" river when it comes to Sediment, thus the Rhine Delta (The Netherlands) was built up over Millenia and has had Millenia to "dry out" (As sediment drys out it sinks do to the lost of water).

While the exact location of the Rhine flows through the Netherlands has shifted over the Millenia, the Rhine Valley has restricted where the Rhine can flow so the Shifts have NOT been that much, compared to the Mississippi's shift which have been as much as a 100 miles and unlike the Rhine, The Mississippi appears to shift its flow through its Delta every so many centuries, not the Millenia of the Rhine. Furthermore the Mississippi flows through a hugh plain, while the Rhine flows through a Valley. The Valley restricts how the Rhine can flow, the Mississippi river has shifted over times, sometimes the shaft has been measured in MILES.

Furthermore the Mississippi River is a dirty River in that it contains a lot of Sediment, which builds up quickly (Compared to the Rhine) and forces the River to shift within the Delta when the Sediment gets to much (And than shifts back as the Sediment dries out after the river has shifted, sinks and opens up the old river bed for use by the Mississippi).

The above is further complicated do to fact that most of the sediment for the the Delta comes from the Missouri River NOT the Upper Mississippi or Ohio Rivers (WHich supply most of the water for the Lower Mississippi. What this means is that the Netherlands's ground has had Millenia to dry out and sink, while the Mississippi's Delta has not. Thus the comparisons between Louisiana and Netherlands is a poor comparisons, a better comparison with Cairo and the Nile Delta (and the affect the High Aswan Dam has had on the Nile Delta, see the web sites below for more details).

As to the lower Mississippi remember that the Upper Mississippi and Ohio drainage areas are made of soils that rarely go into the River (And the Upper Mississippi is Smaller than either the Missouri and Ohio Rivers in terms of water volume). Thus the two main source of Water into the lower Mississippi are the Missouri and Ohio Rivers.

These two rivers flow through two different types of Soil, even Mark Twain in the 1800s made a comment on this when he remarked that for miles down stream of Cairo Illinois (Where the Ohio flows into the Mississippi) you have two types of water in the same river, the Clear water of the Ohio appears NOT to want to merge with the muddy river of the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (St Louis where the Missouri flows into the Mississippi is 173 River miles Up-Steam and North of Cairo).

Now sediment for the Delta comes from all of the tributaries of the lower Mississippi, but most historically came from the Missouri. This is further complicated by the levee system that helps push what sediment that does get to the Delta through the Delta and into the Gulf of Mexico instead on onto the Delta to build up the Delta. Between these two changes both done since 1900, the Mississippi Delta is being destroyed and will be completely destroyed within 90 year EVEN IF SEA LEVEL STAYS THE SAME AND WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SAVE NEW ORLEANS. The problem is that dams on the Upper Missouri are keeping the Sediment behind those dams AND the levees are forcing what sediment that does reach the Delta straight into the Gulf of Mexico instead of onto the Delta.

If you add Global warming and increase sea level raise this is even WORSE than what is being claimed. Such an increase in real sea levels may even destroy the French Quarter (The French Quarter is located on one of the few areas in the Delta that is NOT sediment, thus it is NOT sinking, thus the French Quarter only has to worry about increase in real sea levels, but can it stay variable when the rest of New Orleans and the Delta Sink deeper and deeper into the ground?).

This is one of the great dilemma of our times what to do about New Orleans and the Mississippi? Out options are limited for we first have to deal with three dilemma involving how to save New Orleans:
First Dilemma: Destroy the Dams on the upper Missouri and thus permit more and greater floods along the Mississippi. The costs of this is that you will also permit the destruction of St Louis and Cairo every so often along with every River City on the Lower Mississippi. Thus is permitting more sediment to get to the Delta worth the increase damages that will be caused by Floods?.
Second Dilemma: Destroy the Levees along the Lower Mississippi converting millions of Acres of Rich Farm land to swamp, so that the sediment slows down as it flows down the Mississippi so more of the Sediment falls into the Delta and stays on the Delta.
Third Dilemma, who is going to pay for the lost of Electric Power do to the Dams being destroyed? the "taking" of the farm land to be converted to swamp? and the cost of the destruction of the increase floods along the Mississippi River?

For more on New Orleans, the Delta and efforts to save them:
http://www.lacoast.gov/news/press/2003-09-11b.htm
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/gc138.htm

For more on Egypt and its Delta:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/pa/pa0904_full.html
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ge148/1997C/Reports/148niled.html
http://www.newint.org/issue273/delta.htm

more than 1000 years : they adapted...

there are lots of tech fixes, and good ones

this ain't abt anything except a reluctance to spend money on any project anywhere that might by accident put a dollar in a black person's hand

this is the same element that would de-fund our public schools -- and for the same reasons

administration I do not think the NO "refugees" - mostly black - are going to be given help getting back there. That is the reality of the moment. It is not right but it is what is being done.

It looks to me that bushie is using any money he gets for NO to reward his friends just like he does in Iraq. Nothing constructive will get done.

By the time someone who wants to help the black people setting in FEMA cities comes along they will be permanent residents of these trailer cities. All you have to do to see that this is true is look at what happens to refugees around the world. The camps end up being where people live for years. I do not want to see this happening in this country but I also do not know how to stop it in time to do anything about NO. Maybe if we can impeach bushie, but that is going to take time - time the people in the trailer cities do not have.

How do your rebuild thousands of homes that had no flood insurance. ANd if they are rebuilt no insurer will want to touch them because of the lawsuits by the states that the flood and mold damage should have been covered (even though they were excluded from coverage).

apples and watermelons...

n/t

and btw- when it also causes the oceans to rise enough- venice will not survive...and it may become impossible to to maintain the status quo in the netherlands as well.

New Orleans had a good run- but it's time to let it go.

interesting, sign-up sept 14, 2005

i'll draw my own conclusions abt the morality of someone who gets online merely to promote propaganda designed to prevent people from rebuilding their homes and their lives

how do you sleep, i wonder

where it's nice and dry, albeit a little chilly outside.

i have nothing against people rebuilding their lives-
i just have a problem with throwing tax dollars at a futile cause.

there are plenty of fantastic places to rebuild lives in this country that aren't headed toward being consumed by the sea in the not-too-distant future.

:hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You can build hurricane resistent houses and protection against the sea. The Italians are doing it, the Dutch did it.

therein lies a BIG part of the difference.

both Venice, Amsterdam etc... could have easily delt with the surge Katrina caused. It's a question of the height of levees, their quality, drainage etc...

you can't seperate the two.

that's the point.

it's time to give new orleans back to the river/gulf.

let me ask you something, marsthecat

just how long do you intend to go on "contributing" to this thread before you look at a map?

i'll give you a clue train

new orleans, like all major ports such as london, is well inland to facilitate shipping

it is not on the ocean

by the time katrina hit new orleans, it was cat 3

if you are making a deliberate point of spreading misinformation, for post after post, attacking people's homes, may i please ask your motive?


no cat 5 hurricane has EVER hit new orleans

if the residents want to throw their own cash down the money pit- that's fine- it's a free country.
just don't come crying to the taxpayers asking us to put our dollars into such futility as trying to keep new orleans from slipping into the sea.

trying to compare london's geographic position on the thames with new orleans position on the mississippi delta is one of the dumbest things i've seen so far on this thread.

comes from Port Fourchon. It's just slightly southeast of New Orleans. Like keeping warm in winter? Like owning and driving a vehicle? Maybe Louisiana should do a special assessment on Port Fourchon? How would you prefer to pay, at the pump or at tax time?

the people who have been fucked over for the past 50 years. Fuck them for being cheated out of the oil revenue that all the other states get. If they demand their fair share to begin the preservation and restoration, simply switch to the local 'corruption' angle, or how all of a sudden N.O. 'isn't worth it'.

Fuck you all.

eom

Here's how the British hold back the waters from flooding London:



And the Dutch solution to protecting an entire nation that mostly rests below sea level:



The Italians are defending their city on the sea, Venice:



And the richest, most powerful and technologically advanced nation on earth...USA!!!!!! Go Corps of Engineers!!!!

"Lowest Bidder" is what it is called.

Those are awesome pictures of the technology that other countries have dealt with the problem.

Why do you hate freedom ? All the money is needed for the war on terra.

Hope everybody's enjoying their tax cut. :sarcasm:

:mad:

-Laelth

Thanks for sharing!

:kick:

DemEx

are so eager to write off N.O. should think about the next hurricane that comes through Florida, or earthquake in Calif....

What is the point of Gov't? The social contract is gone for people here. The nation has exploited this area for its own purposes, ruined the coast,and allowed the oil co's who created the problem to make off like bandits. Now we get a big 'fuck you' from the country? Ok...

I'm quite sure LA Officials had plenty of time to have their own expert to accurately dispute the facts and they didnt, I believe these officials just want to cave in to these greedy developers demands who don't give a damn about life & property just profits.

developers are going to want levees too, who has more money at stake, donald trump's $200 million condo development or the gentilly homeowner appraised value of his house, $60,000?

louisiana officials have been calling out and offering proof of the need for cat 5 protection almost since the day this happened

they have been ignored & denied by our congress

no developer will come here w.out proper levees, flood insurance protection is capped at $250,000!!!!

you can't develop a pet cemetary for $250,000

Port Fourchon, just slightly southwest of New Orleans supplies 16-18% of domestic oil production. That's not considering the river traffic that handles both imported and exported goods along the Mississippi. With gas prices being what they are, this conduit is important to maintaining commerce at a reasonable price. (much cheaper than trucking those soybeans and corn to a port other than New Orleans) Then there's the goods you like to buy, like coffee, which comes to you via that same port. The grain stored and shipped out of New Orleans is helping to feed the world.

Just based on the oil we supply, rebuilding is justified. What does New Mexico, Colorado, Utah contribute in kind to the national economy? (not picking on those states, just making what I believe to be a valid point)

BTW I have been to your lovely state many times, including a few months ago. So many areas though should never have been built up. I am specifically thinking of the area south of NOLA and a bunch of other areas inside and outside of NOLA. Some rebuilding should be done but it should be well-protected. Some areas should just be left as natural flood plains and barrier islands. The ecology has been screwed with so much.... Some of those parishes that suffered so much destruction, let the cypress swamps come back, I think. Don't you think there would be more tourism if it was allowed to get back naturally? I totally agree with you on the importance of the Port of NOLA, the work it brings and the value to the nation.

people must be able to live in the vicinity. A two hour commute is not practical nor acceptable. The sections of town you refer to (going back to swamp) were where the working class of New Orleans was congregated. Without longshoremen, truck drivers, customs house inspectors, fda inspectors, tugboat captains, etc. you don't have a viable port.

If your house burned to the ground tonight, would you want to rebuild where you are or go where you don't know a soul and cannot relate to anyone?

At 57 I lost everything I ever had in life and I'm beginning to wish I had just stayed in my house and drowned. I have flood insurance, so far, zero payment. I have hazard insurance, and though part of my roof was ripped off by Katrina, so far, zero payment. Just try to imagine yourself rootless, homeless, approaching old age in declining health and having a bunch of know it alls from everywhere BUT Louisiana telling you that even though a port just sw of the city contributes 16-18% of all domestic oil (and refines it as well) and hasn't gotten anything approaching fair restitution for its generosity, that we have to change our way of life and our entire existance is downright depressing. I'm starting to feel the REST of america can freeze their butts off waiting in line for rationed gasoline so they TRULY realize what our contribution is. We want to replenish our vanishing coastline and wetlands and have been begging congress for the funding to do so for years. Get that done and there will be plenty of cypress trees.

I have been to your state and NOLA many, many times. I know what you mean, trust me, that the people who work at the port and supporting businesses have to live somewhere and not do outrageous commutes. Because I have done outrageous commutes and it wears you down. What I am saying is that the areas that had the deepest flooding and most damage... why not let that go back to nature. If another hurricane comes and one will, it will happen all over again.

I am saying the port and refineries and businesses along the river should not be removed, nor the pipelines and rest of the infrastructure. Places like Tulane U., the Zoo, the Aquarium, etc., should stay (along with all the French Quarter, Market, the business district, etc ). Somehow people have to live on the higher ground, not live right next to the levees below sea level, etc.

Can you PM me, I think I might be able to help you re some of the things you mentioned. When I tried PMing, the message was that yours was disabled. Can you enable it and PM.

You are going through an absolutely horrible ordeal and everything was taken from you and I can't even imagine how hard it must be. Honey, keep telling yourself things are going to get better for you, because they are.
God bless and Peace.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is on now.

Beach erosion may make NOLA an island! :scared:

how is that scary

the united kingdom is an island, i notice they do not intend to allow london to perish

japan is an island, they rebuilt kobe, hiroshima, and nagasaki

Yes, New Orleans will be an island 18 feet below sea leve in the middle of the Gulf, if that is the nation's choice. It is not an inetivable outcome.

By the same reasoning, if you eliminate all farms supports and allow open agricultural imports, my current residence of North Dakota will revert to prarie (or a dustland) in a generation.

To some extent, coastal erosion and subsidence is inevitable. It's current rate and distribution, however, is almost entirely a creation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the oil industry.

Now, it's time for the national to pay the price of coastal oil exploration. It's going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

It will be an excellent object lesson before they open drilling in ANWAR and elsewhere.

For a start, let's be willing to spend as much on the millions of Katrina and Rita victims as we were willing to spend on the victims of 9-11. How much has been spent in Iraq? That amount would be a nice downpayment on 50 years of environmental rape in Louiana.

But let's be reasonable. Let's start with, say $200 billion for reconstruction. Then let Louisiana keep 50% of the severance revenue from coastal exploration, to spend on long term mitigation.

No it isn't. As you can see, now its time to write us off and give us the big FUCK YOU suckers!

lol. You wander why it's sinking in the mud?!??! lol

it makes little sense historically to build cities in the desert and a great deal sense to build them along rivers, so by the nature of things, without human intervention, virtually ALL great cities of the world would flood every spring except in times of great drought

ya'll should have learned that in 8th grade history class, really

now i know that the element that wants us to abandon new orleans doesn't really believe in global climate change

but if you did, look at the projections, most of the interior usa will be an uninhabitable desert by 2100

we cannot move our entire population away from the coasts and deal blackjack for a living to each other unless we intend to kill hundreds of millions of people for people will never evolve to the point where they can live without water

the majority of great cities suffer from subsidence, it just shouldn't be that big of a deal and it usually isn't, alas the media made a lot of noise pointing out that -- horrors! -- there were some black home-owners in new orleans and god forgive, we can't have our tax dollars going to encourage that sort of thing

look, we can't walk away from this problem, it's non-negotiable, how many towns & cities would you like to lose before you decide it's reasonable to get off the couch and do something?

http://www.coast2050.gov/

a reference

It's a fact LA is sinking since the MS river levees were built. Blanco should be demanding reconstruction money for the 3rd delta conveyance which would help save one of the biggest wetland, estuaries, aviaries, and fisheries we have. She needs to get with it; this has been commn knwledge for yes but they suck at the teat of the oil/gas money.

http://www.restoreorretreat.org/solution_third_delta_conveyance.html

Texas and Alaska get monies for their oil that Louisiana doesn't. If I were governor I wouldn't let anything out of the state until this miscarriage of justice is renegotiated with DC which is receiving all our revenues. We could then restore our own wetlands. We're done begging, the time has come for nation to pay for the bounty we of Louisiana have so freely given.

Despite its patchwork beauty, New Orleans is not much more than a cesspool. I lived there for ten years, and I've never seen a bigger disparity between rich and poor. About 90% of the city is poor with the 0ther 10% rich and white--not counting suburban hell which is white AND Republican and a melange of blue collar and professionals. What's too bad is that the city has to sink; it would be more fitting to see Metairie and the other hideous suburbs drop off the face of the earth while giving the Big Easy a 2nd chance.

to try and rebuilt New Orleans without restoring the wetlands.

It took into account the suffering of the families who lost everything but it countered with the cost to taxpayers to rebuild the entire city. I think it was a bit slanted...

I have to say that restoring the wetlands seems like a good idea period, but that is me...

However I refrain from saying much more because while I can see both sides of the story....I can't possibly imagine what it is like to walk in those folk's shoes.

give us the damn money, and we'll restore them, wetlands do not restore themselves

the people of new orleans east should be handsomely compensated for loss of their homes and given options for re-settling elsewhere

this is not a historical area of new orleans, it was largely settled in the 70s

the vietnamese community, among others, was hard hit, with biloxi suffering great damage, and empire and new orleans east being destroyed, we've got to do something for these people to help them start again, and the plan should damn well be generous in my view

but the whole issue of the recent settlement of new orleans east should not be used to make excuses for not rebuilding the rest of new orleans

and I thought it was both provocative and balanced. After Hurricane Andrew, many people said the same thing about South Florida and people came back and rebuilt.

My mother's side of my family came from New Orleans. In fact, our family heritage in NO goes all the way back to the late 18th century. My grand aunt and uncle lived on a street close to the levee. I have mixed feelings, because I spent a great deal of time in NO when I was growing up. I was there a couple of years ago, and I love the city.

However, a combination of nature and man made activity has increased the problems of the Mississippi river as it relates to New Orleans and Louisiana.

Here are some interesting links on the topic:

Mississippi River Delta Basin

or



And more:

The Mississippi River/Delta Case Study

ever so careful if there's an election close by!

Good story--I wish they had been this interested about Sibel Edmonds, for example.

it is one of the oldest cities in the US; a city rich in culture and history! I watched CBS last night and I was upset---as taxpayers, we are spending billions in Iraq and yet, there's a question to rebuild NO. I'd rather rebuild NO than be in Iraq!!!!!! The displacement of families that have been in NO for generations is abhorrent to me. Would my hard earned money be better spent in NO or for Bush's bogus war?

there and force the piggies to pay them real wages to fix their city and build dikes or whatever would really work.

I want to go home. Much of America has been transformed into acres of sanitized "ticky tacky" safe for disinfected minds. New Orleans is a vibrant community of free and creative spirits with a true zest for living and full embrace of life that has birthed and nurtured a culture that is unique in all the world. Our music and musicians, from racous syncopated dixieland to tribal rhythms of the Mardi Gras indians, from Louis to the Nevilles have made indelible marks on music history. Our cuisine, from the neighborhood po' boys (yes, there's a story to those too) to the gastronomical delights of fine dining (blackened redfish, grillades, oysters Rockefeller)is consistently rated among the best in the world. Some of Tennessee Williams greatest works were penned about our city and it's characters. Degas was inspired by the lush beauty and genteel hospitality he found here. Lest anyone forget, nobody but nobody in the world knows how to throw a better party than we do; we are world reknown for that as well.

Our financial contributions to this nation are manifold. The soybeans grown in the midwest use the might artery of the Mississippi to find their way to world markets. The grain elevators are here; no other port wants to handle that cargo. (dangerous, believe it or not) Then there's the coffee coming in to be transported to your local Starbucks. Have I neglected to mention our offshore facility at Port Fourchon? It alone is responsible for 16-18% of the US oil supply! The seafood and fish that come from our waters allow you to enjoy fat succulent shrimp year round. Oh, and again, all the world loves our hospitality. Jazzfest, Mardi Gras, French Quarter Fest (which features international musicians) and miles of antique stores and art galleries are but a few more reasons to visit.

Should the nation pay the cost for the corps of engineers mucking up our "protection"? They were responsible for our levees and they failed miserably, and that is not the fault of New Orleans or New Orleanians.

Living (albeit temporarily) in a town with more cows than people has left me feeling empty and longing for home. Tears come easy and often. Please, please help us rebuild by petitioning your congressmen and senators. Because they may not realize our contribution to the nation, they are writing us off. Don't let them kill those of us that survived Katrina, I implore you.

New Orleans made sense in the 18th century as a port. We have plenty of ports. Subsidizing one because it 'used to be a great city' is spending good money after bad.

Maybe we can 'save' New Orleans. But why?

then try this on for size; compare the rates for trucking corn or soybeans for export as opposed to using barges on the river. You'd pay a lot more for goods you like to consume if you consume things like coffee as an example.

I am getting miffed at supposedly enlightened individuals with NO knowledge of New Orleans basing their decisions on their taxes alone. We can charge taxes too, and I hope our state passes a special per barrel tax along the pipeline to your next tank of gas. At a cent or two per barrel we would have all we need to rebuild. We can do this and we will do this if small minded people force us to.

on or offshore. There will be enough there quite possibly (especially at 50+ a barrel) to pay for what is needed.

And let's make that retroactive, to the tune of whatever is required for immediate rebuilding.

are absolutely vital to the country. They can't be moved; same goes for the port. I know River Road and the industry down there quite well.

WHY?? Did you even read the post you're responding to? I don't even see how this is a debate here. Billions of dollars in beachfront homes are rebuilt EVERY year after storms yet this AMERICAN city doesn't deserve the funding to protect it. The protection provided by the federal government wasn't what it was sold to us as.

If you don't already know WHY...then you never will...

and it's your loss, not ours. We're staying and rebuilding a GREAT CITY! What are you doing?

so I can rebuild; if I'm allowed to rebuild that is.

I DO "know what it means to miss New Orleans."

come on home...

we're rebuilding new orleans one bowl of red beans and rice at a time

:hi:

You go girl.

/s/ Markus

De La Salle '75

The rich fucks and corporation need to unload there property to suckers, then after the rich have cashed out.

Then it will be the time to announce NO is worthless property and the little guy who owns a home is fucked out it.

Its Enron II fucking on a different platform.

Less than 5% of NO residents are employed at the port facilities or in offices supporting the port, and that number is falling as more and more jobs get automated. The total number of longshoremen, dockworkers, river pilots, forklift drivers, and warehouse workers employed by the port is less than 10,000.

You could shrink the city by 90% without affecting the port. It's a red herring, and isn't relevant to the question of whether or not the city should be repopulated. New Orleans will never cease to be a city. The question is whether we need a half million people living there...the solution may be to develop a more compact version of the city that can be defended better against future hurricanes.

live; they are not about to begin working the port nor cleaning hotel rooms and waiting on tables. Pre-Katrina the houses in uptown were fetching 250K or more, ditto the garden district. Marigny wasn't cheap either, in the 150's and up, same for Bywater and Algiers Point. Again, those folks had jobs as editors, college professors, etc. Expecting them to resort to menial labor is humorous; it will never happen. Unfortunately, for even tourists to enjoy the city housing for the working class must be available, and it simply will not fit into any of the historic districts mentioned above. (they are also the only areas which emerged relatively unscathed)

let me know, as I'm trying to figure out how I can move back.

The high, dry ground is mostly beyond the means of most people. One exception might be the land along Canal St. It's relatively high, and if it's bulldozed and the street cars are put back, it could be worth a lot.

Not, however, to the poor folk who mostly rented there.

It may not be on the streetcar route, but it's a quick shot to downtown AND the interstate.

Broadmoor to Uptown (right off magazine) transplant speaking....

TAKES FOREVER to get to 10 from where I'm renting

*note* Broadmoor is often considered uptown, but as the waters have shown us, not high enough

for some of us. I'm a professional (not a doctor or lawyer)...who is currently employed in the city. However, it's very possible that I may be laid off. We've decided to stay for the long haul. We're home owners and If that means I turn to the service or construction industry for a while, I'll be flexible. It's not as humorous as invisioning myself living in many other areas of this country...LOL.

I don't know what it is about this place, but I'm willing to conform out of love for the city.

You were right on in your description, IMHO, but we need that spirit in the rest of our country too. There are a couple New Orleans musicians who came to Portland since the flood and are making significant impact in the local jazz scene. No place needs an injection of New Orleans' culture more than the cow towns of middle America.

Eventually, New Orleans will be rebuilt, it's too valuable as a port city for it not to be. You'll be able to go back, but it may not be quite the same place you remember -- you'll probably see a lot more of that sanitized ticky-tacky America is famous for. Middle America is going to make its mark on New Orleans, so please take this opportunity to do what you can to return the favor.

and began speaking in tongues.

Being that I'm sophisticated, educated, culturally aware, and non judgemental I am having a hard time being accepted! lol

See, "sophisticated, educated, culturally aware, and non judgemental" is exactly what the world needs more of. I didn't say it would be easy for you to be civilization's missionary. ;)

I suggest moving on to a more urban setting or the West coast, cos you're going to find this same set-up almost anywhere you go in small-town inland America. Come to Portland or Seattle or San Francisco and you'll fit right in, socially. If I were you I'd probably be getting tired of moving around, but if my choice was staying someplace where I'd be unwelcome... Road Trip!

Well, geez, I guess this is the typical male thing to do, trying to solve everything for you based on a few abstracted facts, without knowing much about your total situation. If you stay where you are, I hope you find friends you can relate to. If you move on, may the road rise to meet you and speed you on your journeys.

You are fucked. Sooner or later sea level will tell and it's going nowhere but up. Rebuild if you must but by and by the Earth will have her way. We're causing this abrupt change in climate and it's too late to stop the steamroller. Only thing we can do is try not to make it worse. More, better engineering can only postpone the inevitable.

I hate that I never got around to visiting your wonderful decadent city, always wanted to but cities are not high on my list of places to go with my very limited time. Now I fear I never shall, because I doubt that what is rebuilt will have much of the soul of what has passed.

New Orleans is only the first of many cities which will be abandoned in the next 50-100 years. Miami, Charlston, Baltimore(my home town), New York, Boston, all will be under water. and many more. Lord, here comes the flood.

In reguards to the program I would say... go ahead and open the debate but lets see something balanced (which is exactly what I do NOT expect from 60 min.)

Anyway IIRC Insurance companies already won't provide flood insurance there, and even the national gov. is considering pulling their special insurance from some high risk coastal areas where people keep re-building in clearly doomed areas.

On the other hand I think saying all of N.Orl. is a loss is more than a bit extreme.

However there should be a much more open an informed public debate on wither we are willing to commit the resorces needed to assure reasonable public safety in that area in the long hall and if so how much / what parts.

Every area of the country is dangerous. IMO only very small parts of the country are so dangerous or 'on the edge' that we should discourage or prevent people from settling there.

But a lot of people on this thread would prefer their hard earned tax dollars not go to saving New Orleans. (How much goes to Iraq every day? What about those tax cuts?)

Thankfully, the decision is not up to them.

Tonight in Houston, musicians evacuated from New Orleans are giving a benefit for quake relief in Pakistan:

www.imgh.org/play.htm

Some are waiting until they can go home. Others might stay here in Houston. In the meantime, all of them are getting gigs here & in other Texas cities. I'm sure they could use the money earned tonight--but they are sending it to those in need.

People need to be made aware of the awful truth of New Orleans' soil. It's sinking further into the sea, and somehow I don't think making levee walls ever taller in a race to beat the ocean is a sustainable proposition. If the land was stable like the Netherlands, yes, I'd say it's possible to build up a levee system like the Dutch, but that's not the case.

for those who want to understand the implications of what they are saying in global terms:

http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopolitics_katrina.php