Don't Give Up on New Orleans

[blueeyes_austin]

I live in california and despite what non californian's think.. the state is pretty darn safe. earthquakes hardly do any damage and are very very very infrequent. Building codes prevent large scale devestation like the SF quake back in the day. fires happen all over the world, you can't regionalize fires.

NO is below sea level and soon to be a lake. you cannot justify spending the 500 billion to 1 trillion dollars needed to rebuild that city. you wouldn't just need to rebuild it, you would have to build it such that it never could be destroyed again.

who is going to pay that bill? No city has suffered this kind of devestation before in the US. comparing any california or 911 type situation isn't relevent. the city has expected this to happen for a very long time and it finally has.. i dont really see how we can rebuild it knowing that 100,000 people are traped there and could die.. and it would just happen again?

I don't get it.. ground and culture isn't more important than human lives imho. rebuild the city a bit north where water can run away from it in the case of flooding, not have to be pumped out. its only logical..

Um, yeah. Let me tell you this--SF was a textbook disaster case in my geomorphology class. If you think a major earthquake there will do "hardly any damage" then you are as deluded as many of the folks who thought the big hurricane could never come to NO.

[kometes]

People will rebuild - because thats what Americans do. And I hope the rest of the country will be there to support them. I know I will be.

Of course, it will be rebuilt, but it will never be the same. People can't just put their lives on hold for a year while the infrastructure gets rebuilt and then another year while their house gets rebuilt. Without workers and consumers, it will be difficult to reopen smaller businesses. It will take a long time.

There will be a mass migration inland. The outer suburbs will never repopulate. No one will be able to get insurance or a mortgage in these areas. Many will take their insurance checks and move away.

We saw all these things with Andrew and they will only be magnified now by the infrastructure problems.

[repeatoffender]

blueeyes, fair enough, after a ginormous earthquake obliterates SF I'll be the first to say, rebuilding there isn't a good idea.


we'll have to wait and see. the enormity of the reconstruction is just .. not easily put into words. to just put your foot down and say it has to be done isn't allowing for rational decisions.. i just hope they realize that rebuilding only puts future lives at risk, it isn't even about the financial cost..

[inotherwords]

blueeyes, fair enough, after a ginormous earthquake obliterates SF I'll be the first to say, rebuilding there isn't a good idea.


we'll have to wait and see. the enormity of the reconstruction is just .. not easily put into words. to just put your foot down and say it has to be done isn't allowing for rational decisions.. i just hope they realize that rebuilding only puts future lives at risk, it isn't even about the financial cost..

FEMA has a list of doomsday scenarios they list, in order of impact to the country:

Number One: San Francisco Hit By Earthquake
Number Two: Major Terrorist Attack
Number Three: New Orleans hit by major hurricane

If this is only number three, then number one will be a doozie.

[Mello1]

A very eloquent statment however I must disagree. The city is in a bowl surrounded by water. It is already considered a very poor city. Obvisouly poorly run. What would have happened if this storm was a cat 5 and hit the city straight on? It isn't worth the lives in a future storm and money.

First of all, great post Don. It was made with thoughtful reason and resolve. The things I THOUGHT THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.

However, it is posts like the one above that makes me shake my head and wonder. All I can say to this is picture yourself in the place you are right now. Forget the typography. Forget the population breakdown by class and race. Forgot the politics and the politicans. All else being the same, if you were suddenly face with only the clothes on your back, you would want somebody to help you. You would want your home back. You would want some semblance of your life as it once was restored.

Until you are personally faced with such a situation, where everything is taken from you in an instance, you can't possibly understand the strength that you will require and the resolve that you will need to stand again.

That is unless you have a sense of compassion, empathy and selflessness towards those less fortunate than you.

[Canelaw99]

Of course, it will be rebuilt, but it will never be the same. People can't just put their lives on hold for a year while the infrastructure gets rebuilt and then another year while their house gets rebuilt. Without workers and consumers, it will be difficult to reopen smaller businesses. It will take a long time.

There will be a mass migration inland. The outer suburbs will never repopulate. No one will be able to get insurance or a mortgage in these areas. Many will take their insurance checks and move away.

We saw all these things with Andrew and they will only be magnified now by the infrastructure problems.

Yes, it will take a long time, but don't say never. The city of Homestead was, for all intents and purposes, wiped off the map because of Andrew, yet it is back and better now than it was then. People have repopulated the area, and there are people moving here in astounding numbers these days. Rebuilding N.O. will take a long time, and hopefully they will do it so that they won't face this type of thing again, but once it is rebuilt, it will be repopulated. Many will move away but many, many more will return.

[inotherwords]

Mello1, the problem is that it is more than just a purely emotional issue whether or not to rebuild a city that's under sea level.

We understand people live there and like it. We understand they are upset right now. We get it. But there are many other issues to consider in addition to emotional reasons, and considering those things in the total picture does not mean there's an absence of compassion in this analysis.

For instance, some may argue it's more compassionate not to rebuild in order to spare thousands more lives in the future when this happens again. That's just an example, but it's just to illustrate that this is a really complex issue and can't be boiled down to 'if you don't want to rebuild you have no compassion.'

[TSmith274]

I'm from New Orleans, born and raised. I may have lost my home. I may have lost everything. But if there's one thing that motivates me to go on, it is my family, and my city. I'll be returning soon to help in any way I can. I feel an obligation to preserve a city for others that may not have had the chance to experience the immediate bond that forms between a person and that city. It's worth saving, and we will save it... and rebuild. Please watch the following video, and help us bring this back for eveyone...http://easylink.playstream.com/220solutions/neworleans/128k/nomcvb_broad.wvx

[RichG]

Mello1


Let's not be histrionic. The point I am making is that people died there Sunday because the city is a bowl under sea level and surrounded by water. A lot of poor people died because they could not find transportation in time to evacuate. A lot of poor people died because they were not given options to evacuate. A lot of poor people died because the local government was poorly run. Your answer is to simply to make things as they were. My answer let’s make things better. I never want to see again what I am seeing today. I fear hundreds if not thousands are dead from this tragedy. Yet your answer is to do rebuild it over again. Where is your compassion for human life?

[donsutherland1]

Just ahead of Hurricane Katrina's arrival, Strategic Forecasting Inc., a well-respected private geopolitical intelligence firm, described New Orleans area's importance to the United States to help put into perspective the magnitude of Katrina's threat and possible impact.

Excerpts:

The Port of Southern Louisiana is the fifth-largest port in the world in terms of tonnage, and the largest port in the United States. The only global ports larger are Singapore, Rotterdam, Shanghai and Hong Kong. It is bigger than Houston, Chiba and Nagoya, Antwerp and New York/New Jersey. It is a key link in U.S. imports and exports and critical to the global economy.

The Port of Southern Louisiana stretches up and down the Mississippi River for about 50 miles, running north and south of New Orleans from St. James to St. Charles Parish. It is the key port for the export of grains to the rest of the world -- corn, soybeans, wheat and animal feed. Midwestern farmers and global consumers depend on those exports. The United States imports crude oil, petrochemicals, steel, fertilizers and ores through the port. Fifteen percent of all U.S. exports by value go through the port. Nearly half of the exports go to Europe.

[RichG]

jj_frap


Huh? I suppose you also blame Isreal for the mideast as well? Let's keep such nonsense off this board and keep it with the matter at hand. Thanks

[Recurve]

Let's get off the "Below sea level" simplification.

Not all parts of the city are below sea level.

Also, storm-surge flooding doesn't require being below sea level to kill people.
Many homes, residents, and businesses are destroyed, but New Orleans itself is not.
The success or failure of an evacuation plan is not a permanent condition.
New Orleans is 90 miles from the coast. It's not surprising that some parts of New Orleans were unconvinved/unaware that coast storm surge flooding would inundate the city from the east. Not every working stiff is familiar with SLOSH models and storm-surge estimates.

I hope the Navy is on its way.

[RichG]

Recurve

Do we sacrafice the working stiffs because they weren't aware of the slosh model? You live in the keys so you us1 is your main lifeline. What if a terrorist with a truck bomb took out us1? Well it would be a problem but would be ok in the long run. Now what if the same guy with a truck bomb ( or a couple) takes out the levy in NO. Well alot people die! This isn't likely to happen but if your city is mostly below sea level it ain't good.

[inotherwords]

Let's get off the "Below sea level" simplification.

Not all parts of the city are below sea level.

Also, storm-surge flooding doesn't require being below sea level to kill people.
Many homes, residents, and businesses are destroyed, but New Orleans itself is not.
The success or failure of an evacuation plan is not a permanent condition.
New Orleans is 90 miles from the coast. It's not surprising that some parts of New Orleans were unconvinved/unaware that coast storm surge flooding would inundate the city from the east. Not every working stiff is familiar with SLOSH models and storm-surge estimates.

I hope the Navy is on its way.

I lived in San Francisco for a couple of years and every time there was even a tiny tremor anywhere, or any time an anniversary of a big earthquake happened, or even just whenever they felt like it because it was such a sensational story, the newspapers and news media would be full of stories about how the big one is coming and exactly what it will mean to the city. It was hammered into us all the time.

I now live on the FL coast and the same thing is being repeated here every year from June-November about how vulnerable we are to hurricanes.

I can't imagine that anyone living in the city of NO, even the working stiffs, would not have also had the potential magnitude of this disaster drilled into their heads every single hurricane season. What I think here is that a lot of people minimized the situation or just were in denial.

The "below sea level" is a simplification, but this is a message board and it's easy shorthand for a more complex issue. It's easier to write that as a reference than a couple of more detailed paragraphs.

I hope the Navy is on its way, too.

[Recurve]

Recurve

Do we sacrafice the working stiffs because they weren't aware of the slosh model?

No, of course not. I was saying it's understandable that some people don't have much of an understanding of the flood situation, considering that it takes experts in meteorolgy and civil engineering to figure it out.

You live in the keys so you us1 is your main lifeline. What if a terrorist with a truck bomb took out us1? Well it would be a problem but would be ok in the long run. Now what if the same guy with a truck bomb ( or a couple) takes out the levy in NO. Well alot people die!

The water is not lapping at the top of the levee, just waiting to flood the city to 20 feet deep. There are very few areas that would be wet even with no levees. It seems some people think that there's a flood wall and it's like a balloon full of water sitting on your head.

This isn't likely to happen but if your city is mostly below sea level it ain't good.

The Keys, the Outer Banks, Miami, Naples, Tampa, Apalachicola, Pensacola, AL, MS, LA, Texas, New Jersey are all under threat from hurricane storm surge. NOLA is hardly much different. Keep in mind that being below sea level means New Orleans won't drain naturally, but it hardly matters for how bad storm surge is. Nearly everyone on Miami Beach could be killed by storm surge, it just wouldn't stay flooded for so long.

[RichG]

Recurve

At the risk of oversimplifying, I lived in Tampa and the east coast of Florida my whole life, I never once had to look up to see ships go by! I know this isn't a "complex" explanation but there it is.

[Recurve]

The river is above sea level. It is at one of the highest points in New Orleans. The mississippi creates a raised berm wherever it goes through the delta. Much of the old part of New Orleans is built on that berm. That's what puts parts of the city above sea level.

You look up and see ships in NOLA because there's a levee to protect the city from the river. The floodwaters in the city now are not from the river. The storm surge came from the opposire direction.

New Orleans would not have a low risk of flooding from the river if the entire upstream part of it was not channelized.

Because of the river levees, the water can rise higher in the river than it normally would. That's why ships sometimes seem to ride very high next to the city. But it's also partly illusion -- some of those ships are 15 stories or more tall -- so of course you're going to look up at some part of them.

[inotherwords]

No, of course not. I was saying it's understandable that some people don't have much of an understanding of the flood situation, considering that it takes experts in meteorolgy and civil engineering to figure it out.

I'm not sure how hard it is to understand the words "In a Category 3 storm or more, the city would be 20 feet under water when the levees break."

The water is not lapping at the top of the levee, just waiting to flood the city to 20 feet deep. There are very few areas that would be wet even with no levees. It seems some people think that there's a flood wall and it's like a balloon full of water sitting on your head.

The balloon full of water sitting on your head was the other night. It doesn't matter what it's like the rest of the time. What matters is what happens when a big storm hits or grazes New Orleans, and at any of those times, the balloon is definitely sitting on your head.

The Keys, the Outer Banks, Miami, Naples, Tampa, Apalachicola, Pensacola, AL, MS, LA, Texas, New Jersey are all under threat from hurricane storm surge. NOLA is hardly much different .

I respectfully disagree that NO is "hardly different." None of these cities would have to be pumped out and dams built around them after a storm surge just to be habitable again. You may be able to make a case for Galveston, but like someone else already explained, they raised the properties up and built the city above sea level after the 1900 storm. I don't know if all of New Orleans could be reengineered to be above sea level. I sort of doubt it.

I guess I wonder if this really was no big deal why FEMA would list New Orleans being hit by a major hurricane as the number three "doomsday" scenario on their list. I really can't see how the whole bowl model is exaggerated or why the "below sea level" feature is not an important part of the problem. Maybe I'm missing something. How would you "fix" New Orleans? I really am stumped. I dont' think putting it back with levees around it would be a good fix if it's continuing to subside as it is. What is a reasonable solution? I'd really love to hear a reasonable suggestion.

[donsutherland1]

Another 24 hours have passed and more gloom and doom being preached around the Internet and beyond...

Hurricane Katrina is not the first disaster to strike the United States. It certainly won't be the last. In time, it might not even be the worst.

In 1900, a powerful Category 4 hurricane slammed into Galveston and its storm surge swept 8,000 people to their deaths. Present value damage came to $30 billion.

In 1926, a massive Category 4 hurricane similar in strength to Katrina blasted directly into Miami. In today's dollars, the resulting damage exceeded more than $90 billion, and this doesn't include indirect economic damage. That figure dwarfs the cost of any disaster that has hit the U.S., even the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The faint-hearted would have argued that Galveston should not be rebuilt as it lies on a small island off the Texas coastline and is an "invitation to disaster." They would also have argued that Miami shouldn't be rebuilt. After all, Florida has had a history of being pounded by major hurricanes. Fortunately, those with decisionmaking capacity chose otherwise.

The same will hold true with regard to New Orleans. While the timid want to cut and run and abandon the city to a horrible watery death, those who have decisionmaking power will choose otherwise. The city's damage will be repaired and destroyed homes/businesses rebuilt. Its levees will be replaced with far better flood defenses. New Orleans will have a future--a bright one.

That has been the historic experience. It is an experience that has been renewed from generation to generation--rebuilding the South after the Civil War, rebuilding Galveston after the 1900 hurricane, rebuilding San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake, rebuilding devastated portions of Long Island and Rhode Island after the 1938 hurricane, making plans to rebuild the World Trade Center after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This experience will be reaffirmed yet again.

Some people complain about their tax dollars going for disaster assistance for New Orleans. Well, tax dollars are going to the U.S. airlines. Where are the objections there? Tax dollars flowed to New York City after 9/11. Where are the objections there?

The reality is that sometimes the costs of disasters are so great that it is unreasonable--even unconscionable--to leave their victims to fend unhappily for themselves.

Can the federal government do a better job in managing its spending and limiting taxes, and balance the budget? Yes. But ignoring historic catastrophes does not serve that function. Fortunately, on that matter, common ground unites liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Hence, the latest cries to abandon the disaster victims--in this case, New Orleans, the nation's largest port--will all but certainly go unheeded.

The faint-hearted will go on to live more days in fear. The pessimists will continue to view the world through their lenses of hopelessness. Would-be modern-day Cassandras will continue to predict doom.

At the same time, the people of New Orleans will go on to lead productive and satisfying lives and their city will again be one of the nation's major economic centers and cultural treasures. The United States will be far better for it and the tax dollars that went into the restoration project will be an investment that returns multiples of that investment in terms of economic gain and long-term federal revenue.

[wxmann_91]

Great post Don.

Some people think abandoning a city and then removing it will work. But disasters occur everywhere. Yes, California gets hit by earthquakes, but we do not move. (And unlike hurricanes, the longer a quake hasn't occurred, the more overdue we are, and quakes are unpredictable.) New England gets hit by bitter cold and blizzards. Plains get hit by tornadoes. So we should build much better and protect the natural barriers that once protected us.

For example, New Orleans was built on wetland. Wetland naturally protects against flooding. Restoring the wetland will minimize the flooding potential.

Disasters will inevitably happen. But what we do to cope and protect ourselves is what matters.