NOLA - 2 years later

[DaemonSeid]

here is a slide show of some of the progress (or lack thereof) post Katrina

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20364536/?gt1=10252

[Kevin]

I really don't see the wisdom of repopulating a city which is below sea level. Perhaps it's best that these areas are not rebuilt? Another flood and billions more dollars down the drain is a certainty. I can think of no good reason to be doing all of this.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I really don't see the wisdom of repopulating a city which is below sea level. Perhaps it's best that these areas are not rebuilt? Another flood and billions more dollars down the drain is a certainty. I can think of no good reason to be doing all of this.

Really, the geology of NOLA is a wetland. Of course when it was "founded" in 1600's people at that time did not care about that. Also, the Creola Indians occupied and hunted on the land albeit as nomads in a 200-300 mile seasonal radius.

NOLA was a huge port city with tall ships that would gain entry into the Mississippi. NOLA was the gateway to the mid-western North, such as Iowa and Ohio.

It really wasn't until the war of 1812 that changed a lot of that.

So the only reason folks rebuild there is because of history... The reason there are floods are because the natural hurricane breakers were destroyed overtime by man. There were little atolls off the coast that provided enough protect to downgrade a hurricane with the freshwater run off that this naturally cold (it takes hot water to fuel a hurricane).

These atolls were "shaved" off by many industries near NOLA overtime. But most noticeably the off-shore drilling that has yet to pay Louisiana state taxes because the oil companies consider their property in "international waters" although these rigs are only offshore by 10-20 miles. No Federal or State taxes go back to the States or people to maintain the ecology of the area.

Same thing as the "Dustbowl Era" in the early 20th, but this time it is on water. I think there is a Science or Nature article(s) that discuss why Katrina destroy NOLA the way it did.

[aopirose]

Thank you, AKA Monet. I would just add that for many in the area, it is more than history. It is home. Also, New Orleans is still a major port and gateway to middle America.

[Kevin]

I don't think your dust bowl comparison really holds water. I live in what some might call the epicenter of the dust bowl. Such a thing will doubtful ever happen again. The Army Core of Engineers has constructed an absolutely massive reservoir system in the dust bowl states. Take last summer -- we had barely any rain at all. A few of our more remote reservoirs got dangerously low, but the key reservoirs were fine.

I do think areas such as Western Kansas and Texas are in some pretty significant danger though. They're pulling *a lot* more water out of the aquifer than is replenishable. I don't think they're headed for a dust bowl though, but perhaps a cessation of agricultural activities is in the cards.

[AKA_Monet]

^^^I am not sure exactly, but it was a full ecological breakdown during the dustbowl. There were more things that happened scientifically than losing major aquifers and lack of rainfall. I think it was use of fertilizer that was in the run off which killed off a significant portion of certain animals and insects vital to keeping the "structure" of the soil. Continuous use of these items without replenishment or crop rotations, eventually cause crop growth failure essentially making the soil turn into sand. That is why ADM and Monsanto and Dupont make some of their products.

The dustbowl was a human ecological disaster.

The damage seen in Hurricane Katrina, a natural disaster, was due to a lack of ecological and infrastructural maintenance.

[Kevin]

There's a huge difference in building a coastal city below sea level and failing to properly manage a water supply in a naturally arid area. Flooding in New Orleans again is a certainty. I don't care how many billions of dollars are spent, it'll happen again. Thousands of lives will be lost. I'd venture to say this'll happen in the next 20 years.

As for another dust bowl? Perhaps a mini dust bowl limited to parts of Colorado and Kansas when the High Plains aquifer runs dry, but about the largest town affected there will be Liberal, KS.

Heritage and history are stupid reasons to ask people to live in such a dangerous place.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There's a huge difference in building a coastal city below sea level and failing to properly manage a water supply in a naturally arid area. Flooding in New Orleans again is a certainty. I don't care how many billions of dollars are spent, it'll happen again. Thousands of lives will be lost. I'd venture to say this'll happen in the next 20 years.

As for another dust bowl? Perhaps a mini dust bowl limited to parts of Colorado and Kansas when the High Plains aquifer runs dry, but about the largest town affected there will be Liberal, KS.

Heritage and history are stupid reasons to ask people to live in such a dangerous place.

Well, logically, yeah, it is rather dumb to rebuild in a swamp and build levee systems. However, man's logic when he surveyed an undeveloped NOLA did not entail knowing things about ecology, which is considered in modernity.

Yeah, billions of dollars can be wasted, but it is not because they are "rebuilding", it is more because there is some kind of "sinkhole" that "those groups" like to funnel money into and watch is toilet bowl down...

I.e. the Dutch have a really good Scandinavian levee system that the US decided to NOT purchase because of politics...

There are combination of issues that cause the first dustbowl. We forget that large sum of animals and insects are killed allowing certain other opportunistic "hearty" animals and insects thrive. It is my understanding too that locusts thrived in the dustbowl era. There were both cotton weevils and molds on the corn where the inappropriate use of pesticides and fertilizers.

That is why you have numerous scientists making sure that fossil fuel use is not the reason why there is global warming because if it is, it explains the ecological and natural disasters we are seeing these effects globally.

[SWTXBelle]

It's not just heritage and history, as important as those are. It's simple geography - the reason it became an important city in the first place. It is the port at the end of the Mississippi river, and vital for transportation.
New Orleans did much better before so many of the surrounding wetlands were destroyed (by man). They acted as a "buffer zone" for the city. The disaster came about because of engineering incompetence. The major flooding happened AFTER the storm had come and gone - with the breaking of the levees. And then there's the complete incompetence at the city, state and federal level - but we all know about that.
I will never understand how no one will bat an eye at spending millions upon millions for the Big Dig in Boston - but will begrudge spending the necessary money to make New Orleans safe. No one argued that if we rebuild the WTC we are just making another target for terrorists.
Were New Orleans on the east coast we would not be having a discussion at all. Not that I'm bitter.

[DaemonSeid]

NOLA - the biggest natural gentrification project in modern times.....

...just my opinion

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

There are combination of issues that cause the first dustbowl. We forget that large sum of animals and insects are killed allowing certain other opportunistic "hearty" animals and insects thrive. It is my understanding too that locusts thrived in the dustbowl era. There were both cotton weevils and molds on the corn where the inappropriate use of pesticides and fertilizers.

That is why you have numerous scientists making sure that fossil fuel use is not the reason why there is global warming because if it is, it explains the ecological and natural disasters we are seeing these effects globally.

No really -- a huge part of it was that we hadn't really developed a resevoir system. We counted on the constant flow of the water as something we could rely on. That, of course is stupid. Still today, most of Oklahoma/Kansas is reliant on rainwater and reservoirs for potable water. We don't really have much in the way of rivers (yeah, we have a few, but they're mostly very small). The situation really isn't comparable to New Orleans because in all likelihood, there won't be another dust bowl.

I'd say there's about a 100% chance, however, that NOLA will be underwater again within the next century.

We can begrudge Boston for their Big Dig, but we should know that the money there isn't being flushed down a toilet. Boston isn't likely to be destroyed within the next century (at least not by a natural act). We can say with a decent amount of certainty that New Orleans will.

The parts of NOLA which were underwater ought to stay there. As for the poorer parts of town? I really could care less. They were built in places people weren't meant to live. The United States is full of habitable land which is above sea level. Move them there.

[SWTXBelle]

No, with the Big Dig the money is falling off and hitting them on the head!

But seriously - should we then stop building/abandon those parts of the country that will, undoubtly, be hit with a major earthquake in the next 100 years? Or how about other parts of the country that flood? I've had to deal with three rounds of tornadoes here - including one that hit my property. Let's get people out of Tornado Alley! And you'd be surprised at the number of areas around the country where scientists tell us it is only a question of when, not if, they will be hit with an earthquake. Check out the data on the east coast.

Following your logic, the vast majority of the U.S. would have to be abandoned. I agree that there are sections of New Orleans which should not be rebuilt - sensitivity of certain groups be damned - but we need to build smart. There is no reason that New Orleans has to flood again. It is not a given - not a certainty. Throwing up our collective hands and saying "No way" is not the answer.

And I happen to think that heritage and history are important. We are well on our way to being a country of soul-less homogenized strip centers.

[Kevin]

Earthquakes are uncertain. Further, their impact has been lessened by improved building standards and materials. Tornadoes are even more uncertain. I've lived in Oklahoma City my entire life. I've never been hit by a tornado. Chances are, I never will be.

But a flood in New Orleans? Something which will cost billions and wipe out thousands? It is a certainty. It cannot be avoided. Maybe it could if we dumped a few hundred billion back into it.

Is that really worth it so that a bunch of (pardon my lack of political correctness) poor people can live in the middle of a swamp? What are the American people getting for their money here?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Earthquakes are uncertain. Further, their impact has been lessened by improved building standards and materials. Tornadoes are even more uncertain. I've lived in Oklahoma City my entire life. I've never been hit by a tornado. Chances are, I never will be.

But a flood in New Orleans? Something which will cost billions and wipe out thousands? It is a certainty. It cannot be avoided. Maybe it could if we dumped a few hundred billion back into it.

Is that really worth it so that a bunch of (pardon my lack of political correctness) poor people can live in the middle of a swamp? What are the American people getting for their money here?

take ur pick....50 billion (that coincidentally Bush is asking for now) to send to Iraq or use that money to support those that are still out of homes in NOLA...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

take ur pick....50 billion (that coincidentally Bush is asking for now) to send to Iraq or use that money to support those that are still out of homes in NOLA...

So the government owes them new homes now? Iraq is important for strategic and international reasons which we could delve into in another thread.

Even if I concede that it's stupid to spend $50 billion in Iraq, it's still stupid to spend any money -- one dime on returning New Orleans to a state where it can once again be flooded and destroyed.