DISPARITY

[Cutterpup]

Steve I have not been to N.O. but the video clearly shows that the water did not go into the french quarter and if the french quarter is below sea level it would have flooded with the rest of the city. To say that the entire city is below sea level and then to see video and still pictures showing dry areas is to not believe one's own eyes. Just because the river is above sea level in N.O. does not mean that we should continue to raise the levees and pour money into the city for pumps to pump out the rain water and if a levee breaks again pump out the entire city again. It is because the city is slowing sinking into marsh below that we either build it up no matter what the cost or build up the levee's and hope that that will be enough or move the city and abandon the location. Anyway you look at it, "it sa goin cost a bundle". And I for one don't want to pay for half way measures.

Galveston Tx


http://www.1900storm.com/


If you read what was done and why and of course how much it cost its scary but what esle can you do?

Dan

[madjack]

...the French Quarter, parts of the CBD and uptown are not below sea level(just really close) Whenever you stand on the River Walk and see the Mississippi above the level of the French Quarter it is because the river level is up...when the river level is up, it can be disconcerting to be standing in the French Market and see ships above your head. A stronger pump/levee system is the only viable answer...raising the level of the land would not be.
Abandonment of the area is not going to happen and shows a lack of knowledge of the area, its geography, its people and its signifigance to the rest of the country...so fahgetaboutit
madjack

p.s a studied and planned rebuilding is however, necessary...it will give urban planners a chance of a lifetime

[Cutterpup]

Madjack

A stronger pump/levee system is the only viable answer...

It failed and will fail again. Then do we rebuild the city for the second time? Every levee system has it share of leaks and combind with a big storm and the loss of power and you have flooding. Just ask the folks along any river system that is protected by levee (or the less P.C. dykes). Just think of what would have happen to N.O. if the city had been built up higher than the lake. No flooding and no evacuations. Costly yes! but guess what we are going to pay and pay no matter what the government does. As for abandonment I agree the history of the city and the exsisting port would put the kabass on that. Besides I haven't seen the city yet and they wouldn't build it like it was if they moved it.

BTW the city of Galvston did not wait for the government to raise the city the people did it.

Dan

[madjack]

...I say this as one who is intimately familiar with N.O.....
There is no comparison to Galveston, in terms of area that would have to be raised. Metarie, Gentily, Bywater(8th & 9th wards), Kenner and Chalmette are vast areas, any one of which is larger than Galveston.
There will probably be large areas where all the building will have to be taken down and in these areas(some of the deepest flooding) it may be feasible or even sensible to raise the elevation but it really does not make much sense to raise one area and not the next
Yes I know that levees fail and building a bigger/better levee and pump system is no guarantee but the storm to take it out has to be a "perfect storm" and a properly built system should protect the city for the next 500 yrs...after that, welllllllllllllllll
madjack

p.s. not meaning to be political....but I can't help myself
if we(USA) can come up with 200 billion to fight Mr. Bushes little war then surely we can come up with the same to rebuild one of Americas great cities....a question which would never come up if it were N.Y., S.F., L.A. or Chi

[Cutterpup]

Madjack so what you are saying is that we have to keep doing what we have done in the past even though it did not work and since the land itself is sinking the problem will get worse? Also the experts are saying that hurricanes are becoming more numerous and more powerful so if the city is to be saved a little out of the box thinking is in order. Yes I think if we spent 200 billon dollars to repair the levees they would be able to hold back the water, but N.O. will still be a city in a hole surrounded by water. Waiting for the flood to come when somebody forgets to pay the power bill for the pumps.

Lets just blame the french and have them repair the city after they picked the location.

Dan

[madjack]

...I am not saying to do what has been done in the past unless it is the only way...which it isn't. The Dutch use huge floodgates, an idea that we can adapt to N.O. The water that enters Lake Ponchoutrain from the Gulf, which is the danger to the area, comes in thru Chef Mentaur Pass and the Rigolette's, these areas could be closed off using the flood gate system similar to the Dutch. It makes more sense to keep the water out of the lake to begin with than to build dikes and levees that as you say are destined to fail one day.
All I am saying is that there will be a New Orleans and there will be people to service that entitiy. So we either build up the levees to protect from that 500 year perfect storm or.........................
madjack

[ceebe]

The dutch have been building dikes and reclaiming land from the north sea for quite a long time. They have a big percentage of their country below sea level.

[Cutterpup]

Madjack The city of Galveston TX is about 46 square miles, N.O. is about 180 and 10% of that is already above sea level. They raised the city of Galveston about 16 feet above what was there and in N.O. most of the city that had the worse flooding was flooded to the roof tops or about 8 to 10 feet. So there is a direct comparison for both cities in the amount of dirt to move. The question is "Is it worth it" Most of the building that were under water will have to be destroyed. Leaving a blank slate for building up the city. In the areas that had less damage and have historical significant the building would have to be raised up and fill placed below and around them. As for the dutch floodgates they have not yet faced a cat 1 hurricane let alone a cat 5.

From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/science/06tech.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=f2cbac85235230ad&ex=1283659200&adxnnl=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1125997239-x7iBtEFYvi7GgJq/LCqWwQ

Dr. Bras says sensor technologies for detecting levee failure hold much promise. But he adds that less glamorous approaches, like regular maintenance, may be even more valuable, since prevention is always the best cure.

"We have to learn that things have to be reviewed, revised, maintained and repaired as needed," he said. "To see a city like New Orleans suffer such devastation - some of that was preventable."

He added that no matter how ambitious the coastal engineering, no matter how innovative and well maintained, the systems of levees, seawalls and floodgates were likely to suffer sporadic failures.

"Nature will throw big things at us once in a while," he said. "There's always the possibility that nature will trump us."

Dan

[TonyCooper]

I personally would leave the French qtr and any other areas that are slightly above sea level, making that area a tourist area where the unique heritage and flavor of New Orleans could be saved and nurtured. Everyone else would be bought out.

I'd move the rest of the city about 40 miles northwest to safer higher ground.

Then I'd remove as many of the dikes as possible and let the Mississippi river do it 's thing returning the ecosystem to it's original state as closely as possible... I'd then make that area a National Park.

Instead of fighting against nature (ultimately a losing battle), work with nature.

[Arne]

A friend who lives in the French Quarter, above Bourbon St. (and actually works as an engineer on the steam powered Delta Queen), says that his area is one of the highest in the city. I do not know if he got flooded or not, but he thought he did not.. he was on the boat for a month's cruise when Katrina hit.

[angib]

I thought of this discussion while reading an article in my paper about the loss of Arctic ice and the likelihood that the 'point of no return' has been reached where significant melting of the Greenland land ice is likely. This would lead to an increase in the global sea level of up to 6 metre/20 feet, so best make them new sea defences around NO seriously high.

The article is (currently) available on-line here.

Andrew

[RKH]

The dutch have been building dikes and reclaiming land from the north sea for quite a long time. They have a big percentage of their country below sea level.

In recent days, I have read where the Dutch approach to this has been shifting in recent years to one of accepting that there will be water and that the current response is one of controlling, rather than eliminating the water. Once the plan was build a bigger dike, buy a bigger pump. Now it is moving more towards accept wetlands and the marsh areas as a buffer. Build flood gates to slow the rate of incoming water.

Here is the link to the article in the Sept 8 Washington Post.

[Guy]

Dear Powder,

Before you trash the people of California, or any other state for that matter, please be informed the State of Wyoming takes more federal aid than it gives, and California gives more than it receives. Right now Wyoming gets $1.13 for each dollar its citizens pay. California, in the same period, received back only $.78 for each dollar in taxes Californians paid. So, Powderburn, we Californians have been paying the tab for you people for so long you will have no right to complain about how much money our citizens wll require in the event of a disaster.



Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Tax Paid by the State

Rank (1 is highest - meaning it gets more federal money than its citizens pay in taxes)

2002 2003

Alabama 9 8
Alaska 1 1
Arizona 30 26
Arkansas 21 24
California 36 40
Colorado 39 36
Connecticut 18 17
Delaware 35 39
Florida 31 29
Georgia 34 4
Hawaii 6 6
Idaho 33 31
Illinois 44 46
Indiana 43 43
Iowa 29 37
Kansas 28 30
Kentucky 16 15
Louisiana 24 23
Maine 15 14
Maryland 4 3
Massachusetts 14 16
Michigan 45 44
Minnesota 46 49
Mississippi 11 12
Missouri 10 13
Montana 8 11
Nebraska 22 32
Nevada 50 50
New Hampshire 49 48
New Jersey 41 45
New Mexico 5 4
New York 26 28
North Carolina 37 33
North Dakota 2 5
Ohio 38 35
Oklahoma 17 18
Oregon 40 38
Pennsylvania 20 21
Rhode Island 19 19
South Carolina 32 25
South Dakota 7 9
Tennessee 23 20
Texas 42 34
Utah 47 42
Vermont 25 22
Virginia 3 2
Washington 27 27
West Virginia 12 10
Wisconsin 48 47
Wyoming 13 7
District of Columbia