An UnEasy Question: "Should New Orleans be rebuilt?"

1.) First save lives and provide some type of assistance to the storm victims.
2.) Clean up the city.
3.) Rebuild the city

Wait a minute. #1 and #2 make sense, but does #3? Does is make sense to rebuild a city that is situated an average of 10 feet BELOW sea level?

The levees that were erected were designed (supposedly) to handle a direct hit of a type 3 hurricane. Katrina was a strong 4 (winds of 145 mph) and hit 40 miles east of the city where is where you see all of the storm surge damage in Biloxi. I shutter to think what would have happened if Katrina landed just west of New Orleans.

Some say to raise the levees even higher and make them stronger. Here's a problem...the higher the levees the deeper the floods that will inevitably follow. After all, any person with a brain you talk to from that region never thought IF this would happen, but WHEN.

Here's another problem city planners of New Orleans have been sweeping under the rug...the city is SINKING...almost an inch per year! All rivers like the Mississippi tend to subside which naturally provides fresh sediment into the delta area. As a river subsides, this fresh sediment compacts and is transformed into rock. However, about 60-70 years ago, the Army Corp of Engineers was given the task of protecting New Orleans from recurring natural flooding from the river. The Corp, with the best of intentions, kept the Mississippi river in check and stopped this natural occurance. However, this prevented the natural transport of new sediment into these geographically subsiding areas so nothing is being transformed into rock or "stabe" ground.

What happened? The protected area sank and still continues to sink which is one of the reason why the majority of the city is falling deeper and deeper below sea level.

I have been watching and listening over the last week, and 99% of the engineers and experts have all stated that they really didn't expect New Orleans to EXIST in the next 100 years...and that was BEFORE the arrival and destruction of Katrina!

So...I ask you...should be rebuild or should New Orleans end up on the History Channel's program: "Engineering and Natural Disasters"? What do you propose? 30 feet of rock and fill? One huge concreate platform over this swamp? If you think it should be rebuilt based on what you know, I ask how?

Great city built in the worst possible place.

 

My suggestion would be, if the damage is as great as everyone anticipates it will be, to move the whole darn town about 5 miles north. That would get them OFF on the coast line (somewhat) and tear down the levees to make a larger lake. Bulldoze it all down and prevent this from ever happening again. The billions that will be spent on repair and replacement would be much better spent in a new location. Can you imagine what insurance will cost down there now? Personally, in my humble opinion, living below sea level on the coast is almost like having a suicide pact as sooner or later you know whats coming and it really wouldn't take a hurricane to produce this all again. Just a breech in the levee and here we go! Move it and make a bigger lake!

 

NO!
1. Burn it.
2. Bulldoze what won't burn.
3. Dynamite the levees and flood whatever's left.

 

I think that I would order a modified rebuilding program. I would save the substantial infrastructures, including the port and major petroleum facilities. I would attempt to save some of the historic parts of town.

Buildings that are destroyed entirely, or well beyond repair, would not be rebuilt. It makes no sense to rebuild private residences. These areas would be condemed and converted to "open space". If there are especially low areas in the effected area, areas lower than others, they would be cleaned up and abandoned. I would submit that the total population of New Orleans should be half of what it was prior to the flood.

Rapid City, South Dakota suffered a serious flood in 1971. I believe that more than 600 people were killed. Houses in the floodplain that were desroyed were not rebuilt. These areas became undeveloped park areas.

Basically, New Orleans needs to be consolidated and strengthened.

It would appear that the local and State governmentsin New Orleans are completely incompetant. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine how such a rebuilding program could take place. I doubt the local politicians are capable of undertaking massive infrastructure and building programs. Throwing federal money at it would be inadvisable. Louisiana has a long history of bureaucratic corruption.

 

Hey you can not build in a flood plain so why rebuild the parts of New Orleans that are so far below Sea level and are surrounded by water? It is my understanding from the news, which is usually the worse source of information, that the French Quarter and other vital parts of New Orleans stayed dry. So why not just have the French Quarter like a Williamsburg Virgina to keep history and tourism and forget about the rest. We are talking about billions of dollars here.

With that said let me add that I live in Florida and I have a lake in front on my house and a bigger one out back in addition to the fact that I have to drive over a bridge to get into the POD. Being surrounded by water I feel that it would be wrong for the government to give me money if something happened to my house and I have no problem with the insurance issue. I just don't know why we have this "Give me attitude" in this country.

 

I feel the same way. My wife and I live in the forest, and fire is our issue. We have done much to reduce (not eliminate) our risk of fire. We live here because it is a very nice place. We have some relatively large trees right next to the house. Additional risk of course, from both fire and high winds. It is our choice. If we are burned out, so be it. It will be on our ticket.

That said, we have cleared brush and trees, removed fuels from the garage, whacked weeds, etc. We will do more this Fall, as we have every Fall for the past 10 years. Nevertheless, each year we breathe a collective sigh after the first big storm in November.

 

Why not ask some of the engineers from Holland who must have faced these conditioins everyday of their lives. It would sure be too bad if we were to loose a whole country just because it was below sea level.

 

Thank god for that little dutch boy!

 

Certainly it should be rebuilt. It wasn't so much it was a poor choice to build there in the first place. The government has had plenty of time to prepare for catastrophe like this upon advice of engineers and expert. The Netherlands can keep their entire country dry why can't the US improve flood management for just one city?

Lack of funding? Sure they can send men to space and robots to Mars, armies to far off place but no money to keep people save and no organisation to bring relief to its own citizens when needed.

 

Why bother to completely restore New Orleans? There is no shortage of suitable land for construction in the USA. This is not Holland. Restore some wetlands and call it good. It's just a dumb place to build.

Someday North Natomas and downtown Sacramento will be under water. North Natomas should have remained farmland. It required a full-blown State and local conspiracy, with the U.S. Corps of Engineers looking the other way, to facilitate that travesty on Californians.

Someday I'll bet the taxpayers have to buy back that farmland.

 

But I don't think the Netherlands have to worry about being hit by category 4+ hurricanes and 20' storm surges as a result.

 

Also, once the City of New Orleans tried to control the Mississippi from flooding, this stopped the essential replenishing of river sediment.

Without this sediment, the city will CONTINUE to sink further. As far as I know, the Netherlands are not sinking like New Orleans and as stated, the Netherlands don't have 90 degree Gulf water fueling CAT 4 and 5 hurricanes off of its coast.

 

Another consideration is that even if New Orleans is never hit again by so much as a spring breeze, global warming is a scientific fact. Whether you believe human activity is causing it or it is occurring naturally, it is happening just the same and coastal cities at or below sea level will be flooded as a result. It's time to think about more than just New Orleans.

 

Does Holland get Hurricanes? New Orleans last got hit around 30 years ago. With the increase in Tropical Storms and Hurricanes they would most likely get hit before the next thirty years. And as I stated before the old city reportly was unharmed before looters. It stayed dry. So why rebuild the new sections when it wasn't viewed as buildable in the first place?

Pet Peeve: Here in Florida it is being reported in the newspapers and I saw it myself since I invest in property that damaged and unlivable waterfront homes in Cape Coral are selling for over a half million with the real estate boom. Now what gets me mad is that the same people who are selling their damaged and unlived in homes for a wonderful profit, salt water fishing lot access is what is really being brought, also got money from the government for their homes. Talk about double dipping.

 

No, I don't think so. Tornados or twisters, yes - but most of those are relatively harmless. Here in Germany we have about 20 to 30 tornados per year, but an "F3" occurs about every three years only. An F5 tornado is extremely rare, maybe every 200 years.

In the Netherlands storm floods are relatively common; that is why after the 1953 flood disaster (when about 2,000 people died) enormous efforts were made to secure and shorten the coastline. About 25 percent of NL is below sea level, and parts of the country do "sink". Not very fast but continuously, in some areas about 2 cm per year.

Christian

 

The Netherlands does get flood risk regularly from the Danube. Every so often we hear about flood in Europe.

Of course they get storms regularly in Europe. And yes they have flooding there too. Look at all these windswept coast on the western edge of Friesland and Denmark, shaped from North Atlantic storms over millenia. A North Atlantic storm scenario will also channel storm surge into the North Sea coast and finally focusing on the Thames estuary.That is why London has already prepared with flood gate on the East End. Is it gonna be sufficient for the doomsday scenario? who knows.

Venice is sinking and the sea is rising. Work has already been going on to build flood gates at the lagoon.

 

Flood, yes. Danube, no. That hits other parts of Europe ...

Christian

 

I have had enough time to weigh the pro's and con's. I just don't see how it would be a good thing to rebuild the areas that are flooded.

Of course, the insurance companies may have a lot to say about this whole mess. If they decide not to insure buildings below sea level then the discussion will be at an end.

 

oops got my geography mixed up. It's the Rhine for the Netherlands.

 

Yep, and to make things (potentially) worse, there is also the Maas and the Schelde rivers. Well, I live one block away from the Rhine (but in NW, DE) and it has not been too bad lately. Pretty much the same in NL. Along the Elbe (CZ/DE) and Oder (PL/DE) rivers that was quite different three years ago. Fortunately there are no hurricanes around here ...

Christian