I was watching a show on History Channel tonight called Katrina: An American Catastrophe and they were going over a lot of the reasons about what happened when Katrina came in and the levies failed. I was amazed that they had put this show together so quickly. On the show though there was a divergence of opinion between the various ‘experts’ so I thought I’d ask here since I think enough time has gone by to begin to really sort out the data and debate this intelligently.
Some of the experts talked about the long period of environmental abuse in the area, including drilling for oil, past efforts at levies (appearently they tend to sink and also cause the land around them to subside), how the city had spread to Lake Pontratrain and how that increased both the sinkage, drainage and of course forced more levies (the Lake is appearently at sea level…the city something like 20 feet below that in some places IIRC), even putting channels through the city itself and the ecology of the area (one guy described the land in that area as being like a sponge…and acting like a sponge). They talked about the errosion of the area’s entire sublayer and the fact that the ground itself is sinking.
One guy said flat out that it was Bush’s fault, that taking money from the ACoE to fix the levies was the direct cause of the collapse. Several people said this was bullshit, that there were 2000 miles of levies and that even if they were completely up to snuff they were only rated for a CAT 3 storm…and it wouldn’t have made a difference. One guy said that unless the proposed $14 Billion was spent, nothing would have saved the city. Most said this disaster was inevitable…a few said that realistically there wasn’t anything we could have done due to how we’ve abused that area for over a century and the realistic costs of fixing this to withstand what happened ('course, in retrospect even $14 billion sounds like a bargin to me…they estimated between $150-$350 billion IIRC).
So…whats the Straightdope? Why did the levies collapse? What, if anything could have been done to prevent that collapse? What can be done in the future to ‘fix’ this problem…and what WILL be done, realistically?
I know this debate has been done…but I figured that time has passed, and more information is available.
Appologies, my spelling sucks. When I did a search on Google using ‘levees’ they did the ‘Did you mean levies?’ thing in red…so I assumed I was spelling it wrong.
Good luck with that. There is a chance to do some selective intellectual gymnastics and blame Bush, and by god it’s going to be taken.
As to your question, I think the arrogance of man is pretty much at fault. When you build a city on a fault line, you are going to get earthquakes once in a while.
If you build a city on the coast below sea level in the known path of hurricanes…big surprise. Complacency also was a factor. There are plenty of “what if” scenarios out there that could cost billions to address…a catastrophic flood in New Orleans was only one of them. Even if the levees and other flood control measures had been fully funded, people would be crying “PORK” at the top of their lungs…especially if the evil Halliburton had anything to do with it.
I read a book about disasters, and it talked about things like the Space shuttle, airplanes, mountaineering disasters.
The thesis of the book is that disasters are inavoidable when we start working with complexity and large forces. These, and these alone are the two main components to disaster.
It makes an interesting argument about safety systems.
Generally after a disaster, safety systems are installed to protect against that type of disaster. The safety system adds complexity. Typically something else fails and they build another safety system to protect against that.
You reach a point where the complexity has grown geometrically because of all the safety systems and at that point it is usually the failure of a safety system or a malfunction in it that causes that disaster.
A case in point is made about airplanes. Almost nobody has an accident with an open prop plane. It is clearly dangerous to be near that prop, and so people mind it and stay away. When turbines started being used they were encased. They no longer appeared as dangerous and people did not mind them as much, and now people fall into them all the time.
A system of levees is a highly complext safety system working with immeasurably large forces. It is natural that at some point there will be a disaster with them. It’s interesting to know though that they did what they were designed to do and rode through a Cat 3 hurricane without failure.
They talked about how the levee system has grown since NO was first founded, and as each sucessive flood (and expansion of the boundaries in NO) caused more complex levees to be built…and how the sheer mass of the levees caused them to sink and sink the ground around them, causing more problems. And that was just dirt…then they switched to concrete.
The problem is, we NEED that port as a country…and we need the oil infrastructure there as well (I read that something like 10% of our total refining capability has been effected by this disaster). So…what can be done now?
The lake Ponchartrain levee was apparently overtopped by 3AM monday, before the hurricane even hit. I’ve not found decent sourcing on that, and it seems likely even the corps of engineers don’t know for sure what happened:
In one of the Katrina threads about a week ago (?), one poster mentioned that the levee broke because a barge hit. I assume he meant it was blown intoit during the storm. No one questioned him about it, yet I have not read/heard about it anywhere else. Does anyone know what he was talking about? Was anyone here in that thread?
I remember that as well and just discounted it when I didn’t hear anything else about it. I have wondered what actaully caused the levees to fail. Those things are huge and I wouldn’t have guessed that water topping one during a storm surge would destroy the levee itself. Still, that seems like the most likely scenario.
I think what is needed is the access that the Mississippi-Ohio-Missouri waterway gives to the interior. However, I’m not sure that the transhippment port from ocean to river cargo carriers has to be at New Orleans. It’s a radical idea but why not some place like Mobile, AL? It is at the terminus of the Tenn-Tomm waterway which also gives access to the Ohio river. It can’t handle the traffic of the Mississippi but then it doesn’t have to. Stuff could be loaded on barges and taken by the intercoastal waterway to the mouth or mouths of the Mississippi, a distance of anywhere from 100 to 200 miles. And over time the Tenn-Tom would be enlarged and improved for a fraction of the cost of rebuilding New Orleans which, I think, is a goner in the long run anyway.
Under this scheme all that would be needed at the Mississippi would be dredges to keep the barge channels clear and we could let the river do what comes naturally, change course as needed.
This would be awfully hard on Baton Rouge and many large and small towns in the Missippi delta but that is also going to be the case sooner or later. I’m not sure that anyone believes, although many hope, that the Mississippi can be indefinitely maintained in its current channel.
I think what is needed is the access that the Mississippi-Ohio-Missouri waterway gives to the interior. However, I’m not sure that the transhippment port from ocean to river cargo carriers has to be at New Orleans. It’s a radical idea but why not some place like Mobile, AL? It is at the terminus of the Tenn-Tomm waterway which also gives access to the Ohio river. It can’t handle the traffic of the Mississippi but then it doesn’t have to. Stuff could be loaded on barges and taken by the intercoastan waterway to the mouth or mouths of the Mississippi, at distance of anywhere from 100 to 200 miles. And over time the Tenn-Tom would be enlarged and improved for a fraction of the cost of rebuilding New Orleans which, I think, is a goner in the long run anyway.
Under this scheme all that would be needed at the Mississippi would be dredges to keep the barge channels clear and we could let the river do what comes naturally, change course as needed.
This would be awfully hard on Baton Rouge and many large and small towns in the Missippi delta but that is also going to be the case sooner or later. I’m not sure that anyone believes, although many hope, that the Mississippi can be indefinitely maintained in its current channel.
The drilling platforms can be serviced from Mobile as easily as from New Orleans. And while we have the chance let’s diversify the siting of the refineries away from such a hurricane prone area. We do know how to build pipelines now so transporting the crude could be done by that means.
I figured I post this opinion piece here, although it could apply to most of the Katrina threads. I was surprised that Kinsley reflected my own thoughts over the past few days-- I don’t usually agree with him.
Most newspapers do. Do a search for that title on whatever major newspaper where you are registered. I don’t know where he posts his stuff on non-register sites.
Speaking of levees, US Army Engineer Corps now reports thatlevee damage was much more extensive than first thought. Miles of levees to the east and southeast of New Orleans were almost completely destroyed and need rebuilding if the city is to be restored.
And to me this raises the serious question as to whether or not New Orleans should be rebuild to restore the status quo ante, rebuilt with levees guaranteed for a category 10 storm - or not. Just how much is an annual Mardi Gras parade worth?
