This Slate author's thesis is that New Orleans is doomed. Do you agree?

Great Debates
61

Before the hurricane hit New Orleans I started looking at the layout of the city. Using satellite photo’s, the first thing I noticed was a lack of floodgates on the canals. The 2nd thing I noticed was that most of the canals came off the lake but went nowhere. Whatever purpose they served in the past does not warrant their continued existence without some cost/benefit analysis.

It is never going to be practical to construct a levee system in New Orleans to withstand a level 5 hurricane. It is, however, practical to reinforce the core levee’s to withstand a level 3 hurricane. By core levee I refer to the river, lake and industrial canal levees. These are the levees that surround the city. All other canal levee’s should be filled in or have gates installed on each end. By doing this the canals can be shut off and partially drained prior to a hurricane.

Without getting into the politics of New Orleans, the city should move forward with the mandate to take responsibility for the levee system. If the city is not viable without massive Federal support then something needs to change. Given it’s decline over the years there is no other direction it could head but up.

62

I submit that it is, indeed, a question–one without a satisfactory answer so far.

Just out of curiousity…who might those people be?

63

Nothing like falling into your own trap and generalizing about other people’s home geography. Seattle area. Here’s a quote: “Roughly 30,000 Puyallup River Valley residents are in direct danger in a volcanic eruption, along with more than 100,000 people living in Mount Rainier’s six other valleys. The towns at risk would be Orting, Sumner, Ashford, Elbe, Packwood, Randle, Greenwater and parts of Puyallup. The flow could also affect parts of Tacoma, Buckley and Enumclaw.” from here.

A link with a map.

It’s not a matter of “fi” - - it’s not even a matter of “if” - - that part of the United States will get hit with a lahar from Mount Rainier and poeple’s lives and homes will be affected. If you’re convinced that people are making a bad decision by living in New Orleans, then the 100,000+ people living downslope of Mount Rainier need to be placed in the same category.

64

I learned my lesson in the other thread that you defy logical efforts to be refuted.

Do you use “Nope. Non-starter” in your daily conversation? If so, I’m sure you annoy the people around you. The other areas I mentioned (substitute Seattle for areas near Seattle) are just as at risk as New Orleans. If you live in any those or other areas you are making a choice between risk and reward. In the long run, you’ll probably get to live out your life without being impacted, but at some point there will be an event, people will die, property will be destroyed, some people will leave, others will choose to rebuild.

Personally, I’d just as soon that New Orleans not receive any federal dollars. The Corps has bungled its responsibility in engineering, FEMA is dithering, Congress and the Senate are using the disaster to attempt to pass riders (Ted Stevens added oil drilling in the ANWR to one relief bill, the house added the Dubai Port World deal nix to another), the President is leaning on the city for support against falling approval ratings, and those in positions of authority here in some cases are waiting for the feds to do something. Without the expectation of federal aid, people would have one less impediment in getting on with their lives.

65

The canals are still used. They were originally built to serve two purposes: (1) allow barges to get from the lake into the city and vice versa and (2) allow water pumped from low areas to drain via gravity to the lake. At present they are outfall canals to allow water drained from the city to get to the lake. When the Corps of engineers was directed by the U.S. Congress to take over levee design, installation, and maintenance in 1965, there were numerous discussions about gating the canals and moving the pump stations to the lakefront. Those arguing that doing so would lead to flooding if a slow-moving, rain-making storm delivered several inches of rain to the area won the argument and the gates weren’t built and the pump stations weren’t moved. The Corps of engineers is currently building temporary gates and pump stations, and will soon commence work on permanent features.

You’ll find lots of people agree with you about this down here. Sadly, there are a lot of very shrill squeaky wheels who seem to think it should be category 5 levees throughout.

Whose mandate? The Congress of the United States has placed the levees in New Orleans under federal jurisdiction.

66

  1. “Not unintended” by whom?

  2. Who are these people who “really shouldn’t be there”?

  3. Where is this place called “on”?

67

So…you refuse to debate. You cannot refute what I’ve said. You, and New Orleans, lose. If you’d make an attempt at using logic here instead of glittering generalites and pie-in-the-sky, rose-glassed sentimentality, you might just begin to make a persuasive argument. So far, you have wholly failed to do so.

Do you still make innacurate analogies? Yes, you do. And, I might use those terms in daily conversation if I had to constantly correct your misinformation every day.

But since you brought up ‘events’, let’s just talk about one particular event: Flooding. You, yourself, allow that it’s conceivable that the Mississippi could flood New Orleans. Let’s add that to what we already know and we come up with:

  1. The Mississippi might flood NO. Chance of flooding: slight
  2. A hurricane could flood NO. Chance of flooding: moderate to probable
  3. The Gulf of Mexico will, by all the best estimates, reach NO in 100 years. Chance of flooding: 100% Guaranteed Certainty

So, what you’re saying is: “Rebuild New Orleans for me! And maybe my children and their kids. After that, it’ll be gone anyway, but I want it! Give me and my offspring billions because I want to live where it’s unwise, to say the least!”

Don’t you understand? New Orleans is a city that wants to be a lake.

[quotePersonally, I’d just as soon that New Orleans not receive any federal dollars. The Corps has bungled its responsibility in [engineering]
(http://www.levees.org/facts/factsheet.htm), FEMA is dithering, Congress and the Senate are using the disaster to attempt to pass riders (Ted Stevens added oil drilling in the ANWR to one relief bill, the house added the Dubai Port World deal nix to another), the President is leaning on the city for support against falling approval ratings, and those in positions of authority here in some cases are waiting for the feds to do something. Without the expectation of federal aid, people would have one less impediment in getting on with their lives.
[/QUOTE]

What does that tell you? Maybe it’s that nobody is all that het up about bailing out your bath tub, as it were. Furthermore, without a butt load of federal money, NO is doomed. If you indeed got your wish, your next wish should be for some Samsonite luggage.

Stranger things have happened where Congress and money are involved, but I’d opine the liklihood of a New Orleans Renovation and Preservation Package that would actually do enough to preserve the city is rather unlikely to come to pass.

68

I’m sure tears were shed when the Federal money flowed in. Not unlike the lake water that followed. Seriously, the canals are a huge liability that have to be addressed. Insurance companies are going to be hard pressed to justify flood insurance without viable flood control.

My city suffered a much greater flood disaster at the turn of the century than New Orleans experienced. The industrial power brokers at the time convinced the people to fund a multi-county levee-and-dam system. While its a model of government cooperation I’m not sure it could be duplicated in a timely matter given the red tape that chases such projects today.

69

Hmm? Are you talking about global warming and rising sea levels, or what?

70

No, although that may play a significant part in it.

The coastal wetlands, the Mississippi Delta, are losing massive amounts of land due to: the channeling of the Mississippi River (which used to dump enough silt to maintain the delta), oil and gas activity, regular shoreline erosion, failed reclamation projects and, if you care to believe it, rising sea levels from global warming.

See this article.

From that article:

“It is currently estimated that up to 35-square-miles of Louisiana wetlands are being lost each year – over 20,000 acres,” Steward said. "At that rate, by the year 2040 much of the existing south Louisiana delta and wetlands will be lost beneath the Gulf of Mexico.

“New Orleans, now more than 50 miles from the Gulf, will be oceanfront real estate.”

Maybe a few years after that they’ll be selling t-shirts that say, “I Surfed Bourbon Street.”

71

So many neglect (are ignorant of?) the fact that aside from two fires in the mid 1700s, New Orleans has been intact sicne it was founded. Sure it’s at risk every hurricaine season, but some of you seem to think that we’re in a constant state of rebuilding.

72

Seeing that I was not even an infant when Congress put the Corps of Engineers in charge of the levees, I cannot say whether tears were shed or not. Probably, human nature being what it is, there was much rejoicing. The canals, as currently utilized, are a liability. They are being gated at the lake while I type; temporary pumps will be in place at the 17th Street Canal lakefront by June.

I agree that it will be very difficult for many to justify building in the floodplain given the sketchy state of the levees. I don’t know what the city would need to do take back engineering, construction, maintenance, and oversight of the levees from the federal government.

Agreed.

73

Check. Glad to see you’re following along.

How can you possibly reconcile this statement with what I typed earlier:

What I am saying is that I and others have weighed the risks and are choosing to invest our time, energy, and dollars in rebuilding portions of New Orleans. As a consequence, we disagree with the article cited by the OP.

74

Did you happen to note what forum you’re in? Just wondering. If you don’t wish to debate, then you might want to choose a forum where your statements might not be challenged.

Because, as you should understand, you’re impaled on the horns of a dilemma: NO can’t be rebuilt without federal money, but you don’t want federal money, yet you still claim it can be rebuilt.

Maybe it’s the “portions” specifier that you’re hanging your hat on. OK, which portions can be rebuilt so as to stand a reasonable chance of still existing in 100 years without federal money? Are you stating that you’re prepared to abandon the “other-than-portion” portions to the gators, snakes and skeeters?

Explain how. Explain that to my satisfaction and I’ll leave you to your fantasies forever.

New Orleans doesn’t have the money to rebuild itself. I doubt that the entire State of Louisiana could afford to rebuild–and protect–New Orleans. If you’re just proposing rebuilding some ‘portions’ without the requisite billions that it would take to protect the investment then I’d recommend taking out a short mortgage. That way, it’d be paid off when salt water starts lapping at your front steps and mortgage insurance rates wouldn’t have to rise for the people that don’t live in a big divot.

You may disagree with the article in the OP. You may disagree with the article I cited. You may disagree with every single shred of evidence, overwhelming as it is, that says that the future of New Orleans is to be little more than the feature attraction at the world’s greatest glass-bottomed boat tour.

But what you’re doing isn’t ‘disagreeing.’ It’s denying. Denial is what allows you to live there.

75

I’m very much aware of structure of the fora at the SDMB. My experience in the two threads in which we’ve posted comments is that you shift arguments, cite my posts out of context, throw up straw men, and generally make things most unpleasant. Stamping your feet and demanding to be debated under those conditions is not going to get me to play your game again.

Looks like I already did. Those who read for comprehension would have picked up on that already.

Well, it and the Mississippi are both big rivers with historically important civilizations at their deltas. Thanks for noticing.

76

You, sir, are a liar. Find a strawman in any of my original statements in this thread. Refute any of the original statements I made. Show me where I cited you out of context.

Your words are worthless, sir. If you cannot support your claims, then you don’t deserve to participate in this forum.

Then suffer me this due to my poor comprehension: What parts, or portions, of NO are you prepared to abandon–any parts other than yours?

Silly puns now? Oh, well, I guess I can’t expect any better. But since you brought it up…what is, or was, a major city on the Nile delta. Oh, yeah, Alexandria,right?

The following quote the cite may interest you, and it should seem vaguely familiar:

“Subsequent excavations revealed scattered remains of Alexandria’s Royal Quarter, submerged more than 1600 years ago by earthquakes and floods.”

NO won’t need any eartquakes. The French Quarter will be able to join the Royal Quarter for its 1700th submarine birthday party.

77

…“quote from the cite” and ‘earthquake’ has an “h” in it.

78

As long as you specified this quote of yours in particular, let’s deal with it.

“Shrinking the footprint” is a good idea, seeing as how it’s inevitable anyway, but your next three suggestions fail the sniff test.

  1. Turning flooded areas back to green space. - 80% of the city flooded. Are you proposing turning 4/5th of the city to green space? Why bother? And as for turning them into flood buffer zones…New Orleans has 50 miles or so of flood buffer zone between it and the Gulf of Mexico. What makes you think that a miniscule flood buffer zone inside a city that lies in a bowl would make any difference whatsoever?

  2. Armoring the levees. - Why? If all you’re protecting is a huge ‘green space flood buffer’ with a small strip of town alongside it, what makes you think that’s worthwhile? And “armoring the levees” sounds like doubletalk for 'building a whole new, higher levee system" since, unless you get rid of the old ones (which aren’t high enough or set deep enough) and put in new levees (which would require a huge cash layout that NO doesn’t have), it doesn’t make any difference if they’re made from titanium, kevlar and diamonds, they ain’t sufficient.

  3. Raising the houses. - A. Which houses? B. How high? C. What will prevent them from subsiding? D. Can damaged houses be raised? E. Who’s going to pay for it?

Your fourth suggestion, “implementing smart growth programs,” is a bit nebulous. But where were you planning to grow? Certainly not outside the levees. That leaves inside. Where inside, I wonder, since you’ve turned the city into a flood buffer park?

And you talk about strawmen. Feh.

79

See, you’re shifting arguments again. My refusal to “debate” you here is based on your performance in my IMHO thread.

Given that we’re the last ones who appear interested enough in this thread to post to it, and given that you’ve gotten rather excited, why hijack this thread further? Might as well pit me if you’re this invested in posts to a message board. Just be sure to link to both threads.

80

And, finally (for this evening anyway), I give you a well-written article from Geology.com.

It opens with, “The impact of Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans has been called the most anticipated natural disaster in modern American history.”

I believe it.

In any event, the article deals with the fact that there have been 17 hurricanes of Category 3 or better that have made landfall within 100 miles of New Orleans since 1852. The tracks of those hurricanes are shown on a map in the article.

It would seem to me that New Orleans has been exceedingly lucky in that it existed for as long as it did.

Even for all that, the article notes that subsidence and rising sea levels may be the bigger threat. From the article…

"The US Geological Survey has published a report titled: “Sea-Level Rise and Subsidence: Implications for Flooding in New Orleans”. A USGS preface for this report:

“The rates of subsidence and sea-level rise are important considerations in the restoration of the city of New Orleans and the wetlands that protect it. New Orleans is sinking two inches per decade, and it is anticipated that it will sink roughly one meter in the next 100 years relative to mean sea level. The ocean is also rising. During the last century, the ocean rose one to two millimeters per year. Within the next century if nothing is done to modify the existing infrastructure, some areas of the city that did not flood as a result of Hurricane Katrina will likely flood in a future storm due to subsidence and sea-level rise.”

“Stating the above in clear language: within the next century, New Orleans will sink about one meter and sea level is likely to rise another one to two meters. This places New Orleans at an additional two to three meters below sea level by the end of this century. Continued subsidence and sea-level rise will demand a continuous upgrading of the levees and pumping systems to sustain the city.”

“This could be a greater risk to New Orleans real estate than the hurricane threat. As subsidence and sea-level rise continue, the costs of protecting the city from seepage and storms will become more expensive than practical. Who should pay the costs of this losing battle? How long will government foot the bill? Anyone who owns or plans to purchase New Orleans real estate should understand the subsidence and sea level rise risks.”

That makes it pretty clear, I think.

The article continues on to mention levee security and how the levees could be at risk from a terrorist attack. That’s a factor I certainly can’t assess, so I won’t mention it any further.

And, now, to reflect wayyyy back to the OP, “Is New Orleans doomed?”

My answer: Yes. Within 100 years. Quite possibly sooner.

On preview, I see Ivorybill’s refusal to debate once again. Very well. It’s understandable. He cannot, and will not, support himself.

I’m not that interested in pitting you, my friend. You’ve shown your true colors in this thread well enough. When you finally reached a forum where you’d be called on to justify yourself, you’ve proven unable to do so. Why would I waste further time pitting you? You have no defenses.

I leave it to the readers who’ve slogged though all of this to determine whose statements stand up under scrutiny.

And with that, if the mods and the OP think it has gone on long enough, I have no objection to closing this thread. It’s like bashing my head against a wall anyway.