With Hurricane Gustav heading toward landfall, I thought I'd repost this from exactly three years ago:
New Orleans....
Will they raise it and/or rebuild it?
That's what was done at Galveston after the 1900 storm, they built a seawall and raised the island.
However, Galveston wasn't already below sea level and steadily sinking even more as New Orleans has been ever since the Mississippi was channeled with levees.
And Galveston wasn't as large a place to raise and rebuild.
Plus it was the most wealthy city in Texas at that time.
Now, another city, Houston, has taken Galveston's place as the area's important city in spite of all the otherwise successful rebuilding efforts.
Or will they raze it?
And selectively abandon it?
All New Orleans residents are apparently going to be evacuated, at least until the levee is repaired and the water is pumped out.
All those flooded homes will need to be bulldozed and burned after prolonged immersion.
And then, does it make any sense to rebuild those residential areas?
Or should people, businesses and/or industries be encouraged to relocate?
New Orleans has a flood-prone, hurricane vulnerable, relatively isolated location.
It will be a disaster area again whenever Mother Nature makes it so.
Should the whole area be allowed to revert to a lightly inhabited, natural wetlands by removing the lower Mississippi's levees?
Perhaps have a large tourist-friendly area for the historic French Quarter with music and food and, in addition, offer legalized gambling, plus great hunting and fishing.
Let the river silt gradually start to restore the Louisiana coastline.
Stop ignoring/fighting Mother Nature.
Especially if global warming continues to raise sea level, some future hurricane that targets the Big Easy will sweep across the ever-lessening coastline and wipe a rebuilt New Orleans away for sure.
In 100 years what will taxpayers or residents think about the decisions made now?
I'm just cogitating while sympathetically watching the increasingly revealing CNN coverage of this great disaster.
Location is everything.
New Orleans' location once was vital and made complete sense.
Now, frankly, it's a big liability, suddenly stagnant and forevermore precarious.
Other areas hit hard by this storm may have more hopeful, though always uncertain, futures.
Just because they aren't already located in a hole.
To use a metaphor from a recent movie, rebuilding currently flooded and forever flood endangered New Orleans simply may no longer provide enough juice to be worth the squeeze.
If, as the New Orleans Mayor is just now saying on TV, "hundreds, maybe thousands, of people are dead" in those flooded houses is rebuilding those residential areas wise, in the short or long term.?
Federal funds being used to help rebuild a large city in a location that's even riskier than a periodic flood plain seems fiscally irresponsible and pretty foolish.
Are there restrictions on using federal funds to rebuild flooded homes located below sea level?
There should be.
What are the ethical considerations of allowing people of whatever income to return and live in rebuilt housing in such an area?
Especially, those who have limited resources and have no where else to go shouldn't be placed again in harm's way using government subsidies.
All the current flooded houses will need to be bulldozed and burned because of structural damage, toxic pollution and black mold, after being submerged for, as I hear currently estimated by a U.S. Corps of Engineers spokesperson, as long as 6 months.
Do that and then use the money to rebuild someplace else.
Why do "elective urban renewal" in a certain, known, future disaster area?
My thoughts and hopes are with all the beleaguered residents of and brave rescue workers in this city, but my concerns project forward to any future citizens as well.
Over the next few days, months, years and even decades, the decisions about The Big Easy and surrounding areas will be big and they won't be easy.
Good luck to those in this storm's path.
Here's another three year old post with more of my brainstorming:
New Orleans could still be a port, just not a below sea level residential area.
Look at a good map and visualize this:
Maybe dredge out Lake Pontchartrain and dump all that dirt as fill material where New Orleans was.
Then put a port facility there on the south shore of Pontchartrain and put the residential area on the north shore.
Build new, better levees around the port area and the entire lake wherever needed.
The bridges over where Lake Pontchartrain meets the Gulf of Mexico need to be rebuilt anyway, don't they?
So build them high enough that ship traffic can pass below and make Lake Pontchartrain a protected port.
Then remove some of the lower Mississippi River's levees and let the silt build up the lower delta area as it once did.
If I was playing a computer game like "Civilization" or "Sim City" something like this would be my plan.
Give the Corps of Engineers a task they can successfully run with, instead of a patch up job that will ultimately fail.
The Bonnet Carre' Spillway already allows the Mississippi River, at flood stage, to partially divert into Lake Pontchartrain.
A canal with locks between the river and the lake could be built there where they almost join now.
Then the Lower Mississippi levee system could be selectively removed to allow silt to gradually rebuild the delta.
Ships and barges utilizing the new Port of New Orleans on the south lakeshore would enter Lake Pontchartrain from the Gulf of Mexico or through a canal/lock from the river.
The polluted river, all the way from the Gulf, past Lake Pontchartrain to Baton Rouge, could gradually become somewhat less industrialized.
By the time the river flowed through the cleansing wetlands below New Orleans that would gradually increase in size, that flow could enter the Gulf as cleaner, better oxygenated water.
The present "dead zone" that extends from the river's mouth far out into the Gulf would slowly be improved.
The mouth of the Mississippi and the lowlands below New Orleans would be allowed to return to a natural state.
The material dredged to deepen Lake Pontchartrain for shipping traffic could be used to build levees around the lake and raise the currently flooded residential areas which could become a port facility on the south shore of the lake.
Large tankers would still unload out in the Gulf at the LOOP facility, so there would be no environmentally disastrous oil spillage in Lake Pontchartrain.
There could be an airport built at this newly raised south shore port area.
And highway and railway access to this port could come from current raised roads, bridges and viaducts by rebuilding and rerouting them as needed.
A dredged Lake Pontchartrain would make a very large protected commercial port.
It could be especially well-protected from terrorists.
Any large residential area(s) could be built on the north shore of the lake, protected there by the increased distance from the Gulf, new levees and, last but certainly not least, not being situated a hole that's below sea, lake and river level.
Some housing and amenities for port workers, etc. could also be on the south shore.
But build no new homesteads for older, retired folks and no rebuilt housing for disadvantaged, very young or infirm citizens who couldn't leave the area quickly.
Fast, state of the art, public transportation could link the north and south shores.
I suggest an ultra-modern, rapid transit, an electromagnetic railway, nostalgically named “The City of New Orleans.”
A canal/lock between the river and the lake would be relatively simple to engineer and build.
The lake would probably not require as much on going dredging and maintenance as the river channel does now.
The river silt could restore the delta over time.
Still usable buildings in unflooded downtown New Orleans could be refurbished as hotels and legalized as casinos.
On TV it said that those casinos in Biloxi and Gulfport were bringing in a half million dollars a day in tax revenue for the state of Mississippi.
There's a revenue source, if Louisiana and New Orleans had such casinos, to eventually help fund any rebuilding/relocation.
The French Quarter would still be there.
Hunting and fishing could also be an attraction.
Cruise ships could dock at the new port.
So, much of New Orleans could remain, but there would be no permanent residential areas below sea level.
And any port workers or tourists that are south of the lake could be evacuated easily whenever it's needed.
A lot of on going issues and location problems could be addressed by such a plan.
I submit that with so much needing to be rebuilt and with all the current residents already being evacuated for an undetermined period of time, facing many permanent relocations anyway, that it's the proper time for consideration of such an all-encompassing solution/improvement.
Let's take aim at a large number of interrelated, on going problems now, instead of rebuilding on a forever problematic site that will again be a human disaster area in the foreseeable future.
This is the time to think of such things and to take far reaching action if it's deemed feasible and timely by those privy to all the information that making big decisions should require.
Consider the monetary and human cost of relocating against the certainty of rebuilding New Orleans again and again, if the location remains the same.
Factor in that the city is to be completely evacuated and the people relocated for an undetermined time for any cleanup.
And that most residents, whether they realize it or not, really don't have much left to return for with schools, neighborhoods and businesses already destroyed or to be bulldozed and burned.
Why put them back in a known, certain, future disaster area?
Make a honest analysis, remembering that anything you rebuild will be vulnerable again.
I'm just cogitating and I'm not privy to all the facts and costs, but I trust and hope those who are will make the best decisions.
Faced with a massive rebuilding need I hope we consider relocation.
Lake Pontchartrain could make a great protected port.
And maybe for a comparable overall cost.
Especially if you give enough weight to long term and/or human values.
New Orleans....
Will they raise it and/or rebuild it?
That's what was done at Galveston after the 1900 storm, they built a seawall and raised the island.
However, Galveston wasn't already below sea level and steadily sinking even more as New Orleans has been ever since the Mississippi was channeled with levees.
And Galveston wasn't as large a place to raise and rebuild.
Plus it was the most wealthy city in Texas at that time.
Now, another city, Houston, has taken Galveston's place as the area's important city in spite of all the otherwise successful rebuilding efforts.
Or will they raze it?
And selectively abandon it?
All New Orleans residents are apparently going to be evacuated, at least until the levee is repaired and the water is pumped out.
All those flooded homes will need to be bulldozed and burned after prolonged immersion.
And then, does it make any sense to rebuild those residential areas?
Or should people, businesses and/or industries be encouraged to relocate?
New Orleans has a flood-prone, hurricane vulnerable, relatively isolated location.
It will be a disaster area again whenever Mother Nature makes it so.
Should the whole area be allowed to revert to a lightly inhabited, natural wetlands by removing the lower Mississippi's levees?
Perhaps have a large tourist-friendly area for the historic French Quarter with music and food and, in addition, offer legalized gambling, plus great hunting and fishing.
Let the river silt gradually start to restore the Louisiana coastline.
Stop ignoring/fighting Mother Nature.
Especially if global warming continues to raise sea level, some future hurricane that targets the Big Easy will sweep across the ever-lessening coastline and wipe a rebuilt New Orleans away for sure.
In 100 years what will taxpayers or residents think about the decisions made now?
I'm just cogitating while sympathetically watching the increasingly revealing CNN coverage of this great disaster.
Location is everything.
New Orleans' location once was vital and made complete sense.
Now, frankly, it's a big liability, suddenly stagnant and forevermore precarious.
Other areas hit hard by this storm may have more hopeful, though always uncertain, futures.
Just because they aren't already located in a hole.
To use a metaphor from a recent movie, rebuilding currently flooded and forever flood endangered New Orleans simply may no longer provide enough juice to be worth the squeeze.
If, as the New Orleans Mayor is just now saying on TV, "hundreds, maybe thousands, of people are dead" in those flooded houses is rebuilding those residential areas wise, in the short or long term.?
Federal funds being used to help rebuild a large city in a location that's even riskier than a periodic flood plain seems fiscally irresponsible and pretty foolish.
Are there restrictions on using federal funds to rebuild flooded homes located below sea level?
There should be.
What are the ethical considerations of allowing people of whatever income to return and live in rebuilt housing in such an area?
Especially, those who have limited resources and have no where else to go shouldn't be placed again in harm's way using government subsidies.
All the current flooded houses will need to be bulldozed and burned because of structural damage, toxic pollution and black mold, after being submerged for, as I hear currently estimated by a U.S. Corps of Engineers spokesperson, as long as 6 months.
Do that and then use the money to rebuild someplace else.
Why do "elective urban renewal" in a certain, known, future disaster area?
My thoughts and hopes are with all the beleaguered residents of and brave rescue workers in this city, but my concerns project forward to any future citizens as well.
Over the next few days, months, years and even decades, the decisions about The Big Easy and surrounding areas will be big and they won't be easy.
Good luck to those in this storm's path.
Here's another three year old post with more of my brainstorming:
New Orleans could still be a port, just not a below sea level residential area.
Look at a good map and visualize this:
Maybe dredge out Lake Pontchartrain and dump all that dirt as fill material where New Orleans was.
Then put a port facility there on the south shore of Pontchartrain and put the residential area on the north shore.
Build new, better levees around the port area and the entire lake wherever needed.
The bridges over where Lake Pontchartrain meets the Gulf of Mexico need to be rebuilt anyway, don't they?
So build them high enough that ship traffic can pass below and make Lake Pontchartrain a protected port.
Then remove some of the lower Mississippi River's levees and let the silt build up the lower delta area as it once did.
If I was playing a computer game like "Civilization" or "Sim City" something like this would be my plan.
Give the Corps of Engineers a task they can successfully run with, instead of a patch up job that will ultimately fail.
The Bonnet Carre' Spillway already allows the Mississippi River, at flood stage, to partially divert into Lake Pontchartrain.
A canal with locks between the river and the lake could be built there where they almost join now.
Then the Lower Mississippi levee system could be selectively removed to allow silt to gradually rebuild the delta.
Ships and barges utilizing the new Port of New Orleans on the south lakeshore would enter Lake Pontchartrain from the Gulf of Mexico or through a canal/lock from the river.
The polluted river, all the way from the Gulf, past Lake Pontchartrain to Baton Rouge, could gradually become somewhat less industrialized.
By the time the river flowed through the cleansing wetlands below New Orleans that would gradually increase in size, that flow could enter the Gulf as cleaner, better oxygenated water.
The present "dead zone" that extends from the river's mouth far out into the Gulf would slowly be improved.
The mouth of the Mississippi and the lowlands below New Orleans would be allowed to return to a natural state.
The material dredged to deepen Lake Pontchartrain for shipping traffic could be used to build levees around the lake and raise the currently flooded residential areas which could become a port facility on the south shore of the lake.
Large tankers would still unload out in the Gulf at the LOOP facility, so there would be no environmentally disastrous oil spillage in Lake Pontchartrain.
There could be an airport built at this newly raised south shore port area.
And highway and railway access to this port could come from current raised roads, bridges and viaducts by rebuilding and rerouting them as needed.
A dredged Lake Pontchartrain would make a very large protected commercial port.
It could be especially well-protected from terrorists.
Any large residential area(s) could be built on the north shore of the lake, protected there by the increased distance from the Gulf, new levees and, last but certainly not least, not being situated a hole that's below sea, lake and river level.
Some housing and amenities for port workers, etc. could also be on the south shore.
But build no new homesteads for older, retired folks and no rebuilt housing for disadvantaged, very young or infirm citizens who couldn't leave the area quickly.
Fast, state of the art, public transportation could link the north and south shores.
I suggest an ultra-modern, rapid transit, an electromagnetic railway, nostalgically named “The City of New Orleans.”
A canal/lock between the river and the lake would be relatively simple to engineer and build.
The lake would probably not require as much on going dredging and maintenance as the river channel does now.
The river silt could restore the delta over time.
Still usable buildings in unflooded downtown New Orleans could be refurbished as hotels and legalized as casinos.
On TV it said that those casinos in Biloxi and Gulfport were bringing in a half million dollars a day in tax revenue for the state of Mississippi.
There's a revenue source, if Louisiana and New Orleans had such casinos, to eventually help fund any rebuilding/relocation.
The French Quarter would still be there.
Hunting and fishing could also be an attraction.
Cruise ships could dock at the new port.
So, much of New Orleans could remain, but there would be no permanent residential areas below sea level.
And any port workers or tourists that are south of the lake could be evacuated easily whenever it's needed.
A lot of on going issues and location problems could be addressed by such a plan.
I submit that with so much needing to be rebuilt and with all the current residents already being evacuated for an undetermined period of time, facing many permanent relocations anyway, that it's the proper time for consideration of such an all-encompassing solution/improvement.
Let's take aim at a large number of interrelated, on going problems now, instead of rebuilding on a forever problematic site that will again be a human disaster area in the foreseeable future.
This is the time to think of such things and to take far reaching action if it's deemed feasible and timely by those privy to all the information that making big decisions should require.
Consider the monetary and human cost of relocating against the certainty of rebuilding New Orleans again and again, if the location remains the same.
Factor in that the city is to be completely evacuated and the people relocated for an undetermined time for any cleanup.
And that most residents, whether they realize it or not, really don't have much left to return for with schools, neighborhoods and businesses already destroyed or to be bulldozed and burned.
Why put them back in a known, certain, future disaster area?
Make a honest analysis, remembering that anything you rebuild will be vulnerable again.
I'm just cogitating and I'm not privy to all the facts and costs, but I trust and hope those who are will make the best decisions.
Faced with a massive rebuilding need I hope we consider relocation.
Lake Pontchartrain could make a great protected port.
And maybe for a comparable overall cost.
Especially if you give enough weight to long term and/or human values.
