[Rhodes22-list] Why Rebuild New Orleans?

[Bill Effros]

Herb,

I noticed that, too, but after getting slammed by Ed, I backed off 
mentioning it. 

In fact, I think there are many things we agree on.

One would have to be the kindness and generosity you exhibited in 
helping to deal with the aftermath of the hurricane, for which you have 
my personal thanks and admiration.

Bill Effros

Herb Parsons wrote:

>You know, I go away for a week, and when I come back it seems much of my world has changed.
>
>Now, Bill and I agree on something.
>
>I think I left and came back in the Twilight Zone.
>
>Herb Parsons
>
>S/V O'Jure
>  1976 O'Day 25
>  Lake Grapevine, N TX
>
>S/V Reve de Papa
>  1971 Coronado 35
>  Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
>
>  
>
>>>>bill at effros.com 9/15/2005 9:23:22 AM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>Robert,
>
>Ever notice that when hurricanes sweep away expensive beach homes on 
>barrier islands their owners never question whether the Army Corps of 
>Engineers should truck in sand and dredge so the owners can rebuild 
>their homes so the sand can be swept away again?  Some people do 
>question this, but if there is any trend, it is that the questioners 
>tend not to be the people living in the place about to be rebuilt.
>
>The Netherlands is 50% below sea level.  They didn't take kindly to the 
>idea that they should all move to Germany.  They built billion dollar 
>sea walls.
>
>Venice is constructing billion dollar sea walls.
>
>England has billion dollar sea walls.
>
>Japan has billion dollar sea walls.
>
>I think the headline on this piece should be "Why Rebuild Somebody 
>Else's Home If That Doesn't Directly Benefit Me?"
>
>Bill Effros
>
>Robert Skinner wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Folks:
>>
>>The following article raises a serious question.
>>Apparently, New Orleans is doomed regardless of
>>what resources we throw at it.
>>
>>Tough, but worthwhile reading.
>>
>>/Robert Skinner
>>
>>----------------------------------------
>>
>>Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild?
>>
>>By Klaus Jacob
>>
>>Washington Post, Tuesday, September 6, 2005; Page A25
>>
>>It is time to swim against the tide. The direction of 
>>public discourse in the wake of Katrina goes like 
>>this: First we save lives and provide some basic 
>>assistance to the victims. Then we clean up New 
>>Orleans. And then we rebuild the city. Most will 
>>rightly agree on the first two. But should we rebuild 
>>New Orleans, 10 feet below sea level, just so it can 
>>be wiped out again?
>>
>>Some say we can raise and strengthen the levees to 
>>fully protect the city. Here is some unpleasant 
>>truth: The higher the defenses, the deeper the floods 
>>that will inevitably follow. The current political 
>>climate is not conducive to having scientific 
>>arguments heard before political decisions are made. 
>>But not doing so leads to the kind of chaos we are 
>>seeing now.
>>
>>This is not a natural disaster. It is a social, 
>>political, human and -- to a lesser degree -- 
>>engineering disaster. To many experts, it is a 
>>disaster that was waiting to happen. In fact, Katrina 
>>is not even the worst-case scenario. Had the eye of 
>>the storm made landfall just west of the city 
>>(instead of to the east, as it did) the wind speeds 
>>and its associated coastal storm surge would have 
>>been higher in New Orleans (and lower in Gulfport, 
>>Miss.). The city would have flooded faster, and the 
>>loss of life would have been greater.
>>
>>What scientific facts do we need before making 
>>fateful political, social and economic decisions 
>>about New Orleans's future? Here are just two:
>>
>>First, all river deltas tend to subside as fresh 
>>sediment (supplied during floods) compacts and is 
>>transformed into rock. The Mississippi River delta is 
>>no exception. In the early to mid-20th century, the 
>>Army Corps of Engineers was charged with protecting 
>>New Orleans from recurring natural floods. At the 
>>same time, the Corps kept the river (and some related 
>>canals) along defined pathways. These well-intended 
>>defensive measures prevented the natural transport of 
>>fresh sediments into the geologically subsiding 
>>areas. The protected land and the growing city sank, 
>>some of it to the point that it is now 10 feet below 
>>sea level. Over time, some of the defenses were 
>>raised and strengthened to keep up with land 
>>subsidence and to protect against river floods and 
>>storm surges. But the defenses were never designed to 
>>safeguard the city against a direct hit by a Category 
>>5 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson scale) or a 
>>Category 4 hurricane making landfall just west of the 
>>city.
>>
>>Second, global sea levels have risen less than a foot 
>>in the past century, and will rise one to three feet 
>>by the end of this century. Yes, there is 
>>uncertainty. But there is no doubt in the scientific 
>>community that the rise in global sea levels will 
>>accelerate.
>>
>>What does this mean for New Orleans's future? 
>>Government officials and academic experts have said 
>>for years that in about 100 years, New Orleans may no 
>>longer exist. Period.
>>
>>It is time to face up to some geological realities 
>>and start a carefully planned deconstruction of New 
>>Orleans, assessing what can or needs to be preserved, 
>>or vertically raised and, if affordable, by how much. 
>>Some of New Orleans could be transformed into a 
>>"floating city" using platforms not unlike the oil 
>>platforms offshore, or, over the short term, into a 
>>city of boathouses, to allow floods to fill in the 
>>'bowl' with fresh sediment.
>>
>>If realized, this "American Venice" would still need 
>>protection from the worst of storms. Restoration of 
>>mangroves and wetlands between the coast and the city 
>>would need to be carefully planned and executed. Much 
>>engineering talent would have to go into anchoring 
>>the floating assets to prevent chaos during storms. 
>>As for oil production, refining and transshipment 
>>facilities, buffer zones would have to be established 
>>to protect them from the direct onslaught of coastal 
>>storm surges.
>>
>>Many ancient coastal cities of great fame have 
>>disappeared or are now shells of their former 
>>grandeur. Parts of ancient Alexandria suffered from 
>>the subsidence of the Nile delta, and earthquakes and 
>>tsunamis toppled the city's famed lighthouse, one of 
>>the "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World."
>>
>>It is time that quantitative, science-based risk 
>>assessment became a cornerstone of urban and coastal 
>>land-use planning to prevent such disasters from 
>>happening again. Politicians and others must not make 
>>hollow promises for a future, safe New Orleans. Ten 
>>feet below sea level and sinking is not safe. It is 
>>time to constructively deconstruct, not destructively 
>>reconstruct.
>>
>>The writer, a geophysicist, is an adjunct professor 
>>at Columbia University's School of International and 
>>Public Affairs. He teaches and does research on 
>>disaster risk management.
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list 
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>  
>