[Rhodes22-list] Why Rebuild New Orleans?

[Wally Buck]

Bill, I don't want to sound cold but I have been bitching about the 
government rebuilding homes in known high risk areas for years. I am all for 
aid but we need to use some common sense.

Wally


>From: Bill Effros <bill at effros.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Why Rebuild New Orleans?
>Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:23:22 -0400
>
>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