MyDD :: New Orleans was built where it should be

New Orleans was built where it should be

by miholo, Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 11:52:23 AM EST

From the diaries--Chris

I'm getting annoyed with all this talk of not rebuilding New Orleans, and how it's economically unsound (which is wrong) and untennable engineering-wise (which is false) to have a city there. This meme is being pushed hard by Bush supporters. It's a great way to deflect blame and to avoid accountability. It's also, in effect, an exercise in blaming the victim.

New Orleans is there because the country needs it there. A huge area of the country relies on having a port at the mouth of that great river, where containter ships meet the river barges coming from all over the basin.

Mississippi River Basin

The *economic benefits* for this huge section of the country dwarf the costs of the engineering projects required to keep a small chunk of the delta dry. The culture, the music, the food are wonderful side benefits that people focus on first becaure they're the most visible side of the city (and, in my book, enough to be worth rebuilding it). But, fundamentally, New Orleans is a port, and an economically sound one.

The *engineering problem* is not such a big deal, given a couple billion dollars. This is peanuts compared to Iraq and to the pork in the energy bill. It's also peanuts compared to the costs we're facing now due to the disaster.

One third of The Netherlands is below sea level, and North Sea storm surges can get to 10 feet on top of very high tides.

Deltawerken web site (there's a video with good views of the Oosterscheldekering, the biggest of all storm surge barriers)

London is also vulnerable to the storm surges from the North Sea cyclonic storms. The mouth of the river protected by the Thames Barrier, which can be closed when needed.

Thames Barrier (wikipedia)

Building practices on the wetlands around the city have been completely irresponsible (and there no rebuiling should happen), but that's not New Orleans' fault. In the NY Times, Mark Fischetti has more details on the history of the city's defenses, and on should have been and was not done.

Mark Fischetti's column in the NY Times

Update: See also metonym's diary The Dutch Model.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment

LA purchase (3.00 / 3)

We bought the country's midsection to get New orleans and its access to world markets. That was obvious 200 years ago. But then Jwfferson and even the Congress were a whole lot smarter than Hastert et. al.

by David Kowalski on Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 03:48:49 PM EST

Re: THANK YOU (3.00 / 1)

Thanks, will do! Also working on a slightly edited version for dkos.

by miholo on Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 04:03:42 PM EST

Hotels yes. Wetlands for conservatives ? No.... (none / 0)

(nm)

by Keith Brekhus on Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 05:04:03 PM EST

nice diary (3.00 / 3)

Thanks, recommended.

The "bulldoze New Orleans" comments are extremely irritating. The "why are they so stupid to live there" comments are downright disgusting.

Despite the apparent penchant on the right for concluding that victims of circumstance are just so stupid they deserved it, it's not a bloody coincidence that New Orleans was built and thrived where it was, at the mouth of the Mississippi.

Cities don't grow and sustain themselves over almost 300 years because someone with a bad compass set up a trading post in the wrong spot.

We need New Orleans, and eventually I'm confident that'll even sink into Denny Hastert's thick head.

by arenwin on Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 11:24:35 PM EST

Hastert Will Come Around (3.00 / 2)

When he realizes that the black refugees (many white ones too) could turn a few red areas bright blue, not only politically but culturally as well. Mardi Gras everywhere-what would Jerry Falwell think?

by CarolDuhart on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 09:02:53 AM EST

If you need walls to hold back water (2.00 / 1)

you've built in the wrong place. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

by Paul Goodman on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 12:15:27 PM EST

Re: If you need walls to hold back water (3.00 / 2)

If you've built a city on a fault line, you've built it in the wrong place. If you've built a city in tornado alley, you've built it in the wrong place. If you've built a city that can be destroyed by a hurricane you've built it in the wrong place. And if your house can be destroyed by wildfire: shoulda lived somewhere else. Basically, if your house gets destroyed, Mr. Goodman says "tough shit." Actually, I suspect he would make an exception for the most common natural disaster in his area.

by dole4pineapple on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 12:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you need walls to hold back water (3.00 / 2)

dude, did you read the diary? The Mississippi is one of the mmost important waterways in the world. Of all the economies which would be dramatically affected by the closure of the fifth largest port in the world, consider the agricultural market. You move grain on barges--period. Do you really want to shut off the marketsd of the world from the breadbasket of the world?

There is no choice but to rebuild New Orleans.

by KevStar on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 01:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you need walls to hold back water (none / 0)

What if you build a city near some volcanoes, one of which is likely to erupt within a few centuries?

What if you build a city on a major fault line which will have devastating earthquakes about once every century or two?

What if you build a city out in the middle of the desert, where there isn't enough water to support a village of hundreds, let alone a city of millions?

The amount of ongoing effort, maintenance, and expense, to support a place like Phoenix, must be far more than what it would take to protect New Orleans properly.

by cos on Sun Sep 04, 2005 at 02:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you need walls to hold back water (3.00 / 1)

Entire nations exist due to water control measures. There is no reason that a properly maintained and funded levee system cannot protect a city in one of the richest and most advanced nations on earth even from a cat 5 hurricane. That excuse simply won't ..hold water.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III

by jrflorida on Sun Sep 04, 2005 at 07:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right on (3.00 / 2)

It's so easy for politicians in Chicago or somewhere to shoot off their mouths about rebuilding New Orleans somewhere else, but this isn't even a possibility. While a sizeable chunk of the city is underwater, the rest is high and dry and has minimal damage. Most large industrial plants are undamaged, and small businesses will get up and running as fast as possible to help with the cleanup. Why would they move, when the need for them is right where they are? The dry part of the city will become a huge economy very quickly.

In the wet areas, large buildings are mostly intact. Roads and bridges need to be inspected, but 95% of them aren't over moving water and will be found to be in fine shape and ready for use once dry and cleaned up. Same for the water, sewer, and other infrastructure, which is mostly underground. Repairing the localized damage and small gas fires is small potatoes compared to building the whole system from scratch. Only power and telecommunications will need major work. You can't simply rebuild a city's transportation and utility infrastructure somewhere else for any realistic amount of money, nor can you move the nation's largest port, which is already back in operation.

Over the next few weeks, more and more of the city will become dry as the water is pumped out. As each block becomes dry, the owners of those properties will move in to clean up their buildings and get into the cleanup economy. Look at it from the owner's standpoint: she doesn't own land somewhere else. She has the land she has, and will do whatever it takes to get it producing income again, whether it's refinishing, mold disinfecting, or rebuilding. Homebuilding will follow the pattern of returning businesses. Homebuilders will move their operations to New Orleans because that's where the demand is.

The government doesn't get a choice on this. New Orleans will rebuild itself right where it stands.

by pdt on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 12:24:36 PM EST

this is the important point: (none / 0)

exactly how much of New Orleans and its suburbs are really left?

Supposing New Orleans were entirely destroyed, then it becomes conceivable to relocate the port and population center at Baton Rouge. That would only be an option if the river was deep enough to harbor ocean-going vessels that far upstream, or if it could become able to harbor such vessels after dredging.

However, if most of the city and its suburbs are still there, then there is no question that New Orleans will be rebuilt. The recoverable resources are much too great to just abandon. And if there's still significant infrastucture, then the only way to stop people from rebuilding their own properties is to coerce them, and deliberately preventing the rebuilding of New Orleans is political instant death (for damn good reason too).

The model here is Houston-Galveston. In 1899, Galveston was the major port and the more important city. Houston wasn't even a port yet. After the hurricane and the digging of the Houston Ship Channel, Houston became the economic powerhouse and Galveston became a vacation town.

I AM NOT saying I want this to happen in Louisiana, or that I think it would be a good thing. But if anything changed in the rebuilding, that's how it would change. The port would move upstream, the people would move upstream, New Orleans would be re-established mostly in its historic, scenic, cultural, and recreational form.

Now in fact, the realities on the ground may well make this decision for us. If there's a lot left in New Orleans, this is settled. If there's not, we should start watching the relationship between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

by texas dem on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 08:33:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the important point: (none / 0)

But the Mississippi in Baton Rouge is already filled by the Port of Greater Baton Rouge, and the space between BR and NO is filled by the Port of Southern Louisiana.

The problem is, the Port of NO is the biggest part of the whole complex. Can't just be picked up and moved upriver so easily.

by arenwin on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 08:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is the important point: (none / 0)

then it becomes conceivable to relocate the port and population center at Baton Rouge. That would only be an option if the river was deep enough to harbor ocean-going vessels that far upstream

Well, yes, the river is deep enough. Look over here on google maps - that's New Orleans you see on the right, and Baton Rouge at the upper left corner, with the Mississippi snaking between the two. Zoom on, pan around. You will see the whole entire length filled with huge ships, and lined with docks. It's all a port, already.

by cos on Sun Sep 04, 2005 at 02:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Port City (3.00 / 3)

This is all that needs to be said. It's a port city designed to for trade. I don't understand why people don't get that this isn't a local concern- it's a national need.

by bruh21 on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 12:41:50 PM EST

Re: Annoyed?!? (3.00 / 2)

It's true you can't pin all the blame on Bush, but the general public attitude, that government should be starved, is a part of the problem. You can see just from what we've learned already that there was a disagreement between those who wanted to spend whatever it takes to make a good levee, and those who didn't want to spend money on anything. They compromised, built half a levee, and crossed their fingers. That is most definitely a political problem.

On the other hand, the engineering community will do some soul-searching, as they look at whether it's adequate to design levees protecting large cities (and there are a couple dozen of these in the United States) for a 200-year event. I think we'll decide this isn't adequate.

Building a better levee is a couple orders of magnitude less expensive than building the streets and highways needed to serve 500,000 people somewhere else. Many cities spend more to guard against natural disasters of other sorts.

by pdt on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 01:49:20 PM EST

no, not annoyed -- depressed and furious (3.00 / 1)

I have established my bona-fides as a certified Bush detractor all over the 'net.' -- Right, sure you have, at RedState for the past couple of weeks...

Your argumentation is nothing short of dishonnest because do not address the argument even one bit:

NOLA needs to be at the mouth of the river, it's a river-mouth port.
Protecting NOLA is perfectly feasible and affordable (unless you care to explain why the Dutch are wrong and why every single technical study that has ever been done is wrong? About every single economist, scientist and engineer who has looked into it is stupid as well?)
Experts had been saying for years that expenditures needed to be increased, Clinton increased them, the GOP slashed them. If the plan prepared in 2000 (read Fischetti's article) had been put in practice, NOLA would have withstood this hurricane.

Until you address these things instead of bullshitting around them with offensive blame-the-victim platitudinal nonsense, I'll have to assume you're shilling for the GOP.

Of course, the GOP knows that there will be hell to pay for the criminally incompetent emergency response, especially when the Dems have been shouting about the short-changing of first-responders for four years now (hence the playing up all the looting and sniper stories, which were a very minor factor and should have taken into account in preparedness plans anyway).

But, even more than this, if it sinks into the public consciousness that, because of their aversion to public works, the GOP lost a major American city -- probably tens of thousands of Americans -- then things will get really bad...

No money for public works (hey wanted to 'get the goverment small enough to be able to drown it in a bathtub'... you've done it), but plenty for corporate pork such as the 'energy bill' and for the war of choice to create the Islamic Republic of Iraq. We're being ruled either by criminals or by fools, and I don't know which is worse.

by miholo on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 02:26:46 PM EST

Re: no, not annoyed -- depressed and furious (none / 0)

Your response to point 1 reveals such complete ignorance of basic economics and lack of common sense that I don't even know where to start. NOLA is the larget port (or 2nd largest, depending on how you count) in the US because of the river barge trafic. A good part of the economy of the US cannot function without it. Los Angeles (the other 'largest' port in the US) and the entire CA coast is vulnerable to earthquakes, are we going to shut those down too?

Anywhere you have a city in the gulf it's going to be vulnerable to hurricanes (see Biloxi...) so building codes need to reflect that, and emergency evacuation plans must be in place. Anywhere in the delta there will problems with subsidence and public works will be needed to control storm surges will be needed.

Your response to 2 I can answer easily. If it's done properly and there are good evac plans in place, sure I'd live there. More than that, I lived in The Netherlands for a few months, below sea level and, no, I didn't wet my pants.

Re. point 3, that's not what I hear and not what Fischetti suggests. If you have links, I'd like to see them. It's probably true of the 2004 cuts, but already in 2002 the local head of the Army Corps of Engineers was forced to retire for publicly criticising the budget cuts.

by miholo on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 06:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Location of NO isn't the Problem (3.00 / 1)

The disappearing wetlands & coastline is the real problem. Without an adequate buffer zone in the coastal areas, these events will continue occurring.

Some development needs to be limited. The flow of the Mississippi R. needs to be allowed so that the wetlands can exist. Unfortunately, money talks. The environment can't defend itself against it.

by Philosophe Forum on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 02:49:05 PM EST

Maureen Dowd (3.00 / 1)

Glad to see this starting to be picked up. Dowd in today's NYT:

(...)
In June 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, fretted to The Times-Picayune in New Orleans: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
(...)
Ron Fournier of The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans last year. The White House carved it to about $40 million. But President Bush and Congress agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-filled highway bill with 6,000 pet projects, including a $231 million bridge for a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.
(...)

by miholo on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 03:32:41 PM EST

Atchafalaya (none / 0)

Many comments above huffily assert that OF COURSE New Orleans needs to be rebuilt right where it was, because it's at the mouth of the Mississippi.

The thing is, the only reason New Orleans is at the mouth of the Mississippi is that the Army Corps of Engineers has for decades been routing 70% of the water of the Mississippi in the direction of New Orleans. Without the Corps, the Mississippi would flow into the Gulf of Mexico down what is currently called the Atchafalaya River.

But the Corps can't resist nature forever. Eventually, the port city of the Mississippi will be Morgan City, Louisiana. Why not let nature run its course, now that we're pointing 70% of the water of the Mississippi's water in the direction of an uninhabitable ruin, and rebuild at Morgan City?

by adamcadre on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 06:40:53 PM EST

Re: Atchafalaya (none / 0)

Er, right, "the water of the Mississippi's water." Shows what you get posting in a hurry. Anyway.

by adamcadre on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 06:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Atchafalaya (none / 0)

Re-route the bulk of the water from the Mississippi? Now you're talking expensive.

You lose the entire Port of Southern Louisiana and Greater Baton Rouge, as well as the Port of NO. You now have to rebuild from scratch at another location the largest American port, and one of the largest in the world. That's an astronomical undertaking. Build over a hundred miles of port facilities. Dredge over a hundred miles of river to deep-sea shipping depth.

You're also going to have to completely refashion and reinforce the river banks along the present Atchafalaya River, which aren't equipped to handle that quantity of water. That likely displaces a good number of people, as well as being very costly.

If there were no way to protect NO, one might even consider a scenario like this. But there is, and I'll bet you anything that it's a whole lot cheaper than what you've just suggested.

The entire Mississippi is artifically controlled through measures such as what you describe, from its source to its delta. It's not a peculiarity of southern Louisiana. It used to reroute itself continually and flood frequently along its entire course. That's just what big rivers do. It is, unfortunately, incompatible with major metropolitan development to let nature "run its course."

by arenwin on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 09:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's Do Away With Cities And Towns. (none / 0)

Forget cities. Forget towns. Let's just make the government buy each and every one of us a mobile home. Abolish private land. Total freedom! Live wherever you want to live! (Just keeps speed limits at 30 mph and have only unpaved roads -- no more "bituminous concrete.") Just let everyone grow their hair long and follow their bliss. Who says this dumb-ass country can be saved? (Yeah -- the Amish are on to something.)

by blues on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 08:40:32 PM EST

Re: Annoyed?!? (3.00 / 1)

The blame for the catastrophe must be placed at the feet of the people who put New Orleans there in the first place.

That would be the French. In 1718. Surely the statute of limitations has run out by now.

by KTinOhio on Sat Sep 03, 2005 at 09:28:19 PM EST

Re: Annoyed?!? (none / 0)

Being a certified Bush-detractor has nothing to do with this. Proposing to move a major city is lunacy. It's far far cheaper to properly protect it. I think you're reacting knee-jerk, without taking the time to study the problem and what has already been written about it. Step back and do some research.

by cos on Sun Sep 04, 2005 at 03:03:41 AM EST

Re: Annoyed?!? (none / 0)

It can't stay "as is" - the ruined parts of the city and the parts that aren't, need each other to work. There are plenty of factories standing, whose employees' homes are wrecked, for example. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to rebuild those homes than to move the industry elsewhere. I could go on and on.

Cities are not just things, they're people. There are a million people who collectively form the city of New Orleans. They have relationships - of family, friendship, and professional of all sorts. What's the economic benefit of spending the relatively little it would take to put back the infrastructure that lets them re-establish that, vs. trying to re-form all of that for a million people from scratch? It's not even close. And since they're actual people, you know, the kind that have feelings and memories and skills and familiarities and lives, it's more than just the economic advantage of rebuilding that's at stake (but make no mistake, there is a huge economic advantage to doing so over not doing so). Like I said, it's people who form a city. And by that measure, even if 10,000 died, 99% of the city is still mostly intact.

Nothing is "foolproof" - how are you going to protect San Francisco against a 9.3 earthquake in a "foolproof" manner? We know it's going to happen. Should we just pick up and move the city?

I think you need to take a look at the reality of New Orleans, and like I said, do some research. What you're saying bears little connection to reality.

by cos on Sun Sep 04, 2005 at 02:05:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Annoyed?!? (3.00 / 1)

Yes, because if it will succeed if done properly and funded properly. We live in many dangerous regions around the world. Disasters happen and we recover from them. The main issue here is the failure to relieve the city's residents and for the federal government to follow a disaster plan. The city will be rebuilt. The dwellings will have better code enforcement, will likely be built to withstand or allow for repair after flooding, and the worst case scenario will be a guide to that rebuilding effort. The city should have a proper levee system, get rid of extraneous or dangerous canal systems, and have backup systems in case a levee does break so that smaller chunks of the city are left at risk from any one break. It can be done. It will be done. And resisting that is futile. Work with this or get out of the way.

"So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause." Padme, Star Wars Episode III

by jrflorida on Sun Sep 04, 2005 at 07:54:18 PM EST

Too tough to quit now (none / 0)

As a life-long resident of south Louisiana (about 50 miles north of NOLA), I just wanted to say that I appreciate the intelligent comments that some of you have made regarding the rebuilding of New Orleans. It is a city that has an energy and passion that cannot be brought down by any storm or disaster, and while she may be on her knees right now, she will rise again and be stronger than ever before.

New York recovered from 9/11, Florida is recovering from the hurricanes that pummeled it last year, and New Orleans will do the same despite what anyone says, and it will be rebuilt right where it was before.

by Melanie1 on Sun Sep 18, 2005 at 02:32:17 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.