Rockaholic Adventures

'But isn't all change caused by evil done by Man? All change to the environment therefore must be evil and fought to the last dollar. All storms are a direct result of unnatural Global Warming caused by Man. Man can control Nature.' The tinfoil hat brigades are still loose, so a rational explanation like this one will be rejected.

Give it up! New Orleans cannot be saved in the long run. Forbid rebuilding in the areas below sea level and just prepare for a total evacuation.

Skeeter-Just how much of the taxpayers money do you want to spend to "cure the problem"? Give it up! As I have stated before in another thread, building BELOW the water line "aint too bright"! James

Here's the other thread

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/5090#newcomments

It's not as simple as you portray.

There are much more grievous wastes of our resources.

James-I was just falling in with the "blame Bush for everything" crowd and attempting to point out that he did nothing to stop the hurricane, not its effects.

Legendary. Like King Canute's attempts to turn back the tide between 1016 and 1035 a.d.

King Knut (modern accepted spelling) knew he didnt have the power to turn back the tide and intended to show the fallacy of those spreading the rumours however tis turned into one of the earliest PR Stunt backfires as all he is remembered for now is failing and getting wet

On the general point about building blow the sea level - has anyone checked out building land in Holland (Netherlands, Pays Bas etc) which has been recovering land from sea for many years with or without fingers in dykes

Guest. I agree that the country of Holland needs to be protected-they have spent huge amounts of taxpayers money to hold back the sea. I agree with that decision. Lets face the facts here in New Orleans. I am not saying do not help the people that were displaced by Katrina. By all means, help your "fellow man". What I am saying is-no more REBUILDING in the area. Its going to happen AGAIN!!! James

It seems to me that when you have the land available above sea level, why spend so much more and increase the residents risk so greatly by building below sea level. From the information I have seen about the areas most devastated, it was the relatively newer residential housing (built in the last 50 years) that was the worst hit. It appears that the older parts of the city were above the flood stage. This means that the degree of local corruption so bad that they had been allowing building below sea level knowing the risk, since obviously they knew originally not to build below sea level. The level of 20th century corruption is NO was so bad for so long, but it was a State matter generally, and the Federal government had limitations on what it could do (and because of certain interests would do). Now that NO is basically funded by the Federal government they have started resolving the real problem, the corruption that allows people, like wealthy developers, to do anything with just a small donation to the right politicians and bureaucrats. I think this is one of the main differences between Holland and NO, it is not the local government officials responsibility to decide adequate public health and safety and acceptable risk (and thus not something that can be circumvented easily with developers money). People complain about the Federal governments response, but it was not their responsibility to save people that is the States responsibility (The national guard serves at the behest of the State Governor). FEMA comes in after the fact and supplies money and equipment to support people in the aftermath. We should really be addressing how a State government could be so corrupt, and require some strict changes in the State of Louisiana. If the people who have allowed such bad decisions to occur over time, for a small fee from private interests are now being prosecuted by the Federal Government and Louisiana is complaining about the oversight of the federal government. You can not expect them to stay clear of you and let you do any illegal thing you want and then expect them to be there on a whim when you fall down from the problems your previous corruption has allowed to occur.

We all recognize that levees are going to fail, they even fail in Holland also. However, we do not have the population density in this country and shortage of land that demands recovery of the Sea. Why take risks.

Rebuilding versus damage control. The end decision in this case seems to evolve around economics. The poor neighborhoods left in ruins should be swept of debris in order to prevent pollution from migrating into the marshes or oceans that feed the local ecosystem. Man made canals pushing north to Baton Rouge have shown provide a means for trade at high costs. Rather than fighting the inevitable and worrying about storm surges why not help the "Great Muddy find the path of least resistance and rebuild the city around a new entrance to the Gulf of Mexico that could prove to be a less expensive trade route. If we could save money on dredging and building monstrous levees maybe losing some livable ground is the best choice.

During Katrina, I read up on all of this. The issue is very complex, but what I most recall is that the there exists a serious inbalance in the way the lower Mississippi sediment deposit mass balance that cannot be sustained.

In a new river the current is strong and this causes the flow to meander significantly in the XY plane. As the river gets old, the velocity slows down and the river tries to straighten itself out. After about 1000 years, the river bed will have relocated itself, were it not for man. Up stream (50 miles more or less), the Army Corp of Engineers is regulating the flow in the lower Mississippi in an attempt to trick the river into not rerouting itself again. Basically the port of New Orleans is in the wrong place looking forward geologically. The will of the river cannot be overcome by man indefinitely. The river will have its way. Man can only slow down the process. There is an agreement of the flow split at the regulating dam that Army Corp of Engineers uses to control the flow downstream of the control structures.

At this point, I am to lazy to go back and read all of these articles again. But I encourage readers to to so.

Another point of interest as a peeve. The problem (New Orleans) is a river sediment problem while in the Netherlands it is more of a "sea" problem. If only this concept could be recognized, better discussions could be had. Then of course there is a political aspect to all of this.

O.K. guys, stop fighting. I have framed the problem.

I went back and found what I consider to be the descriptive summary of the problem of how man is attempting to control the mighty Mississippi and the effects on Louisiana.

The reference is from John McFee's "The Control of Nature" excerpts reprinted in "The New Yorker". Link attached.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1987/02/23/1987_02_23_027_TNY_CARDS_000348555

At a point 300 miles north of the mouth, "in defiance of nature a navigation lock on the Mississippi's right bank allows ships to drop out of the river dropping some thirty-three feet before going off to the west or south".

But before the locks were built, the water at this point just poured out into the Atchafalaya River. For decades, more and more water spilled out of the Mississippi into the Atchafalaya than during the previous decade. By the 1940's the volume into the new river had approached one-third. The river was again rerouting itself.

Since the control structure was built here, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has attempted to prevent the river from rerouting itself. This is done by forcing water to flow into the "old" channel which is the Mississippi on which Baton Rouge and New Orleans are located.

Had the diversion structures not been put in place according to the article the result would be "the demise of Baton Rouge and the virtual destruction of New Orleans".

I am not going to try here in this post to highlight the issue entirely as this one article is 32 pages in length. The curious reader is encouraged to research this article and others to get a better understanding of these complex economic, social, and political issues.

I read the New Yorker article you've provided (Lunch Hour)(All 27 Pages)

Wow is that long. But really interesting. To summarize, three of the main problems seem to be:

1. The mouth of the Mississippi wants you divert itself to a new outlet, the army core of Engineers is preventing this from happening.

2. The buildup of levies has made it easier for the Mississippi to flood and there are few outlets for the flood waters to go. I found it interesting and ironic that they sold swamp land to fund levy building, which eventually just caused worse floods when those swamplands were drained and protected with levies themselves.

3. Since sediment is not being allowed to be deposited during floods, land in New Orleans that is sinking is not being replaced. Land that previously was a buffer between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico.

That's tough issues to be sure, but I also note that the core of engineers doesn't seem to believe they can't do it. They just seem wary of the potential problems. Seems prudent to me.

Solution Found

People of Venice have live with water in the streets for centuries.

Venice is located on an island within a lagoon located between two rivers the Po and the Peave, neither comparable by any means to the Mississippi. Although both suffer from destruction due to past storm surges they are not comparable. New Orleans may look more like Venice if we chose to let the Mississippi find a new path into the Gulf of Mexico. In this case the city is no longer in the path of the river and flooded streets could be manifested into a canal system.

Mississippi Discharge

572,000 cu ft/s (16,200 m³/s),

Po Discharge (1500 m³/s),

Data obtained from Google:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8l9dfXu8OgYC&dq=po+and+piave+discharge&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0

and Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River

Both are built on land formed from silt. Both of which the soil is sinking below the water levels around them. The Venetians just decided to keep building up. Living with water in the streets. The people of New Orleans as the land sank decided to build dikes. The only thing I see different is their methods to solving the same problem. How to reclaim the land as it sinks out from under them.

It can't be that bad to rip a quote from anchorman, "we agree to disagree"

New Orleans is fighting first a battle with a river and second the fight of submersion into the Gulf of Mexico. In Venice they may rely on the river to deposit sediment into the lagoon but they are't attempting to control the path of a river... Its like someone is on a boat with a harpoon hunting sharks and the other has a knife and chooses to swim with the catch of the day.

Too bad people weren't aware of the geology of the area when they settled there. The rive deposits it's silt when it slowes down and enters the gulf. As the silt settles the area rises then the river shifts to a lower location. Unabated by man, this creates a huge delta area. These areas are loaded with organics. Between them decomposing and the silt settling, the ground subsides and the river eventually comes back to the now lower area and deposits silt again thus keeping the land from ultimately disappearing as it does now.

Unfortunately all the land behind the levees is till sinking and everyone living there is in a hole that is getting deeer and deeper. Some areas are over 20 feet below sea level now.

They should never have built a single levee and no one should live in an area that is in a flood zone along a coast in a hurricane area. It is only a recipe for disaster and enoromus waste of resources.
Move everyone above the flood plan and let the river do it's thing. It will be far cheaper in the long run to relocate everyone than to continue to try and build higher and higher levees. Let the river renew the delta as it will provide protection for those further inland. Katrina won't be the last hurrican to hit the area. As far as getting bargages into the river, build a couple locks and raise the ships...alot easier than trying to lower the river...Da!

Some good points all round... post #1 is fine except the use of 'evil' is a bit strong...

The first guys who build alongside the river did it for good and obvious reasons it wasn't en evil plot to 'get those 21st century bastards'

What is missing is an actual 'plan'.

Say...for arguments sake...

Lets allow any industry which needs to be located there for reasons of geography, geology, access etc.
Support and protect that industry and infrastructure.

Do a similar thing for any historical or important areas of population.

Encourage the remainder to move out and use the vacated land as flood plain/protection extra waterways etc.

Ok I realise something like this isn't easy and can't be done overnight...but it would at least be a plan that was being worked towards. Everyone would know which areas were going to be protected (Hope fully decided on geographical grounds not race or wealth, although the two probably coincide due to historical influences......)

In the UK we have a plan...
It is the opposite of good sense... we'll build on the Thames flood plain when sea levels are rising!
Hope fully you guys could formulate a sensible plan!

Del

Why Del what a sensible suggestion! Must be from all those hrs of sunning & preening. Political & social momentum are hard to overcome.

I lived for a few years across the street from the London canal, in lakeview, it was odd to look across the street & see that the top of the levee was 8-10 feet above the top of the house.

Evacuating for a hurricane, is a relativly recent phenomena, standard practice was tape or board up the windows, stock up on your favorite beverage & have a hurricane party!

Just like anywhere else the best land costs the most money. The mostly lower income residents of the 9th ward, lived there because that's all they could afford & it's very close proximity to the central city.

Most of the old houses where built substansily off the ground, but of course this costs more. Shame on everyone involved for allowing standard slab as foundation, ground level buildings to be permited. Elevated, built on pilings structures fair much better when the enevitable big one's hit.

Maybe the local building code should only allow drydocked houseboat type construction?

Del - the "evil" remark was to poke fun at the rabid dog environmentalists who see any action of Man which affects the environment as bad. Also remember that the French who settled there were "evil" Europeans who were stealing the land of native people, so any results of what they did must also be "evil". LOL Just poking fun at the way some nuts look at it.

Have the same thing happening near where I live. There is a big flood plain beside a river which has been used as farmland. There is a sewer line running across it and the manholes are more than 20 feet above the ground. There hasn't been a serious flooding in years so big, rich, greedy developer buys the land and plans to build levees and a town there. Money is thrown at politicians who begin to support it and are willing to put the area within city limits until the people put pressure on them and they see reelection disappearing. So a small city across the river agrees to annex it across a county line and let it be built. Once finished though it will be the problem of that small city if there is a flood. Then they cannot afford to fix things, so two counties, the state and the federal government all become involved in relief and rebuilding, meaning all the taxpayers pay for it. The politicians and the developer have their money, so they don't care.

Once a place floods, rebuilding should be banned unless able to survive an even worse flood without damage. If the deepest flood is 12 feet then all structures must be 5 feet higher on solid piers or stilts or mounds of fill dirt with concrete or stone retaining walls. The old French Quarter of New Orleans is above sea level now and may not sink, but stop protecting the areas below sea level. Perhaps New Orleans will cease to be a major city over time, due to lack of room and the changes of Nature, so be it. Build a new port and a new city where there is no danger of flooding and listen to the geologists and those who study rivers when building it.

It may take a very long time for the sea levels to rise at less than 1/2 inch per year, but it doesn't make sense to build on any flood plain, anywhere. And if it is necessary to build there build the ground floor higher than any foreseen flooding plus a margin for worst case. But then who cares? The politicians and the developers will have their money and the taxpayers will be stuck with the costs. Guess where the power is since taxpayers won't or can't vote the idiots out or even stop them.

I agree with several of the comments mentioned above, we can't behave with ignorance nor can we control the evolution of the river. The worlds fifth biggest river is to large to live within human constraints. I believe the parts of New Orlean near 20ft bellow sea level wouldn't be the place for a redirected river. The higher portions of New Orleans may best exist as does in Venice. The new river route would most likely take place 50 miles or more up stream.

You know, 1,577 people died in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, and over 700 are still missing meaning potentially 2,300 people died from that hurricane in New Orleans.

September 11th, 2,974 people died. Why is it we've spent half a trillion dollars trying to "catch terrorists", yet nobody wants to spend any money to rebuild New Orleans?

Maybe I'm just a blame America first person, but that doesn't seem fair.

New Orleans future is in a political debate. People are worried about which districts are going to be protected from the rebuilt levees. the Army Corp of Engineers that researches the problem and gives probabilities that the rebuilt structures will withstand a category 5 storm surge are not accounting for the subsiding land under the dikes and have yet to propose a solution that would allow the Mississippi River to find a new course into the Gulf of Mexico.

Once the river is redirected catastrophic changes will impact the delta upon which New Orleans lives. I'd like to see some Venice like remnants of the city, rebuilt infrastructure around a new harbor and a new canal system to replace the several million dollars a year they pay to dredge the current path to Baton Rouge.

>>>>Why is it we've spent half a trillion dollars trying to "catch terrorists", yet nobody wants to spend any money to rebuild New Orleans?<<<<

How much money is enough to spend to catch and deter terrorists? How much money is enough to spend to raise and rebuild a ship (New Orleans) that has sunk?

When the Red River overflowed its banks in northern Minnesota several years ago, many folks lost their homes. If I recall correctly, the government (state or fed, I know not which) compensated the people for their land on the condition that they could not rebuild next to the river. I have not heard of this occurring on the gulf coast.

I, too, love the water and would like to live next to a river, but should tax money compensate me for my losses, if I am flooded out and my home falls into the river?

The issue is more complicated than that.

You have to factor in the costs of relocating the the businesses, some of which a vital to the continuing economic health of the entire country.

A very signifigent portion of the nations food, oil & chemicals flow through the port or are processed in the area. You must have people to perform these functions & the people need places to live in proximity to their jobs.

All new construction should have to meet more stringent building codes, similar to what has happened in earthquake prone areas.

Skeeter,

Have you ever been to New Orleans? It's actually quite dry, it was the massive storm surge of a category 5 hurricane that caused the devastation. That's called a natural disaster. You don't just write off a city because of a natural disaster. You act like we've had to rebuild New Orleans before. We haven't. This was a freak act of nature and those people need our help. It's no different than all the times San Fransisco has been rebuilt after Earthquakes. Actually it is different because that happens much more often.

I see you're from Montana. Do you realize you live next to a super volcano? Don't you see how foolish that is? Why do you live there?

Los Angeles is built in a desert next to a fault and is prone to massive earth quakes.
Las Vegas is built in the desert.
Washington D.C. is 1 foot above sea level and built on a swamp and susceptible to hurricanes.
Seattle is built next to Mt. St. Helens, a volcano that could do significant damage to that city.
New York City is barely above sea level and susceptible to hurricanes.

You know that we are supposed to have a 400 billion dollar deficit next year? Where is your outrage over that? In a year our National Debt will approach 10 trillion dollars and we as a country pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest every year. You talk about money being foolishly spent, but you basically give the government a blank check when it comes to defense(Your Quote "How much money is enough to spend to catch and deter terrorists?"). How does that make sense? Look, I don't care if you want to be fiscally conservative, but you're not.

You're one of the spend billions, save millions crowd. That' not fiscally conservative, that's just living next to a super volcano and acting surprised when it erupts.

To Roger Pink... Your personal attack on me is childish and insulting. I have filed a complaint to the moderators.

Looks much more like an observation.

What's childish & stupid is suggesting we abandon a major center of commerce & culture & defending the continued build up of the military industrial complex.

Skeeter if you check Rodger's profile, you might notice he works for Global Spec & is a well respected original member of CR4.

To Garthh...

You write just like any other left-wing loon, not unlike your buddy, Rodger(sic). What is truly frustrating to me is when persons, like you and Roger, impute to me comments that I have not made. I have not suggested that, "...we abandon a major center of commerce & culture...," nor have I defended the, "...continued build up of the military industrial complex." I don't understand why you think you must make things up just to flame me.

Your statements make no logical sense... Roger's profile and background have absolutely no bearing on his rude ranting. If anything, it should substantiate the cause of my revulsion to his condescending attitude. Your attempt to defend Roger reeks of the cheesy lawyer, who pleads leniency for his client, because the rape and murder of the 8 year old girl was his first offense.

Of course it might just be that neither of you can read and comprehend the English language. You, surely, lack critical thinking skills. If you and Roger think you are both "respected" members of CR4, it must not take much to earn that label, here. I suspect you are, once again, making it up.

You Wrote Earlier:"When the Red River overflowed its banks in northern Minnesota several years ago, many folks lost their homes. If I recall correctly, the government (state or fed, I know not which) compensated the people for their land on the condition that they could not rebuild next to the river. I have not heard of this occurring on the gulf coast.

I, too, love the water and would like to live next to a river, but should tax money compensate me for my losses, if I am flooded out and my home falls into the river?"

Then You Just Wrote: "impute to me comments that I have not made. I have not suggested that, "...we abandon a major center of commerce & culture...,"

You Wrote Earlier:"How much money is enough to spend to catch and deter terrorists?"(The implication being you can't put a price tag on it-RHP)

Then you Just Wrote: "nor have I defended the, "...continued build up of the military industrial complex."

You seem inconsistent in your statements, which are your actually positions?

Garthh,

Although I truly appreciate your defending me, I would appreciate it if you didn't mention the GlobalSpec thing. Only because I think we all have a right to voice our opinions and it should be the clarity of the comments and cohesiveness of our arguments rather than our backgrounds (Ph.D.'s, associated with GlobalSpec, etc.) that make our points. I feel like I've cheated in a debate if I use my position to enhance my argument.

However, in response to Skeeter, although you have the right to an opinion, I have every right to point out the holes and inconsistencies in it.

Skeeter,

What personal attack? Here is Your quote from comment #12 of this thread:

"James-I was just falling in with the "blame Bush for everything" crowd and attempting to point out that he did nothing to stop the hurricane, not its effects."

If you open the political Pandora's box, you can't act indignant if I respond in kind.

Still, to be clear, I don't have any personal animosity for you, I just would like you to respond to the fact that you live next to a super volcano. Why is it ok for you to live there and the people of New Orleans have to move? Why is it ok to rebuild San Fransisco but the people of New Orleans have to move? I think these are reasonable questions in response to your argument.

As for personal attacks, you have written

"You write just like any other left-wing loon, not unlike your buddy, Rodger(sic). "
"Roger reeks of the cheesy lawyer, who pleads leniency for his client, because the rape and murder of the 8 year old girl was his first offense."

You seem to be the one doing the attacking, which I understand, since your position on New Orleans strikes me as inconsistent.

Once again you have imputed to me statements that I have not made by misquoting me. This is sure getting old. I am left wondering how someone, like you, who is so cavalier in changing the facts can function in a day-to-day work situation.

Skeeter,

I quoted you exactly, I know because I copied and pasted the quotes from your earlier posts. Anyone can check, what are you talking about?

Roger... you wrote...

>>>>Skeeter,

I quoted you exactly, I know because I copied and pasted the quotes from your earlier posts. Anyone can check, what are you talking about?<<<<

Okay, perhaps your monitor is foggy or you need better glasses or you suffer from severe ADD, 'cause it's very apparent you need to check THREE TIMES before posting erroneous information, as you did above. You are making me feel like a baby sitter, who has follow a toddler around. Or, is that the game you are playing????????? If so, it is pretty childish.

Here is another quote from a previous post of yours...

>>>>"You act like we've had to rebuild New Orleans before. We haven't."<<<<

Of course this is factually incorrect, because New Orleans had be rebuilt following a hurricane in 1722, and again, following a river flood in 1849.

In yet another post you have stated that you don't consider yourself to be arrogant, but then post that, "I feel like I've cheated in a debate if I use my position to enhance my argument." That's why I referred previously to your false sense of arrogance, you have proved that you are truly arrogant, but don't admit to it.

And... you are completely lacking in any perception of relativity. You have challenged my choice to live in an area of volcanic activity, comparing it to the hazard of living in New Orleans. The reason I chose this area is because there has been no RELATIVELY RECENT volcanic activity; we don't have tornadoes; I don't have hay fever, here, like I did when living in Iowa; the nights are cool, during the summer; we have little snow in the winter; clean air; fishing and hunting abound; schools are top-notch; I could go on and on.

Have you ever been west of NY?

When someone attacks me I, usually, attack right back. Methinks you started the attack game, and apparently, the moderators welcome this type of diatribe. Come to Montana and I'll bust your nose. :-)

I respect you're gonna have a different opinion from me, but you don't go threatening people you disagree with. I won't be responding to any of your posts anymore. Up until this momment I was willing to debate with you, but now you've crossed the line.

Roger Pink

That's what I suspected... you are a yellow liberal.

but should tax money compensate me for my losses, if I am flooded out and my home falls into the river?

If the elected government is supposedly in charge of mainting the river chanel (the levees) then I'd guess the answer to you question is yes!

If the government is not charged with maintaining the river chanel, then you had better look after your own flood defences.

Hey, Del,

But, the levee(s) might have held up to what they were designed to do, were it not for the massive surge of Katrina.

BTW, I've not been aware that CR4 members flame other members, until now. Perhaps they imbibed a bit much on St. Paddy's Day; but it just drives a bloke like me bonkers when someone is so ignorant about the history of New Orleans that they make the statement that it had never been rebuilt before, prior to Katrina. Geesh!

I have the impression that you and I can disagree without being disagreeable. Wish it was a universal truth, 'cause it sure gets old, trying to rationalize with the irrational. Cheerio!

Yup..
I don't have an axe to grind... I was just trying to give an straight answer to a straight question....
I dunno who is actually responsible for the levees. If you gov't/local gov't/water authorities etc are anything like ours... then I don't s'pose even they know!

I absolutely never flame anyone (wot a fib)

Del

The US army corp of engineers & the local levee boards are responsible for the levees. The levee's were tall enough, substandard materials were used, ultimatly causing the failure. The problems were well known as long as 30 years ago. The river is actually a different problem. $22mil a year or a multi billion dollar project to construct a shipping channel, those are the choices. Expediency won out year after year. The age old problem spend a lot of money & fix the problem, or spend a little & stick a bandaid on it. Some of the $22mil is collected as user fees.

As to my political leanings "independant".The present administrations various international adventures & response to the Trade center destruction, show a lack of effective utilization of resources. Bad management!

The levies are flood control structures designed by the United States Army Corp of Engineers to keep the river within its banks. The levies are not designed to keep the hurricanes storm surges from leaving the river banks. That is not their purpose.

The river wants to relocate itself from the Mississippi to the Atchafalaya below the Old River Control structure at mile marker 315. Location = N31.0768 W91.5979. Consequently, in 1927 Congress mandated that this problem be contolled to save Louisiana below Old River.

Some felt before Katrina that the levies might survive a Cat 3 hurricane. Unfortunately, they could not withstand the Cat 5 storm.

Please refer to the attached plan for details.

I find great amusement with wikipedia's opinion regarding the fate of the Old River Control Structure.

"If allowed to flow free, the Atchafalaya would capture the main flow of the Mississippi, forcing it to bypass its current path through Baton Rouge and New Orleans. The likelihood of this event increases each year, and will eventually happen in spite of human efforts."

reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_River_Control_Structure

Obviously these are not the levees that failed during the storm surge of Katrina, but if the Old River Control Structures did fail you could imagine the current delta washing out and debates, of which district that was to suffer its fate, to multiply.

Shaun

More homework for you! Yes, the tail is not wagging the dog, or is it? Del, help me! Water, water, every where, and not enough levies. Yes, the Lake, the river, the storm, and the people need to come to some kind of a truce. Oh, also, Union Carbide, I forgot. Hey how come Biloxi was spared?

http://www.americaswetlandresources.com/background_facts/detailedstory/LouisianaRiverControl.html

• Bonnet Carré Flood Control Structure: When the water reaches a critical stage (it was originally designed to keep the Carrollton Gauge, located at the Corps of Engineers headquarters at the river on River Road, below the 20 ft mark - which kept the river 5 ft below the top of the levee), this flood control structure is opened to allow up to 250,000 cfs of water to flow into Lake Pontchartrain through the Bonnet Carré Spillway. It has been operated eight times (1937, 1945, 1950, 1973, 1975, 1979, 1983, 1997).

The Bonnet Carré Spillway in 1984. Note the guide levees on each side. The control structure is the obvious straight line on the river side in the photo. See the leakage of water running into the spillway? Lake Pontchartrain is at the other end.

I do confess I was not aware of the extent of infrastructure that has been put in place to control flooding in the New Orleans' River but, more or less used my comments as a way support my opinion that we are fighting a losing battle. These flood paths into Lake Pontchartrain allow for further destruction of the ecosystem. Several aforementioned articles go as far to attach certain flooding problems to loss of fresh water marshes. This of course is due to flood plains, canal systems, the MRGO and other waterways that allow saltwater to intrude the wetlands of Louisiana.

Partly, due to my education and brief review of the Mississippi River as a case study that Geology Professors use to prove that the humanity can not alter, prevent or change the fate of geographically isolated areas that are influenced by geological phenomena I choose to believe that New Orleans will fall. The stream gradient will be the pushing force that causes the failure of the Old River Flood Control Structures. Furthermore, the day the Flood Control Structures fail we will see catastrophic mud flows and erosion of vast parts of the flood plains of the Atchafalaya River. Post catastrophe repercussions will follow as the river delta washes away forming barrier islands and former waterways leading into Lake Pontchartrain will dissolve and become a part of the Gulf of Mexico.

Shawn,

In the long run, you're probably right. Ultimately it probably will be impossible to stop the Mississippi. You made a strong case when you illustrated the difference in flow between the Mississippi and the Po Rivers. Clearly, as much as we'd like to pretend, New Orleans is not Venice, and 100 years from now the major port may be Morgon City. Of course there is always the possibility that technology will evolve to meet the growing challenges. In truth we will have to wait and see.

Roger

So what's the solution? Do we open more flood plains to reduce the Mississippi during flooding? Do we build the levies high enough to withstand a Category 5 Hurricane? Do we accept that Category 5 Hurricanes hitting New Orleans directly are not that common and don't worry about it and maintain the status quo.

Having read you New Yorker article, I'd be interested in knowing what a proper solution might be.

I'm leaning towards better flood plains and higher levies myself, with a resilting plan during floods of the land around New Orleans, if possible.

Well if you read the excerpt from McFee's book in the New Yorker, you may conclude that it is necessary to balance many varied interests (fisheries, navigation, poor people, rich people, Big Oil, Federal, State, local politics). How can that be accommodated? Does Forest Gump's interest carry the same weight as Union Carbide?

The only constant seems to be the 70/30 split at the flow-control structure and even that is doomed to eventual failure. Time is another problem. For every move we make, the river gets to move. The river has the white pieces on the board.

What I took from the article is an event like Katrina has a recurrence interval of once in 500 years (a five hundred year storm) for instance. Perhaps toady, if we were starting from scratch, a more robust system would be designed given what we know today vs. what we knew during Eisenhower's Administration.

OTOH, if cost matters maybe you move the river (this requires moving N.O. and Baton Rogue).

Let's read more and learn. Let Shrillery and the other guy do the name calling.

You Said "OTOH, if cost matters maybe you move the river (this requires moving N.O. and Baton Rogue)."

Or just encourage it to switch outlets and let Morgon City become New New Orleans. I hear the tariffs in Old New Orleans are too high anyway. We'll give the crawfish fisherman more water, and the shrimpers less at the same time. We'll increase the flow so that New Orleans water supply doesn't turn brackish and decrease it so Morgan City can survive.

I've never been so glad I'm not a civil engineer in my entire life.

Civil engineers are doing what they were told to do by the United States government. Preserve the status quo that existed in 1950 forever. Go back and read some more. This was a political choice, not a technical decision.

Hey, you just gave me an idea. Al Gore isn't doing nothing now. Let's get him on the case! Yea, that's it. My friend, thank you. I gotta go now, Al's on the other line.

Funny, I must have read a different article, because what I read was that the levy system grew organically for the first 150 years of New Orleans. That the expense was carried by the landowners who were expected to build and maintain the levies, which proved a disastrous policy, even when they made slaves within 7 blocks help when the levies broke.

The article stated that when the expense became to high for the land owners, the government stepped in. Unfortunately the governments solution was to sell off swampland to raise the funds for the levies, land where the Mississippi spills when it floods. Of course the new land owners drained the land and put up their own levies which took away a significant flood plain for the Mississippi, effectively undoing the good they did with the additional money raised for the levy through the land sales. No doubt they were too afraid to tax, which would have avoided the swamp drainage problem.

The article also points out that the system has worked, repeatedly, for 50 years now (though admittedly there have been close calls), so if the government is so bad, why did it take a 500 year storm to mess things up? A storm some feel doesn't warrant government disaster relief money? How does that make sense?

As for Al Gore, I think he's busy educating people regarding climate change. Of course, some people aren't interested in actually learning, so they ignore news stories like this:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2008/gb20080317_185668.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories

And

The problem seems to be that the "Katrina" event was caused by the "levies". Much to general for meaningful follow-up.

Which levies? That is the first question. There are levies all over the state. Some are those that have to do with the Control Structure at mile 315.

You are discussing "levies" that predate these. Fine. We have levies that where built by evil landowners using slaves as well as other levies built by evil government using Irish immigrants. Which ones you talking bout boy?

Some levies were designed after the Mississippi began to reroute itself most recently. These were built in conjunction with the Flood Control project at mile 315 as described in the article and shown on the plan.

Which Katrina event? That is the next question? The storm surge or the river over-topping its banks. Or the Lake over-topping its crest? Dozen of levies, one failed. We don't know which one. The Mayor running around claiming George Bush "blew up the levies". Crazy talk.

Also, this article is not by any means definitive or sole-source. There are hundreds of articles on the subject. I mentioned it as one that I found interesting. Did you come to the part which discusses Colonel Shrieve's cut?
Gosh, they named a whole City after this dude.

I am disappointed that this discussion hasn't gained any traction as a engineering success or for that matter engineering failure yet.

I know that at LSU, there are students and faculty that have knowledge to share on the subject. Let us hope that some will contribute to this discussion.

I agree with you that Bush didn't blow up the levee. The boom they heard was probably the sound of the levee breaking, I'm sure it was louder than they would expect.

The engineers did the best they could, and that was damn good. The government had been warned previously that New Orleans couldn't withstand a strong hurricane, but decided to ignore the warning as an unlikely scenario rather than take it seriously. I understand why the decision was made, but there is only so much infrastructure cuts you can make before it starts to catch up with us.

You'll find this interesting, here is an article written about the danger, before Katrina hit.

http://hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/phillyinquirer100804.htm

Here's a select quote "It's possible to protect New Orleans from a Category 5 hurricane," said Al Naomi, senior project manager for the Corps of Engineers. "But we've got to start. To do nothing is tantamount to negligence."

That was written one year before Katrina.

Thanks for the link Rodger, that is certainly a more comprehensive explanation.

Here's an excerpt:

The other part of the equation - restoring wetlands - is a bit further along, but marshes are still disappearing much faster than they are being created. Wetlands are vital for many things, including fish and wildlife; as a hurricane buffer, they act as a sponge to absorb the storm surge. Four miles of marsh can absorb about one foot of surge.

About 1,900 square miles of Louisiana coastal wetlands, an area the size of Delaware, have been lost since 1930. At least 70 percent of the loss is blamed on human activities, such as flood levees and oil and gas pipeline channels.

The spillway is also used to lower the level of the river above the city, protecting the midwest.

Just catching up to the most recent posts, The levee's that failed were far south of the mile 315 Control Structure, which is a no brainer as that location is no where near New Orleans. Failure took place along the banks of the MRGO and as far south as canal street. Wikipedia is a good resource, citing the given failures.

resource:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levee_failures_in_Greater_New_Orleans,_2005

Wrong. Please refer to the figure in Post #41 showing that the control structure includes levees over the entire reach from the control to the mouth.

I apologize i thought you were referring exclusively to the mile 315 Old River Control Structure. The series of dams located there are in my debate whether it is economical or not to leave them in place. It still seems to me the Army Corp of Engineers are fighting a losing battle.

FYI the term control structure describes a structure that prevents the river from diverging its current path and evading another waterway... e.g. Atchafalaya Rivers or Lake Pontchartrain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_River_Control_Structure

The Levees are river banks that keep Canal Systems, the MRGO, or other parts of the Mississippi from flooding. The series of canals running through New Orleans and the MRGO had levees that failed during the storm surge of Katrina in 05'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levee

Thank you. Please do not feel it necessary to send Wiki pages FYI to me. I am a hydraulic engineer with a Master's degree. These articles may be interesting to causual readers. I find them self evident.

I apologize for not taking the time to find a better reference. Just supporting the ideas and opinions of this geology major. Have a great day.

No offense taken. I need to get the point across that the river controls the delta through sediment deposits often sourced from hundreds of miles away. If you think otherwise you are going to have a very difficult time as a geologist.

What should be obvious is not today with 24 hour news cycles, Wiki taking control over the minds of our youth. Good luck in your career!

As I geology major none of my previous research ever used Wikipedia as a resource. I am also well versed in estuary as well as river dynamics. The human induced changes to the estuary have allowed salt water intrusions to devastate the marshes. In the long run we can not control the sediment transport of the Mississippi River. Amidst the dredging, the basin is subsiding, and along with deposition of sediment throughout the estuary the stream gradient is decreasing.

Have we concluded that the control structures are not mere levees and that we are in fact losing the battle of sediment control? Yes, we would lose the existing delta if and when the Mississippi redirects itself. A new delta will be created as the existing delta washes out. I believe this is why I made the correlation of New Orleans future to that of Venice.

Yes, the river controls the delta and man thinks he can control the river, or can he?

Ok, Shawn. You are forgiven. But, you have to promise me that you will never use Wiki again to advance your arguments. Surely there are books that you use in your studies.

As far as conclusions go, yes. The river will win in the end.

I need you to figure out how to save Nantucket Island. Where did that glacier go? Back to get more sand. The island has less than 700 years to live and the next glacier is not due for another 15,000 years. Please provide a solution for me ASAP.

Um, also, aren't you doing name calling by calling Hillary Clinton "Shrillery"? I appreciated your New Yorker article but really is "Shrillery" necessary? Hillary Clinton is a rather intelligent person.

Well trying to suggest that New Orleans is as safe as some of the areas that roger has suggested is at best a personal opinion. As for putting money into New Orleans versus spending trillions of dollars on war, its a debate of where the money is better spent. I by no means deam Katrina a freak accident. New Orleans, as it is today, is prone to fail. Re-directing the river without complete evacuation of the city could be more deadly than Katrina and is one of the reasons why it has not been suggested. I think people will wait for that natural disaster to happen on its own.

What about the fresh water marshes in New Orleans? Accounting for the majority of US fresh water marshes they are decreasing in size at a significant rate. the MRGO Mississippi River Gulf Outlet has been the scapegoat for this destruction and its replacement along with redirecting the Mississippi River is part 1 and 2 to my solution. At least we would save 22 million dollars a year currently spent to dredge the MRGO.

reference:

http://www.ccmrgo.org/

Shawn,

I wasn't suggesting New Orleans is "safe". I was trying to point out that other cities are located in dangerous areas prone to natural disasters as well. It seems inconsistent to rebuild San Fransisco with government money yet deny New Orleans the same privilege.

Wow, yet another personal attack.

You Wrote: "Perhaps they imbibed a bit much on St. Paddy's Day; but it just drives a bloke like me bonkers when someone is so ignorant about the history of New Orleans that they make the statement that it had never been rebuilt before, prior to Katrina."

Please, help me in my ignorance. When was the last time, before Katrina, that New Orleans had to be rebuilt? I look forward to your answer.

Your apparent false sense of arrogance leads me to believe that you are beyond helping.

Skeeter,

You Wrote "False Sense of Arrogance....."

So you believe that I believe myself to be arrogant and you want to reassure me that I'm not. If that's the case then I want to assure you that I don't think I'm arrogant, I'm just one of the old fashioned Americans who develops an intelligent and informed opinion and then expresses it. Thanks for letting me know that you don't think I'm arrogant, I appreciate that. So many simply avoid the facts that I present by attacking me personally. Glad to see you don't go that route.

Your new liberal friend,

Roger

There is a big difference between something done intentionally by people that causes great damage and loss of life and an act of Nature. I suppose your name fits you politically too. You compare two totally unrelated things and think they should be judged in the same way. We can do something about the "terrorists" which will be very final for them. We cannot realistically do anything about Nature except struggle until Nature wins.

For anybody actually interested in facts, here is the real situation in New Orleans.

A yearlong topographic and demographic study of New Orleans arrives this month like the latest installment of the television series "MythBusters" -- and may forever change the notion of the Big Easy as a below-sea-level city.

"Contrary to popular perceptions, half of New Orleans is at or above sea level," according to the study by Tulane and Xavier universities' Center for Bioenvironmental Research.

Yep, half.

And if you want to cling to other myths, such as Monkey Hill at Audubon Zoo being the highest spot in New Orleans, avoid the study's author, a celebrated research professor who years ago went house-hunting in Bywater with his wife, Marina, toting topographic maps.

"No, Monkey Hill is not the highest," said Richard Campanella, leaning over to review elevation data captured by LIDAR, a precise light imaging detection technology, to support his point. "It's 25.4 feet high; a hill in the Couturie Forest in City Park is 27.5 feet."

In the study, data captured with LIDAR from 1999 through 2001 were used to identify the heavily populated areas in the New Orleans area that are at and above sea level, replacing impressions with facts. The study excluded sparsely populated parts of the city, like the Bayou Sauvage.

"Innumerable media reports following Hurricane Katrina described the topography of New Orleans as unconditionally below sea level," the study notes. "This oversimplification is inaccurate by half, and its frequent repetition does a great disservice to the city."

http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/04/study_bust_myth_that_new_orlea.html


Of course, why let facts get in the way when you want to not help people who suffer a national disaster right? I mean, blaming the victims is much more satisfying.

Reflections from my new found knowledge of New Orleans...

I question if draught and fluctuations of the depositional patterns within the estuary will factor into the next catastrophe in New Orleans. This of course preceding unprecedented rainfall or tropical storms could prove deadly. It's always an oversight of a potential key factor that contributes to failure of humanity's solutions.

My reflections may be at best theorem, but until this happens or another storm surge threatens the cities future please join me in my new post where we will discuss the future of Houston.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/5256/Houston-We-Have-a-Problem-Our-City-is-Sinking