Corps can't do it right unless Congress gives them the bucks to do it. They are doing the best they can with the money they get. Don't know if there is enough money to do it right.

I hear what you say, tibs. However, here's the thing. Why is no one in the Corps of Engineers saying "we're not being given the money to do more than this....and we're not even sure New Orleans is even a viable city anymore" ?

How immensely sad. It's heartbreaking, but burying our heads is the silt can only lead to even more heartbreak.

I remember seeing a news special several years before Katrina. The Corps of Engineers were explaining that the levees were in very bad shape and would never make it through a major hurricane and were begging for money to fix the levees right and they were ignored. It was an hour program and showed all the damage and mistakes that were made.

I wish i could remember which chanel it was on. I think it was PBS. But am not sure.

I guess I don't like slipshod work, regardless of the excuses made. If they were truly short of money, I think they should have repaired correctly whatever they could, and then said something like "if you want the rest done, you're going to have to come up with $X, to pay for materials and labor."

As it is, the work appears to be similar to a sullen teenager's floor sweeping: at a glance where you walk looks okay, but nowhere else has been swept, not even to using the dustpan. The "angelcake" levees are a reflection of -not low standards- but apparently a total lack of standards as well as a disregard of basic safety and engineering issues. I do not believe that every last person who was on the repair crews was ignorant of their no-quality work; that no one had the basic decency to speak out is shameful indeed. Perhaps someone should have insisted that the repair crew's families take up residence beside each repaired area - those barriers would likely have been much better made.

Apology in advance for the followintg rant.

And what section of the levee would you have had the corps repair "right"? Damned if they do and damned if they don't. I have worked in public works infrastructure for many years. Our federal governmet for several decades have ignored the needs. Every year the Society of Professional Engineers grades al the infrastructure, roads, bridges, water, sewer, dams, levees and they all get a failing grade.

If you tell the people of New Orleans your city is not worth saving, you are considered a racist because most of the population is african american. I cannot understand the commments that the government is racist because you are not letting us move back in ward nine, the area hadest hit cause it is the the most vulnerable. Wouldn't letting people go back in this must succeptable area be genocide? Hey let the poor folk move back in for the next hurricane.

Also the Port of New Orleans is one of our top international ports. It did not suffer much damage. Are you going to move that too?

It is very political. I hope the disaster relief and repair goes faster in the Kansas town. A much smaller scale, but not as much politcal corruption, cronyism, etc.

tibs ~ I agree it's a very political issue, but another devastating hurricane is likely, and -assuming we contribute directly to the charity that helps clean up -that makes it personal. I personally do not want to tithe again to assist those made homeless because poor or worse "repairs" failed under expectable conditions.

Actually, I really had not considered that racial issues were involved. I'm not being snide, but is that supposed to be an excuse for poor repair work? I do not see "angel cake" levees as an issue of skin color, but instead as an issue of expectations. The whole world is looking at the quality of workmanship which Americans appear to accept. Those shoddy N.O. levees indicate that the people directly involved in the repairs either knew nothing about following engineering directions, or obeying laws, or using basic good sense; or else they were sure that no one would care enough to hold them culpable. The guys driving the trucks that dumped that sandy soil are not so much to blame as the job supervisor who accepted it and the 'inspector' who passed it as being okay.

My sympathy is for all those who have lost loved ones, homes and neighborhoods because of Nature's devastating strength. This does not mean I think they should expect others to support their desire to return to an unstable and/or unsafe area -especially one which looks likely to endure repeat performances of destruction- simply because that was where they had previously lived. It's pretty much common sense that if you live in an area which is prone to hurricanes, then you should do everything possible to make sure the effects of the next horrifying hurricane will not destroy your world. That doesn't equate to accepting unstable levees as sufficient.

Sad all in all. well stated tibs. We should never settle for the very best work for the great people of this great country.

Meldy, when I first moved to Tennessee from California, people would sneer at me and ask why I liked it where I'd lived before since it "had so many earthquakes". I could just see them, envisioning us walking to school on shaking ground day in and day out, not the reality, but the perception. I soon came to realize, that in Tennessee, tornados were no fun, or the occasional flooding, or ice storms to which we're prone. And how about the crippling fires in some parts of the nation or blizzards I get to avoid living where I do? So just where are we going to live we're not affected by mother nature?! I'm not trying to pick, just wonder why such a down thought on hurricane country? They're not dumb for living there, as that would make us all dumb for living where inclement weather occurs.

settle for anything less than...

rob333 - I didn't mean I was down on those folks who live in hurricane country. After all, *I* live in the east coast hurricane belt, and it's a lovely place to live as long as one accepts the potential weather and uses basic common sense in dealing with it. :-)

As you point out, people live all over the country and are subject to various types of inclement weather. N.O. differs from most of the USA in that many residents are dependent upon the levees and dams to protect them from some of the consequences of the intemperate weather which occurs with more rather than less frequency. Being dependent upon city-wide, city-provided dams and levees is a different situation from an individual insulating a house well enough to protect from blizzards or building high enough to escape flooding.

The residents of New Orleans were [and are] dependent upon their government to protect them [via levees and dams] from being overwashed with sea and/or lake water. Thus, I AM down on on those who think it's okay to "repair" a vital civic necessity in such an irresponsible way that the necessity is likely to be damaged or destroyed during locally common intemperate weather and thus cause harm to the residents -- and yes that means I am down on all those who were involved in the doing and approving of those so-called repairs to the levees in N.O.

I'd ask you to look at this from a different point of view. Engineering can be a wonderful thing but we must make some wise decisions concerning it's use. The 40's and 50's were a time when the Army Corps of Engineers had a heyday of projects including the "engineering" of the Florida Everglades. Their "solutions" caused major, major problems and we are now spending billions of dollars to undo all the work and reestablish the natural flow of water through the Everglades.

We've been to New Orleans many, many times and I'll never forget the first time I saw that levee holding back Lake Ponchartrain. I said to myself, "There's no way that can be a good idea because whatever man can construct, nature can destroy" and in my experience water will have it's way regardless. To see all those homes built under that levee was nerve wracking.

You state:

"The residents of New Orleans were [and are] dependent upon their government to protect them [via levees and dams] from being overwashed with sea and/or lake water"

That is not totally true. The entire city of New Orleans is not in danger of being flooded, just those areas which were built on reclaimed swamp land (the low spots between Gentilly Ridge and Lake Ponchartrain) and some other low lying spots that were never inhabited before the "engineering" began. And, you can build a strong levee for sure, but if you think about it repairing a damaged levee is a big challenge.

So if the Army Corps of Engineers can properly repair the levees what happens next? Would there be a developer who would risk building on this land because what bank would finance this? And what insurance company would insure those homes?

I don't know if you were around in 1965, but Hurricane Betsy caused catastrophic flooding in all these same areas. The insurance companies stated there were more vehicles damaged in that flood than any combined events.

What seems to be playing out on a large scale is what happened nearby on a small scale. There's a waterway nearby known as Salt Creek. It would flood it's banks every 10 years or so and flood the homes built on it's banks. The government and insurance companies would help the families rebuild and ten years later they'd do it all again. Finally, someone with some common sense said, "Enough". The insurance companies refused to insure and the government said, "We're out of the house restoration business". They bought up all the land and changed the zoning so that no one could build upon it. It should have never been zoned residential in the first place.

New Orleans is suffering from some unwise decisions to allow development on unsuitable land that was made "suitable" on the basis of engineering. It's sad for those who made that place their home and they have suffered for decisions made in the past, but now local & state goverment is being called upon to make some common sense decisions.

The area below Lake Ponchartrain should probably never be redeveloped and that's the reality.

I recall bits and pieces about the 1965 flooding, but I think there were not nearly as many people involved at that time. Wasn't it after that time, that the levees were raised to 12'[?] and the engineers were protesting that those would not be sufficient for more than a category 2 hurricane; they thought 15' should be a minimum height. I suppose I really remember most not understanding why people *wouldn't* make their homes as safe as possible.

I agree wholeheartedly with decisions not to permit residences in unsuitable areas. I can't say that a requirement for flood insurance is a red flag to development because I have neighbors with houses on a hillside, 70-90 feet above a very small stream in a deep gully who must pay for flood insurance. Yet, even the time we had 14" inches of rain in 24 hrs didn't raise that stream more than a few feet above bed-level, nowhere near to "flood" and only a dozen feet closer to those houses than normal. But flood insurance elsewhere? Why hug trouble?
Why choose to live or work in a hurricane/flood area which is now known to be insufficiently protected?

Yes, I've been in the Lake P area several times, and each time was amazed of the nonchalance that permitted so much construction in what seemed to me to be an area with an exceedingly high potential for disaster. OTOH, it seems to be my nature to consider the possibilities of consequences -- I wouldn't live in a house that had sole access via a flight of steps because I could visualize how easy it would be to fall while climbing ice-covered treads. Many people do, and apparently without problem.

If you build on a flood plain, you're going to have flooding no matter how high you build the levees. In fact, increasingly higher & higher levees only exacerbates the ultimate problem because if causes the river to dig deeper channels that cause it to run much more swiftly. Under increased pressure from flood waters or hurricanes, the river will not only overtop a levee but will actually start to drill (for lack of a better word) underneath it seeping water to teh other side & causing sand boils that will eventually explode into raging streams of flood waters.

While I am no fan of the Corps of Engineers, seeing how they have botched several major projects along the Missouri/Mississippi rivers in Missouri & Illinois, one cannot lay the blame of incompetence solely at their feet. The City of New Orleans shares an equal amount of the blame for running their Levee Boards in the most corrupt way possible for the past 70 to 100 years.

I would take exception to the idea of New Orleans not being a "viable city" as a whole. And I say this having seen a fair bit of the damage, which is still hugely evident and hugely wide. They do still need a ton of help, and I hope they get it.

I thinkit was Hurricane Alice that did a big amount of damage in Texas. Houston, I think, but not sure. The town used FEMA's voluntary acquistion program (they pay 75%, local gov pay's 25%) of nice residenial neighborhoods. Those areas are now all parks. If it floods, noblody loses homes, and the repair/replacement cost is less for paths and ball diamonds, not buildings. Unfortunately, many times the local government can't come up with the 25% share and all the cost of staff needed to adminisiter it and it is a voluntary program. I hope that New Orleans will consider this for some of the areas that are really in danger if flooded again.

The big floods of 1993 along the Missouri & Mississippi Rivers had the same effect. A couple of the little towns along the Mississippi that were completely inundated relocated themselves higher up on the bluffs above teh river.

I don't think that anyone will completely give up on New Orleans because the port is so important.

I don't think anyone has to give up on New Orleans as a whole. I do think re-building and new construction should be hurricane-proof and above flood-level. It isn't a case of "maybe sometime" another high category hurricane is going to blow through the town, it's a case of "when", with the prognosis being for sooner rather than later, along with concurrent dam and levee failures. Those levee failures are going to make the destruction so much worse than need be. However, this time no one is going to believe anyone who claims "I didn't know it could happen."

It would be interesting to hear a little more comment about the personal responsibility aspect in this thread. From all sides.

{{gwi:157641}}

Elias, I can't get photobucket. Now I'm leery about saying anything - which is probably a very good non-action for Friday p.m.

leaveswave ~ whose aspect? or d'you mean what are our opinions of the personal responsibility that was or was not taken [by whom]? Personal responsibility for what, when?

I am going to go indulge in some non-action, now.

There are several processes at work in and around New Orleans more than a propensity for hurricanes and low ground level. These factor very much into how or even whether money should be pumped rebuilding a large area of it.

The city sits on a tectonic plate and it is slipping out to sea. Period.The weight of the sediments deposited in the delta are just speeding up the process.

Then there is the issue of the sea rising. Then there is the issue that the ground is sinking for several reasons. One is that the city was constructed on sediment, it's compacting. Secondly, both water and oil have been pumped out of the ground there both on and off shore.

The levees are also constructed across a fault line. Faults move sooner or later. It doesn't take but a very small amount of movement to make one fail.

And lastly, if we believe in the global warming theories, storms shall continue to increase in intensity.

It's been suggested that if we return a large part of this area to wetlands, it may help to retain the integrity of the delta area. That's a winning situation and a move toward a solution to the dilema. It seems that the money spent constructing the types of levees needed could be better spent to relocate the inhabitants in new and safer areas then design an ecologically sound wetlands where they once were and need to be.

Lous'ana 1927.

Unfortunately anything we decide to do will be nothing but an experiment and the outcome will not be known until time has passed. Or, it might never be known. Too damn many unknown attractors and all that. The real world is not a laboratory where one can conduct a controlled experiment.

Breath in, breath out, move on.

LOL,Well,I guess that's one way to handle a problem when it seems insurmountable. Ignore it . Reminds me of that experession of the early 70s usually used when high on weed...' Man,just chill out.'

Here is a link that might be useful: chilling out

Well, there are two kind of people who fret over this. There are the knee-jerk liberals who emote all over this and in the end do nothing constructive. Then there are the quiet ones who who give money, time and effort in order to do something constructive. I reckon each of us known who were are.

I don't understand that attitude. Are you saying that there aren't any liberals who gave money, time, effort? The money and the time and the effort given by individuals went to help other individuals and I don't think those qualities necessarily know a party ticket.

I also don't think those people, private or in government who think technology should be addressed in the ultimate decisions of where our taxes and public indebtedness should be spent follow party lines either. I don't even see this situation as a political issue, although you can take it to the bank it has/shall evolve into it. It's an humanitarian and economic issue and how it is handled affects every person in this country in some respect.

I like to see a good dose of Laissez-faire in our freedoms but given what is known now about engineering and geology, compared to what was known when this city was growing....ignoring the probabilities and especially the eventualities would be criminal.

Suzy, You make some good points about non-Hurricane pressures on the city on New Orleans.

And Michael, in 1927, New Orleans dynamited the levees and inundated St. Bernard's parish that st the time was populated mostly by rural trappers. Not the city's finest hour.

As for dissintg liberals, I think it was the people at the other end of the political spectrum who ignored the aftermath of Katrina.

Liberals might not have been the best chose of words to convey what I wanted. When I think of the appropriate word I'll let you know. But I don't much care what people think who are so removed from the problem. Distance and comfort wise.

You mean anyone outside Louisiana?

How far is far enough to be "removed from the problem"?

We aren't removed emotionally; even if we had no personal friends or relatives in that city, New Orleans is part of our national heritage. Can you imagine jazz without Bourbon Street?

And we aren't removed financially, whether one chose to ignore the disaster or tithed to help those in need, a great amount of money came directly from our pockets as well as indirectly from the taxes we pay.

Or perhaps we ARE "removed" in that we are now more able to look upon the issue dispassionately. I can cry for the homes, people, pets, gardens, memories that were lost in those floods. But I can also say, That's Enough. Don't let it happen again.

I guess Meldy you're not understanding that the French Quarter and most of the historic districts in New Orleans are not in imminent danger of being flooded - only those areas that were built below Ponchartrain in areas that were previously swamps. And it won't happen again if the decision is made to return the land to wetland swamp. The misery of the recent loss would only be compounded if deverlopers were allowed to rebuild, setting up a recipe for another disaster.

One other thing I'd like to mention is the fact that the current and former mayors of New Orleans had the dire predictions, scientific studies and calls for action on their desk for YEARS literally gathering dust inches thick. My friend is a reporter at the Times Picayune and they constantly harped and wrote stories and expose's. The local government had a "let the good times roll" attitude and never pressed the federal government for action. The feds don't usually hop-to unless there's a fire lit under them.

Very good observations, Suzanne and from what I can see totally to the point. This isn't all "FEMA's" baby by any means. You can find the development nightmare in any community if you look closely enough. Our's is dealing with landslides from cutting into hills in desireable areas to build. Well, gravity won. LOL. It's a lot simpler to design in safety than to retrofit it. Cheaper too.

If you took all the money it would take to make a very temporary (even a hundred years is very temporary) levee, sure to fail eventually, and just put it into decent housing for every family who lost one in a safe community, and instill rigid development standards and codes for any new development, you'd nip the next disaster proactively.

New Orleans is just the beginning. All of our seaboard cities are facing similar dilemas and sooner or later we'll have to face each and every one of them and I don't think any economy in the world has the money to do it. Sobering again.