Crossposted from DailyKos.
Now that the level of destruction is clear, I question whether it make any sense to rebuild a city in the gumbo bowl that New Orleans sits in now.
Each year we have hurricane’s that strike the coasts of this country, and wipe out the half-million dollar houses out on the barrier islands. Does it make since to have public policy in this country that encourages construction on barrier islands and other temporary lands by not making the millionares who live in these houses pay the full cost of building on a barrier island?
It’s not like the idea that building on ephemeral coastal lands is a new idea. As the bible says:
Not a new idea at all.
And as the rebuilding of New Orleans begins, instead of rebuilding the city as it was, at constant threat from the sea because of the area’s geography, maybe relocating the city to higher ground needs to be explored as an option.
As HollyGreenDem points out after the 1993 Mississippi floods relocation was an option
The truth is that the whole Louisiana coast is rapidly turning to sea
Rebuilding New Orleans with higher seawalls looks a lot like sticking a finger in the leak in the dam.
Louisiana accounts for 80 percent of the nation’s coastal land loss, with rates ranging between 25 and 35 square miles per year. Over the past 50 years, more than 1,000 square miles of Louisiana have crumbled and turned to open water – that’s an entire football field every half hour. Some of this loss can be blamed on the levee system, which has channelled water and sediment into the Gulf of Mexico instead of depositing them on the coastal wetlands.
The construction of an extensive levee system along the Mississippi River from the 1950s to the 1970s, with the goal of maintaining navigation and reducing the flooding of adjacent homes and businesses, has prevented the coastal wetlands from receiving their regular nourishment of riverine water, nutrients, and sediment, a diet critical to wetland survival. These regional impacts are exacerbated by other hydrologic alterations that have modified the movement of fresh water, suspended sediment, and saltwater through the system. Canals dredged for navigation, or in support of mineral extraction, have allowed saltwater to penetrate into previously fresh marshes. The current regulatory climate, along with improved technologies, prevents similar problems today; however, the damage already done continues to render local areas less able to combat subsidence and more susceptible to saltwater intrusion.
According to the Louisiana Department of Resources Office of Coastal Restoration and Management, if the current land loss rates continue unabated, by the year 2050, Louisiana will have lost more than 527,000 acres of coastal wetlands. That means that the Gulf of Mexico will move inland more than 30 miles, and New Orleans and other coastal cities will be open to the full force of Gulf weather.
Thank you very much for this link. I needed those explanations.
May be the question should be:
“Can we build New Orleans at the same place AND restore wetlands” or
“Should we try to tame nature or should we adapt to nature?” or
“Should you tame the Mississippi River and the coastal wetland with a levee system?” or
“Does the Army Corps of Engineer need to “redo” and “rethink” their levee system along New Orleans and the Mississippi River?”
Feeling like a lost puppy, so many questions, so little expert answers.
Mimi — I read your diary “over there” and was really, well , not really suprised at the reaction you got — you may want to link to it (using the permalink of course, so no one has to seee the comments) — i think you made a lot of good points that would be relevant to this thread!
Actually, I am just too annoyed and I would rather promote this site for the excellent coverage here. I have erased the diary over there, because it doesn’t make sense to keep it.
you need to fix your title.
I think you’re right. Late night blogging kills the spellcheck in my head……
Thank you for an extremely important diary; I’d recommend it 10 times if I could. This is the vital question that we should be facing up to, but we won’t. The wise choice would be, of course, to design the rebuilt New Orleans for as little conflict with nature as possible – in the long run, it’s the cheapest thing to do. Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers, the construction industry, politicians on all levels, and the public who haven’t gotten it through their skulls yet that rebuilding a city on a site below sea level, protected by artificial (and not uniformly well built and maintained) dikes, and increasingly at risk since we’ve spent the last half-century destroying the coastal floodplains that helped protect the city, is sheer madness. But it’s the kind of madness that appeals to Mr. Bush and his allies. A chance to look heroic which choosing the most foolish options available.
One can only hope for the insurance industry, of all places, to inject some rationality here by refusing to insure such a ludicrous site for a city. But I’m not holding my breath – Lisbon was rebuilt after the 1755 earthquake and tsunami, as was San Francisco after the great earthquake and fire of 1906.
Speeches will be made about the need to carry on, the indomitable human will, the culture and history of this place. We are, after all, talking about New Orleans – with all that means for the American imagination – not Akron (not to pick on Akron; I’m sure it’s a lovely place, really…) People will not want to think that some good old urban planning might reduce the need for steely indomitable human will in the face of the next hurricane. How many people called out for a reassessment of our foreign policy after 9/11 to make us less hated? And how were those comments received by their countrymen? I don’t expect a sudden bloom of wisdom in our countrymen, unfortunately.
So I predict, with sadness, that the city will be rebuilt on the same spot – except for the poorer sides of town; they’ll be given the cold shoulder, given the chance for epic-scale gentrification of an entire city. And with that New Orleans will lose some of its soul; it will be the Disneyland version after a Bush reconstruction; safe for the whole family to revisit. No more of that licentiousness on Bourbon St., nosiree! We know the wrath of god ™ when we see it.
And so New Orleans will go on, like San Francisco, Key West, and various other spots around the world whose charm is only intensified by the knowledge that their continued existence depends on a roll of the dice.
Life went on along the Mississippi and Missouri after the floods of 1927 and 1993; when there’s money to be made in a spot you just rebuild and hope you don’t have the dice come up snakeyes again too soon.
Maybe I have a hard heart, but I find it hard to be totally gut-wrenched, as this was clearly predicted to occur eventually. I’m just left with a leaden sadness in my heart because it could have been avoided if we’d only live with half an eye towards nature… But instead we as a species seem to find it piquant to poke nature in the eye and tempt the fates, so I’m sadly sure that we’ll continue to rebuild in these spots as long as our finances hold out. When our economy can no longer allow it, we’ll admit defeat by nature, as other empires have in the past when finally forced to… pride cometh before a fall, and all that.
For nature always wins in the end; even with all our science and engineering we are left humbled and awed by the power of a single hurricane, and the 2005 hurricane season is only half over, folks…
to anyone who can provide the description of the San Francisco fire from the book Even Cowgirls Get the Blues.
The whole city evacuated to the hills where they met the native Americans. The Indians couldn’t understand why the white people went back into the city to rebuild it after such a clear message from the Gods (or Great Spirit) that it was a bad place to live.
to supply the nation with energy?
Maybe it’s just my situation right now, as a refugee in Baton Rouge, but fuck, easy for ya’ll to say about not rebuilding. Louisiana has been supplying part of the nation’s energy for a long time, as well as being a port for goods and services. Part of the reason, a big part, that the wetlands are eroding. Guess you won’t have a problem if we continue to supply ya’ll with energy. Actually the millionaires aren’t going to have a problem relocating elsewhere. Mark my work, it will be the poor who will want to return. It is all they know and all they have.