Did Rebuilding New Orleans Make Sense?

Importance of the Morganza Spillway

The Washington Post reports that the Army Corps is faced with a choice, a choice where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't....

...Do you cause a flood that would drown the livelihoods of central Louisiana farmers and fishermen, or let the high river roll and frantically sandbag 200 miles of levees to try to prevent flooding in the state’s two biggest cities, Baton Rouge and New Orleans

Over and over again the same mistake of rebuilding along the Mississippi and even the City of New Orleans that lies below sea level is repeated; knowing full well a few decades later or sooner they will be rebuilding again at a huge cost.

Is ignoring the fact that history teaches us this will happen over an over again a wise choice to make, or does it show how illogical and well, stupid it really is to continue this way?

None of this is new and it will most certainly continue to be repeated in the future. Lives are destroyed, generations of building destroyed and in the heart of a country who's land is mostly vacant. I just can't come to grips with the wisdom of ignoring nature and the events like this known to repeat every few decades and sometimes more often.

How many times can this happen before we make wise choices, instead of emotional choices based on what amounts to lunacy. Everything will be rebuilt and this forgotten. Building barriers to prepare for the next floods will be discussed but the money will never materialize as other things take center stage. Then this will happen all over again and the whole country will pay yet again. Why?

I'm from down there, and my dad and mom rebuilt their houses after katrina. I wouldn't have, I think its kinda dumb to build when your under sea level. (my mom's house is around 15 feet below sea level. lol)

The problem isn't a lack of good levees, the problem is the levees themselves. Since they have been put up, the mississippi river can't flood and deposit new land sooooo.. Everything just sinks and the land starts to disappear.

Maybe one day humans will learn.

Then again the port of new orleans is very big to the economy i reckon.

it has to be some sort of mental illness. why do people living in tornado alley rebuild their trailer park for the 11th time in 15years why do we rebuild places in florida or texas that are smashed now and again by hurricanes i get the harvest of resources aspect of some of these places like oil, fish, oily fish what ever but the masses that stay and somehow seem suprised by their place being destroyed

reply to post by Blaine91555


New Orleans is important to retain because it's a port city and entry point to one of the world's most commercially active waterways. It was also the main motive for the Louisiana purchase. As for rebuilding, the same can probably be argued for many areas - earthquake zones, volcanic zones, tornado alley, etc.

Originally posted by freakshowfatty
it has to be some sort of mental illness. why do people living in tornado alley rebuild their trailer park for the 11th time in 15years why do we rebuild places in florida or texas that are smashed now and again by hurricanes i get the harvest of resources aspect of some of these places like oil, fish, oily fish what ever but the masses that stay and somehow seem suprised by their place being destroyed

Have you ever read the motto of this site?

reply to post by Blaine91555


By this reasoning, why should we rebuild anything that is built below sea level?

I mean, it's just going to flood, eventually, right?

Like another poster stated, it's an important port, and a very important historical site as well.

I wish people would leave that city alone, it's had enough misery to last for awhile.

reply to post by cleverhans


I recognize that, but beyond the Port Facilities that could be protected far easier, what's the point in large urban populations? Throwing good money after bad over and over again is certainly not the answer.

The problem is that it's not just the residents who keep rebuilding only to be wiped out again, it costs us all in the end. The flood insurance is guaranteed by the taxpayers and when there are disruptions in supplies it drives costs up for everyone. Not to mention the money we pulled out of our pockets to help them. Many of us gave until it literally hurt. Some up here gave some homes and jobs. Why? To do it again?

Nobody talks about the simple fact they should have rebuilt more wisely. The government never will out of fear of loosing votes. Mother Nature won't change and will just keep sending floods that way.

It's not a comfortable topic, but it needs to be discussed in a real manner and an adult manner. Not in a I was born in that house that floated out to sea and I demand the taxpayers rebuild it for me, just because way.

reply to post by Signals


You see the historical argument is actually an hysterical argument. Build in a location that floods, simply because it was done before?

As to the Ports, that could be dealt with, without the urban population there. In many cases just a few miles away would be safe.

History does not excuse the insanity of building below sea level in a country, as I mentioned, where the land is mostly unpopulated. I find the historical argument foolish on it's face. I've lived in two cities where while arguing over the historical significance of an old movie theater just like hundreds of others all over the place, they collapsed and settled the argument. In Pocatello, Idaho after raising millions to save an unused old theatre, a minor windstorm brought it down almost killing people.

The importance of history should be in the lessons we learn, not in protecting fragile old poorly built structures just because they are old and irrelevant. It's just people trying to preserve what was while suffering from some form of melancholy about losing their past.

Look at what happened in Spain where a moderate earthquake that should have done zero damage killed people. Why, preserving old failing buildings for historical value I was fond of a giant stuffed Easter Bunny when I was a child, but I did not keep it after it's ears and eyes fell off and the stuffing came out because the thread was too old.

The tornadoes are something we can not prepare for or predict, but these floods we know for a fact will happen over and over again. Rebuilding becomes insanity at some point.

reply to post by Blaine91555


All of your points are correct, but this has nothing to do with logic.

It's about people and their homes. Some of them 3rd, 4th generation, whatever.

You wouldn't start this thread if we were talking about your hometown. Then logic goes out the window!

And who are we to decide which areas are rebuilt after tragedy and which are not?

reply to post by freakshowfatty


I can't think of many places that are not prone to natural disasters really (maybe denver?). Its just a part of living on the planet. I prefer hurricanes above all cause you actually have like a week sometimes to prepare.

I can understand that some people don't have the money or resources to move out of those areas. But for the people that do, I'm sorry but I don't feel bad for them. It is insanity. Like if you know you're going to get burned walking into a fire don't walk into it! If I was living in an area that got hit by a tornado or hurricane every single year or every other year and I had the money or resources to leave you bet your sweet @ss I'm gonna move away from there! my .02

reply to post by Signals


I certainly understand that and I'm empathetic to that. When we let emotion rule our decisions we begin making wrong decisions.

Perhaps a reasonable medium exists. Protect and reinforce a small historical area, but move the population to a safer location. The costs would certainly be much smaller. We simply cannot move the Mississippi or even pretend we can control it.

I know it's easy for me to say, not living on the banks of the Mississippi or on the Delta myself. But perhaps those living there have to many blind spots from emotion.

I did not expect people to agree without discussion and pragmatic thought.

Where we go in the future, who knows?

reply to post by kimish


In my mind, the solution would include a one time sacrifice by all US Citizens to make it possible without hurting innocent people with no other choice. It would be far cheaper than dealing with the cyclical floods.

I think the way people build is also a problem. People build too permanent. I could live with a nice Tee Pee on a slab and if another storm came I'd just pack up and move, and come back when the water went down. Of course noone thinks like that these days. Everything must be built to last, even though nature is in a permanent state of change.

reply to post by mayabong


True, but those are unpredictable. The floods are very predictable and will happen over and over again. We know where they will happen before they do happen. Even so we continue to build in the locations where we know the floods will happen. I see it as quite different.

Originally posted by mayabongMaybe one day humans will learn.

For humans to learn there has to be action then consequences for that action. As long as the government insulates people from thier own poor chioces there will be no change.

Action: Build cool house below water line.

Then the person has a choice but its a small one...

Action: Buy government flood insurance

Action: Don't buy goverment flood insurance

Action: hurricane

Consequence (with insurance): government rebuilds house on beach at taxpayer expense because the premiums collected in a lifetime would never cover the cost of one minor flood event to a major metro area.

Most private companies don't offer flood insurance because it would never make money...

Consequence (without insurance): Govenment guarantees a low/no cost loan at taxpayer expense regardless of the ability of the person to pay and the house it rebuilt.

Now if people had to actually pay out of pocket to rebuild every time there was a flood there would be very few houses along the coasts and inland waterways...

Originally posted by mayabong
I'm from down there, and my dad and mom rebuilt their houses after katrina. I wouldn't have, I think its kinda dumb to build when your under sea level. (my mom's house is around 15 feet below sea level. lol)

The problem isn't a lack of good levees, the problem is the levees themselves. Since they have been put up, the mississippi river can't flood and deposit new land sooooo.. Everything just sinks and the land starts to disappear.

Maybe one day humans will learn.

Then again the port of new orleans is very big to the economy i reckon.

edit on 12-5-2011 by mayabong because: (no reason given)

Your points are some of the best here. The Levees themselves are the problem. Subsidence has occurred in the last century because of the levee's. No new sediment, no new land. The "land" underneath is just mud. It has packed down. When a truck passes the houses the "mud" shakes like a small quake.

I lived there for a decade and I know the dangers. I have many friends that are there right now half scared out of their wits because it might happen again. I left in Dec. 04 right before Katrina. We were all in denial that it would ever happen. We were wrong.

I know for a fact, that where the levee broke at the 17th Street Canal, they were doing repairs to the bridge that crosses into Metairie. there was a construction barge moored right there for a couple of years banging against the retainer wall. I have a feeling this is what caused the catastrophic failure on that side of town. I never heard about it on the news, but it was there, right where it broke. It does not take a genius to figure that out.

I saw the statements about rebuilding in disaster zones. The whole country has disasters. If we took that mentality we should all just live in tents as nomads. On that, a lot of my friends say they will not return if it happens again.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8a01b047dc7a.jpg[/atsimg]

Unfortunately I do not really see a way out, you cannot raise the land again. The levees are old and weak.

reply to post by mayabong


We would get along. My happiest memories where while in a remote cabin working for a mining company and living off the land. I'd be perfectly happy in a Motor-home tooling around the country if I had the means. I just drove by a used one for $100,000 going to the bank which caught my eye. Home is where we are, not some geographical location.

I think the idea of moving to people who have been in one spot their whole lives is more due to fear of the unknown than anything. The history is just a convenient excuse to use to convince themselves. But then I've traveled with my work and my business my whole adult life and only now am I learning to put down roots. It's all in what we are conditioned to be by our environment.

reply to post by timewalker


My prayers are with your friends and what they are facing. Thank you for the great information. I do not hold the people responsible, but it's clear the government is only interested after the fact to save face, rather than dealing with it in advance as they should.

I don't envy those in the linked article that have to decide who gets flooded. They will not win, no matter what.

Originally posted by timewalker

I saw the statements about rebuilding in disaster zones. The whole country has disasters. If we took that mentality we should all just live in tents as nomads. On that, a lot of my friends say they will not return if it happens again.

In defense, the other natural disasters are not predictable and can not be defended against. This is not the same at all. The flood plains are known and mapped and the floods can and will continue to happen over and over again. I see that as very different.