Odd comment - abandon New Orleans?!?!

[PurplePotato]

So I was talking to an annoying co-worker this morning (you know the type, *knows* everything but really doesn't have a clue about most things) and we were discussing the damage from Katrina. This is what he said:

"We should just abandon New Orleans and let it sit there as an abandoned city. Throughout history people have abandoned civilizations - that's what we should do now."

:eek:

I was furious. So we're just supposed to let New Orleans and the other gulf coast communities sit there, deserted??? I'm like, sure others have done that in the distant past but that's not what we do now. We rebuild and move forward.

I didn't know how to respond without getting into an argument. Any thoughts?

[Canice]

Walk away. You aren't going to win. That's about my only thought on it.
There are always those who either, as you say, have all the answers or figure people get what they deserve.
I remember after the earthquake in '89 one of the columnists for the Chicago Tribute wrote that the feds ought not give a penny of aid because "they choose to live there to enjoy a sweeter orange and a deeper tan". So basically the same thing - the area should be abandoned. (and yea, San Francisco, home of the sweet orange and the the bronzed populace :rolleyes: )

[Grace]

As much as that's a dumb thing to say, I do have to admit that I've wondered why some people choose to live in a place known for natural disasters (that are GUARANTEED to come at some point - not just a chance they will happen), and in a city on the ocean that is 12 feet below sea level. I keep wondering what do they expect will happen?? I'm not even sure why insurance companies insure property in such places. :confused: And of course, there's always the argument that the rest of us (via Federal subsidies) always end up paying for the choices other people make.

Since living in such a place is not something I would ever, ever do, I can't understand it. So perhaps that's where the goofy comments stemmed from. But that's not to say there are no good reasons to stay there, just because I don't know about them.

[Gilgamesh37]

Sorry but a friend and I were discussing this the other night and really feel that it may be a viable option, at least for some areas. Even when the water recedes, you're going to have a completely contaminated environment (everything's been covered in sewage-filled water with dead bodies floating in it and who knows how long it will take for cleanup, you have to figure on some decomposition--not to mention snakes, vermin and of course the South in late summer--hot, humid, full of mosquitoes, flies, etc) and clean up costs of....I can't even imagine. And New Orleans still presents all the engineering challenges it did originally. It may be fiscally a better choice to abandon some parts of the city.

[slknight]

As much as that's a dumb thing to say, I do have to admit that I've wondered why some people choose to live in a place known for natural disasters (that are GUARANTEED to come at some point - not just a chance they will happen), and in a city on the ocean that is 12 feet below sea level. I keep wondering what do they expect will happen?? I'm not even sure why insurance companies insure property in such places. :confused: And of course, there's always the argument that the rest of us (via Federal subsidies) always end up paying for the choices other people make.


Yeah, I said something to DH last night about what a terrible disaster it is, and he said "Well, that's why I would never live there. It's stupid to live in a place like that below sea level." :eek: It came across as really uncaring when he said it and I was a bit shocked. He is generally a pretty caring guy, but you've got to admit, he does have a point.

[blazedog]

This is a complex situation as there are valid arguments to be made though not of course in terms of New Orleans because it is a city that has existed since the early 18th century -- and as a pact we owe to our fellow inhabitants of this country (and the world in other disasters) help must be extended to rebuild in some manner -- it's critical to their economy and the entire US economy as well as just plain right.

Most parts of the US are prone to some kind of natural disaster -- should people abandon the midwest because tornadoes come through regularly?

On the other hand, ecologically there are certain types of property that should never be built on -- i.e. barrier islands because historically they are SUPPOSED to shift. Not only are enormous sums expended on keeping the sand there but from an ecological point of view, by building up sand artificially in one area, it creates problems for other parts of the shoreline which is supposed to shift and build.

[rburganmckinley]

I actually wonder too why people choose to live in disaaster prone areas. There are some areas along the Missippi that flood regularly and people just rebuild. Hugh? How does this make any sense? It's just going to flood again... My DH's grandma lives in Missouri near the river. A few years back after a flood an entire town said the heck with it and uped and moved the entire town out of the floodzone. The old one still sits there and is a ghost town, kinda creepy. So, "abandoning" cities (albiet this was a very small town) does still occur when it really just doesn't make sense to rebuild there. In regards to New Orleans this probably wouldn't be practical. But I did hear mention on NPR that the amount of Toxic waste flushed into the city by all the flood waters (not talking about raw sewage waste, more like the toxic stuff from industry) could do some very real, permanent damage to the soil (and therefore the population that chooses to rebuild there). Can you imagine an entire city turned into a superfund site? I really don't think I would choose to stay there.

[lindrusso]

Abandon certainly is a strong word, but you do have to wonder whether it's wise to keep rebuilding in areas like this. New Orleans has been lucky up until now, but it's always been a disaster waiting to happen.

I imagine that it's expensive to get flood or hurricane insurance in areas like this, but people build anyway, without insurance. Then a natural disaster strikes and the government and many others spend millions or billions of dollars to bail them out.

Of course it's sad and of course everyone should have the right to live wherever they please. But at what point do we say enough is enough?

I have no answers. I love many of the areas that are in these inevitable disaster zones and I can see why people want to live there and maybe it's even worth it to many in the end. But I also can see why others would say enough is enough to continually bailing out people who choose to build in these areas.

[jmarie]

Never having been there, I can't say. But I think when you have been somewhere all of your life, your relationships with others, your family...especially with older folks. Well, I can see why they wouldn't want to move.

We have ice storms that will give us power outages for a week at the most, but we have somewhere we can go, as do most people in this area. We don't have to travel hundreds of miles from home, like these displaced people have had to do. My heart goes out to those who couldn't afford to go somewhere to get away or didn't have the means.

These people need our prayers and resources right now. That is really all I can think about.

[Kayaksoup]

Most parts of the US are prone to some kind of natural disaster -- should people abandon the midwest because tornadoes come through regularly?


Valid point. I wonder how people would feel if it was their home that was being talked about. I live in a potential disaster zone. But I would rather face earthquakes than bugs, excessive heat, tornados, hurricanes, excessive cold, blizzards and flooding. But that is just me.

[greysangel]

I too have no answers. But I guess that part of the problem with people thinking there is a quick solution is that where do you draw the line? People shouldn't live in california because of earth quakes? Shouldn't live in NYC because it's a terrorist hot spot? Portugal is having a major crisis right now with gigantic fires that they cannot get control of...should someone tell all the Portuguese people to relocate?

sorry I'm just upset right now...i love new orleans ...its history, its beauty, its charm, its hospitality, its architecture..it's like no other place in the U.S. :(

edited to add: my honeymoon was there. we were stuck there during 9/11 and only the kindness and generosity of the New Orleans people was what got us through 3 extra days away from home with no money left, stranded pets, and 36+ hours on a greyhound to get home.

[generic]

Well-said, greysangel. Maybe we should just abandon planet Earth because it's so risky being mortal?

[Beth]

No matter where you live, there will be natural disasters, and the more nature provides interest and enjoyment of the area, the greater variety and scale for potential natural disasters. Also, keep in mind that most of our major cities began 150-200 years ago, and they began where nature provided access for travel and shipping. And nature has provided a lot of changes, and science has provided a greater understanding of them. We've learned how to build to take the predictable into consideration, knowing that we still have older buildings at risk. People stay and try to be prepared, no matter where they are. Sometimes it's not enough.

New Orleans has it system of levees and pumps, but every major city along the Gulf Coast has seawalls or some form of protection because of potential storms. It's not just being below sea level, it's also the magnitude of this storm. Even though it was not a category 5 when the bulk of it came ashore, Katrina was a very intense storm from the beginning. Look at what it did in Florida when it was barely more than a tropical storm. That rating system we hear about only rates according to the highest sustained winds at the center of the storm. How much impact a storm has involves so many other factors -- the physical size, the speed at which it moves (whether it moves a taller wall of water or whether it stalls and dumps rain over a longer period fo time), the intensity of the wind gusts, the number ot tornadoes spawned from its landfall. No matter how much of that we try to anticipate, we still can't provide for everything, we can't control nature or the ever changing nature of this earth. We like to act like we do, but no place is immune. Nature is harsh.

[Beth]

sorry I'm just upset right now...i love new orleans ...its history, its beauty, its charm, its hospitality, its architecture..it's like no other place in the U.S. :(

edited to add: my honeymoon was there.

New Orleans has a special place in my heart too. I was first there when I was about my son's age and loved the charm of the French Quarter. I went there for spring break in college, and met DH there when we were living 1700 miles apart. I had been thinking of wanting to go back. It will be so different if we get to. The loss of life and property would be devastating anywhere, but I fear for the loss of history and culture that may go with it.

[bobmark226]

New Orleans has it system of levees and pumps, but every major city along the Gulf Coast has seawalls or some form of protection because of potential storms... No matter how much of that we try to anticipate, we still can't provide for everything, we can't control nature or the ever changing nature of this earth. We like to act like we do, but no place is immune. Nature is harsh.

Aside from the fact that the larger part of the much-needed National Guard is presently deployed "elsewhere," it will be interesting to see the fallout when the panel to study this disaster sits:

It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.
-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

Bob

[ChristineVA]

On another board that I frequent, there is a similar thread going. One of the posters gave a very lengthy description of the history of New Orleans with regard to the Mississippi River and all the money they have spent to redirect its natural flow to keep the area "going." Basically, it is a losing battle and each time there is a flood, more money is spent to contain the river. This redirection has caused abnormal silt deposits on the land, causing some areas to sink. It was very informative.

Now, having bored you with all of that, I have to kind of wonder if we aren't going through too many heroics to keep this area viable? I mean we can make comparisons about California and the earthquakes and the midwest with its tornadoes; however, I don't see us spending big bucks to try to "bolt down" California so it won't shake during a quake or construct huge domes over the Midwest to stop tornadoes. Essentially, that is what they have been doing in New Orleans because of their below sea level location and because the Mississippi River WANTS to go through their area.
Christine

[Beth]

Bob, I don't think I can quote your signature line, but it made me chuckle in a sad way. I saw the former mayor of New Orleans making a pela for more federal help this morning. He was saying he thinks there may still be 80,000 people trapped in the city, and with 2 levee breaks and a third threatening, he said without the federal resuorces, we could lose the city and we could lose those who are still there. The storm is gone, but they are still racing the clock and rising water. If they lose the battle, GWB will never live it donw -- forget the war in Iraq. You lose 80,000 people on your own soil --that becomes your legacy. Politics goes out the window, and no one wants you or anyone connected with you in charge.

I just hope the former mayor's worst fears are never realized, but my heart is with the people of New Orleans and their families, not the politicians.

[Beth]

Christine, there is no doubt that what is rebuilt, not just in New Orleans, but all along the coast, will look different than it did last week. Not just levees, but also shorelines moved the length of a couple of football fields, etc., and then adding the benefit of what we have learned and what we can differently as the rebuilding begins. That will add to the difficulty and the time needed to recover.

[Beth H]

This is a great article from today's NY Times about the lure of living in New Orleans, despite the possibility of destruction from a hurricane:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/nationalspecial/31charm.html?ex=1126756800&en=a018e817c5f0f924&ei=5087

[Sugar]

I can understand choosing to live in a disaster prone area - take a look at Holland - almost half the country lies below sea level.

People are not going to move out of these potential disaster areas - this is where their heritage is.

But what I cannot understand is people choosing to stay and ride out the storm - especially when there is a mandatory evacuation order.

I live in Canada - just an hour away from the Mountians - so there is lots of back country hiking / skiing. - The rule is - if you choose to go into a back country area or an area that has been 'closed' - and you get into trouble (which happens a lot) and you need to be air lifted out - you pay for the air lift. So if I was an American and it was my tax dollars paying for all these people that choose to ride out that storm - disobey a manadatory evacuation order - then I would be mad - when is the government going to put the stop on this and make people responsible for their actions.

Don't get me wrong - this is not a perfect solution - some people have no vehicles to get them selves out - so what do you do about them - I am sure someone would have a solution at some point in time.

[Beth H]

But what I cannot understand is people choosing to stay and ride out the storm - especially when there is a mandatory evacuation order.

I think unfortunately most of the people who stayed in New Orleans were those who did not have transportation to leave (or who were medical or other emergency personnel who could not leave). If you don't have a car, and Greyhound wasn't running, how do you get out?

If NOLA is rebuilt, I think future evaucation plans probably will include sending buses for the elderly and poor ahead of major storms.

[blazedog]

I can understand choosing to live in a disaster prone area - take a look at Holland - almost half the country lies below sea level.

People are not going to move out of these potential disaster areas - this is where their heritage is.

But what I cannot understand is people choosing to stay and ride out the storm - especially when there is a mandatory evacuation order.
.

Complex issue again -- However, 80% of the population of New Orleans did evaculate -- incredible considering that means 1/2 million people (approximately) up and left within hours to parts unknown.

As to those who stayed, the city of New Orleans has a lot of very poor people -- they don't have cars and even if they have cars, they don't have sufficient credit to get food and lodging or have friends at safe locations to take them in.

Others in the parts of Alabama/Mississippi chose to stay for a variety of reasons as there the destruction was limited to the coastal areas -- probably hubris in most cases but those people aren't the ones who are causing the problems since unlike New Orleans, there is mass destruction caused be the hurricane but the typical dry land after the hurricane passed. In New Orleans, things were basically okay DURING the hurricane but the levees couldn't hold back the water AFTER the hurricane.

[Beth]

I've been asking myself similar questions about the preparations and evacuations, but looking back, there are some other lessons.

Weather forcasters seemed very sure of themselves about the track Katrina was going to make. They kept talking about the turn to the north, but it came later and lesser than the majority of the models were predicting. I don't think folks in Louisiana were really watching this one.

Also, Saturday night, Katrina was still a category 1 storm. We woke Sunday morning to a category 5, and Sunday afternoon, we were looking at 175mph sustained winds. I hate to think what the gusts were. They were measuring 40 foot waves out in the gulf as she approached. The magnitude was staggering, but the warning was not that great -- much less for the area hardest hit than we are used to with the improved forecasting we have now. We have to remember that forecasting is not an exact science. It's really scientific guessing.

There are the issues of poverty, transportaion, etc. But even with a much, much smaller sotrm, they always tell folks to have AT LEAST 3 days worth of fod, water and other emergency suspplies. I wonder if folks did that. It's hard for everyone to do that in less than 24 hrs. -- it can be hard to get the word out to everyone in less than 24 hrs. Think about the people who watch cable TV, but no local news or channels that have no news, don't read the newspaper, listen to CDs, but not the radio --and they weren't at work on Sunday. Our media technology is changing, and emergency preparedness is going to have to take that into account.

[Beth Y]

It will be interesting to see how FEMA handles this. Ya'll may recall we had devastating floods here in NC after Hurr. Floyd. FEMA's position was that if you were in a flood plain, they would not give you money to rebuild on the same place, at least not so that your house could flood again. They either bought your property or made you build up. That is, they weren't going to spend money for loss in a flood prone area twice. In that N.O. is always flood prone, how could they handle this?

[syzygy]

Just heard that the president will be holding a news conference today @ 5 PM regarding this disaster. Also was reported that when the mayor of NOLO was asked about potential loss of life, he responded "in the hundreds, perhaps thousands" and that they won't be able to have a good handle on numbers for many days yet. Also something about many dead bodies in attics. :(

[CompassRose]

I'm trying to remember the details... but curiously enough, sometime earlier this year, I remember listening (during a long drive) to a discussion panel on CBC about this very thing. The one person in the discussion was talking about the history of New Orleans and the levees, and saying that in fact whatever HAS been done to control flooding was somehow a politically leveraged option, and not the sounder choice from an engineering perspective.

I agree, it's a bit dismissive to say "they shouldn't live below sea level." After all, they've been doing so for over two hundred years.

It is going to be very grim, though, when the waters recede. :( I've read a lot of novels set in New Orleans (not just Anne Rice either) so I have a kind of "Quarter of the heart"... it's lost now I guess.

[Couperine]

I lived on Lakefront NO for 5 years, and I'm amazed that so many people did get out of the city. While many of the larger cities in the South don't have truly viable public transportation, the greater NO area had widely used public transit that on a day to day basis certainly did not have a fleet capable of transporting the entire bused population at once. I'm wondering how all those evacuees are doing since it's unlikely they get to return anytime soon.

I cannot imagine rebuilding the city like we knew it; the poorest parts are surely uninsured, and NO proper has a huge huge proportion of poor people. I doubt that many of these subsistence level people have the financial cushion necessary to weather a disaster like this, and from watching news reports, some of them are acting in ways that I expected them to be doing. It's not like New Orleans has a crime rate to brag about; when I lived there, it was averaging over 1 murder per day. I'm sure even the tourist books told you there were definite areas NOT to visit.

I'd be interested in finding out more about the suburban areas of the greater NO area on the West Bank and westward into Metairie. Some areas on the west bank weren't considered as being flood-prone with very minimal flood insurance costs; perhaps these areas will get more business growth as NO rebuilds and relocates to safer areas.

Personally I always thought the idea of living in a city where you had to have levees to keep the water out was a really bad financial risk. There was always street flooding with every rain, and though I loved how beautiful the lakefront area was, there was no way on earth I was staying in NO to raise my family since the public school system stinks and the costs of trying to raise a child in a nice safe neighborhood with a good school are too much at the income level we were at the time.

The costs of clean-up are so enormous I cannot imagine any insurer ever covering businesses in the future. I hope that the businesses that thrive from being located at a port and having access to the natural resources in the Gulf can rebuild in a safer area, but to rebuild in an area that is basically a giant bowl seems a really bad risk in terms of life and property.

That being said, my heart bleeds hearing about the personal suffering of so many of these people. I've watched news reports on and off all day while hugging my baby close, imagining the horrors that the people in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are facing, and being grateful that it didn't happen to my family and home.

Nancy

[mbrogier]

I believe different sources have stated that this is the first time NO has actually had a direct hit hurricane in recorded hurricane history (over 100 years). I think it is a bit premature to say that you can't believe someone would live there or want to rebuild when in fact, the area hasn't had much hurricane damage in comparison to other areas of the US (Florida, Texas--Galveston has been battered several times). As others have stated, there are different weather threats in other areas, and you just can't live your life wondering about the "what ifs". People that live in hurricane prone areas pay enough in insurance premiums to cover any damage they have, the government isn't bailing everyone out all the time.

Also, you wonder why people don't leave. With every storm, there is a mandatory evacuation. You pack up your belongings, get on the roads that become parking lots, try to find somewhere to stay, and then deal with coming back. 3 or 4 times of that with no damage at all will make you a little jaded. When a storm like this comes along and becomes so dangerous so quickly, people may not realize that they really do need to leave for this one. It isn't like there are different warning levels that correspond with the magnitude of the storm. Then there are the people that don't have cars or a way to leave town. Everything isn't as cut and dry as it seems in our nice dry houses with electricity and running water.

[mcgee]

Aside from the fact that the larger part of the much-needed National Guard is presently deployed "elsewhere," it will be interesting to see the fallout when the panel to study this disaster sits:

It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.
-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

Bob

After seeing Bob's post I did a search. Here's an interesting article. Perhaps some of the destruction could have indeed been avoided.

From Infoshop News
Wednesday, August 31 2005 @ 04:35 PM PDT

When the levee breaks
Wednesday, August 31 2005 @ 11:21 AM PDT
Contributed by: arch_stanton

When the levee breaks

by William Bunch

It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.

-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.

This picture is an aerial view of New Orleans today, more than 14 months later. Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city and the sun is out, the waters continue to rise in New Orleans as we write this. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until until it's level with the massive lake.

There have been numerous reports of bodies floating in the poorest neighborhoods of this poverty-plagued city, but the truth is that the death toll may not be known for days, because the conditions continue to frustrate rescue efforts.

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. (Much of the research here is from Nexis, which is why some articles aren't linked.)

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to this Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness:

The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes.

The Lake Pontchartrain project is slated to receive $3.9 million in the president's 2005 budget. Naomi said about $20 million is needed.

"The longer we wait without funding, the more we sink," he said. "I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about $5 million. And we're going to have to pay them interest."

That June, with the 2004 hurricane seasion starting, the Corps' Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:

"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don’t get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can’t stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn’t that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can’t raise them."

The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

The 2004 hurricane season, as you probably recall, was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane- and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs. According to New Orleans CityBusiness this June 5:

The district has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects are included in a Corps line item called Lake Pontchartrain, where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. Naomi said it's enough to pay salaries but little else.

"We'll do some design work. We'll design the contracts and get them ready to go if we get the money. But we don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem," Naomi said.

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:

That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount.

But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said.

The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach. The levee failure appears to be causing a human tragedy of epic proportions:

"We probably have 80 percent of our city under water; with some sections of our city the water is as deep as 20 feet. Both airports are underwater," Mayor Ray Nagin told a radio interviewer.

Washington knew that this day could come at any time, and it knew the things that needed to be done to protect the citizens of New Orleans. But in the tradition of the riverboat gambler, the Bush administration decided to roll the dice on its fool's errand in Iraq, and on a tax cut that mainly benefitted the rich.

And now Bush has lost that gamble, big time. We hope that Congress will investigate what went wrong here.

The president told us that we needed to fight in Iraq to save lives here at home, and yet -- after moving billions of domestic dollars to the Persian Gulf -- there are bodies floating through the streets of Louisiana. What does George W. Bush have to say for himself now?

[Kristilyn1]

while I agree, that the "abandon" idea is probably simplistic---I think it's unfair to label it as stupid and the harebrained idea of some idiot. If we are going to build and live in area that is so obviously hard to inhabit--we need to either "do it right" or get out. Also, how much should the federal government spend to allow people to live in an area that nature so obviously does not want to be inhabited? How many poor people in NO do you think can live in shelters with no work and no money, for how long? How many will be able to recover financially? Ever? It's not just the buildings and the expense of it----there are many other issues that aren't as simple as slapping the houses back up and business as usual.

I think it's safe to say we all have to agree that there is SOME point at which we need to stop spending money to live in area, right? We just seem to disagree on how much is enough. Either way we spend billions of dollars, I just hate to see money wasted. In terms of displacing families with roots to an area, take a look at the late 40's and 50's and the Army Corps of Engineers---they have displaced thousands of homes and families with their flood plain projects--whole towns ceased to exist. So it's not like it's without precedent.

Kristi

[Melman]

After seeing Bob's post I did a search. Here's an interesting article. Perhaps some of the destruction could have indeed been avoided.



Thanks, mcgee, for posting the whole article that Bob referenced. How very interesting and informative.

[VictoriaL]

Here is a link to a commentary which I heard on NPR's "All Things Considered" this evening. Very insightful from an LA resident (it's in an audio format, no reprint was available)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4826792

[Beth]

It looks like some of the folks are going to be looking for jobs here in Houston, at least for now. I'm sure that's true in many other towns. Some may return, some may stay, some may leave for other parts of the country.