If funds had not been diverted away form levee maintenance over the decades perhaps people in poor low-lying nieghborhoods would be back in their homes. If mud flats hadn't been dredged for -and mangrove swamps degraded- by shipping oil and wheat, perhaps people in the 7th ward would be celebrating Christmas at home.
If ifs were skiffs, we could all go sailing. But the fact remains, there is simply no foolproof way to protect New Orleans (or any Gulf city, for that matter) from flooding. Build the highest and strongest levees you want--they're still fallible. Restore the entire coastline of Lousiana to swampland[*] and it won't be enough to absorb the strength of a really powerful hurricane. (As plenty of analysts pointed out before the storm hit, there's no city in the world that's built to withstand a Category 5 storm.) Move thousands of tons of debris and raise the street level--the ground will still subside again. It's a delta and that's what deltas do.
Saying that five years of funding reductions and less than ten years of coastal exploitation alone is the difference between a NOLA that is high and dry and one that is a swimming pool is ludicrous. Sooner or later, the city is going to flood again. The question now is what can be done during the reconstruction process to mitigate the damage. Moreover, it's inevitable that other cities are going to be hit by Category 4 or 5 storms as well. Are we going to spend Federal dollars to rebuild them all? Where do we draw the line between the Federal responsibility to protect citizens and the citizens' responsibility for not assuming greater risks than they can afford.
[*] BTW, I've heard a lot of assertions that relaxation of restrictions on coastal exploitation contributed to the damage wrought by the storm, but I haven't seen any convincing data yet--and I've looked. Can anyone show much how much wetland has been lost along the shores of Lake Pontchartrain in the last decade? Because this is what would've made a difference to New Orleans--not environmental degradation in places like Plaquemines Parish and Atchafalaya Bay.
no subject
If ifs were skiffs, we could all go sailing. But the fact remains, there is simply no foolproof way to protect New Orleans (or any Gulf city, for that matter) from flooding. Build the highest and strongest levees you want--they're still fallible. Restore the entire coastline of Lousiana to swampland[*] and it won't be enough to absorb the strength of a really powerful hurricane. (As plenty of analysts pointed out before the storm hit, there's no city in the world that's built to withstand a Category 5 storm.) Move thousands of tons of debris and raise the street level--the ground will still subside again. It's a delta and that's what deltas do.
Saying that five years of funding reductions and less than ten years of coastal exploitation alone is the difference between a NOLA that is high and dry and one that is a swimming pool is ludicrous. Sooner or later, the city is going to flood again. The question now is what can be done during the reconstruction process to mitigate the damage. Moreover, it's inevitable that other cities are going to be hit by Category 4 or 5 storms as well. Are we going to spend Federal dollars to rebuild them all? Where do we draw the line between the Federal responsibility to protect citizens and the citizens' responsibility for not assuming greater risks than they can afford.
[*] BTW, I've heard a lot of assertions that relaxation of restrictions on coastal exploitation contributed to the damage wrought by the storm, but I haven't seen any convincing data yet--and I've looked. Can anyone show much how much wetland has been lost along the shores of Lake Pontchartrain in the last decade? Because this is what would've made a difference to New Orleans--not environmental degradation in places like Plaquemines Parish and Atchafalaya Bay.