"Katrina destroyed the Big Easy—and future Katrinas will do the same—not because of engineering failures but because one million acres of coastal islands and marshland have vanished in Louisiana in the last century due to human interference. These land forms served as natural 'speed bumps,' reducing the lethal surge tide of past hurricanes and making New Orleans habitable in the first place.
But while encouraging city residents to return home and declaring for the media audience that 'we will do whatever it takes' to save the city, the President earlier this month formally refused the one thing New Orleans simply cannot live without: A restored network of barrier islands and coastal wetlands.
....
Just since World War II an area of land the size of Rhode Island has turned to water between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico, most of it former marshland. And every 2.7 miles of marshland reduces a hurricane surge tide by a foot, dispersing the storm's power. Simply put, had Katrina struck in 1945 instead of 2005, the surge that reached New Orleans would have been as much as 5-10 feet less than it was."
2005-12-06
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
NB, in advance: I never played the Op-ed idiot game of "blaming" local vs. federal authorities. I've been on the wetland tip from day 1. Untrammeled development caused the ruin of one of the US's few great cities, and local politicians everywhere live in the pockets of developers. Which isn't to say that the immediate Bush/Brown response wasn't feeble, perhaps actionably so (Brownie didn't do a "heckuva job," and his tenure points to certain fundamental flaws in the way his employer makes decisions.)
I agree with you here Tom, that the only way to save NO is to restore the wetlands that surround it. However, the only way to do this, as has been done in other floodplane areas further up the Mississippi, is to permanently give much of the river and the delta back to nature. What this means though is that some areas around NO will be permanently lost. Now how do you propose going about telling people in those certain parts of the NO area that their land/property/homes/businesses are the ones to be sacrificed?
Agreed that it's a knotty issue; but here is one case where federal "taking" of land, backed by fat payments of federal cash (no doubt financed by the Chinese), might be justified. It would save lives, and give New Orleans a reasonable chance to survive.
I agree that in some cases, the kooky liberal conservationists are correct to ban development, as it can lead to massive, unstoppable catastrophes. This might be such a case. However, preventing development of housing (and attending commerical space) neccessitates another factors that liberal do-gooders deplore just as much: higher housing costs (see: San Francisco and NYC). The fantasy of low cost housing and zero enviornmental impact cannot translate into reality... unless people return to living on dirt floors and forsake plumbing.
And in those cases, nature takes a much more severe catastrophic toll. Consider how many more humans die from the same Hurricanes hitting caribbean islands vs. US shores.
I am not convinced that if the residets of the New Orleans area had not done a better job of spending their levee dollars over the past 30-40 years, and of raising more levee dollars, that they would not have been able to conquer nature to much better effect.
My disappointment with Bush is discovering that a supposedly market-driven administration could not manage a huge beurocratic beast like FEMA any better than liberals. But perhaps we need to simply eliminate FEMA, which is nothing more than socialized insurance.
"This might be such a case. However, preventing development of housing (and attending commerical space) neccessitates another factors that liberal do-gooders deplore just as much: higher housing costs (see: San Francisco and NYC). The fantasy of low cost housing and zero enviornmental impact cannot translate into reality... unless people return to living on dirt floors and forsake plumbing."
I hate to say it yet again, but here you go; Nothing happens in a vaccuum.
It's called the law of unintended consequences. You can't have it ALL, no matter much liberal environmentalists try. You can't protect the environment, as in New Orleans and have low-cost, affordable housing as well.
You're correct Paul. San Fran especially is a perfect example of that. The environmentalists have made it impossible for anyone of modest means to afford a home there.
Post a Comment