Appkiller

JDL authoritatively asserted:

    > The cut was in the 2005 budget - I.E. what was cut was extremely
    > unlikely to have caused a gallons difference this week. Levee and
    > pumping station and canal construction takes years, if not decades.

So, do you think those funds will be reinstated?

App

The Wogster

Scott wrote:
    > Derek Lyons wrote:
    >
    >> "appkiller" <> wrote:
    >>> <snippage of jaba the hut's rantings>
    >>> Ya know, they were working to create a much more storm surge/flood-safe
    >>> New Orleans until Bushco cut the funding for it.
    >> The cut was in the 2005 budget - I.E. what was cut was extremely
    >> unlikely to have caused a gallons difference this week. Levee and
    >> pumping station and canal construction takes years, if not decades.
    >
    >
    > I'm not sure which cut is being discussed. However, ACoE
    > cuts have been ongoing . . . See, for example
    >
    > <http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0203/07/m05.html>
    >
    > Levee pumping stations and canal construction require
    > ongoing maintenance, especially when the underlying lands
    > are sinking. Underfunding of this particular project
    > is well-known.
    >
    > Would it have made a difference? No one knows. Certainly
    > the drying up of $$s was followed by a massive breach.
    >

What is well known is that you have a city, that is between a lake and
the ocean, and is in a potential hurricane zone, and is below both the
ocean and lake water levels. This may be a dumb question, but didn't
anybody think that at some point this might cause a problem?

Perhaps the best solution is to knock everything down, add in the rubble
from surrounding areas (like Biloxi), then add clean fill until the
ground is about level with the top of the levee, then build a new city
on-top of the now raised ground level.

W

Mike Kruger

"The Wogster" <> wrote in message
news:zCHRe.9836$...
    > What is well known is that you have a city, that is between a lake and
    > the ocean, and is in a potential hurricane zone, and is below both the
    > ocean and lake water levels. This may be a dumb question, but didn't
    > anybody think that at some point this might cause a problem?

Yeah, it's old news. John McPhee wrote a book about it (really, about the
hydrology of the lower Mississippi in general). Evidently, Men's Health
magazine has a brief article about it in this/last month's issue.

If you want to vote in an unscientific poll, try
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/
What should be done with New Orleans?
a.. Fix the levees, pump the city out, clean it up and build it back right
where it was.
b.. Allow it to remain the swampland that nature intends and spend all
that money to re-build elsewhere.
At last count, it's 21% fix, 79% swamp. But these aren't people in the
affected area, but mostly people located several hundred miles away who are
sick and tired of hearing other people wonder how they can stand the Chicago
winter.

But as with most questions, the New Orleans question is not that simple. New
Orleans evolved there over the last 400 years (just as it evolved to being
below sea level -- it obviously didn't start there as a sort of Instant
Atlantis). There are a lot of business and economic reasons to have a city
in/near that spot that aren't obsolete. Does New Orleans make any less
sense than boom cities in the West, where they don't have ENOUGH water?

    > Perhaps the best solution is to knock everything down, add in the rubble
    > from surrounding areas (like Biloxi), then add clean fill until the ground
    > is about level with the top of the levee, then build a new city on-top of
    > the now raised ground level.
A somewhat similar thing was done to Chicago. The city was raised to ease
flooding and disease. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago
"Early Chicago was also plagued by sewer and water problems. Many people
described it as the filthiest city in America. To solve the problems, the
city initiated the creation of a massive sewer system. In the first phase
sewage pipes were laid across the city above-ground, with gravity moving the
waste. The second phase, executed in 1855, involved raising the level of the
city by four to seven feet (one to two meters); this was done by jacking up
buildings and placing fill in order to raise streets above the swamp and the
newly-laid sewer pipes.
By 1857 Chicago was the largest city in what was then known as the
Northwest. ... over 90,000 people."
To solve more disease/drainage/navigation problems, four rivers (Grand
Calumet, Stony Creek, Chicago, and Little Calumet; see
http://pages.ripco.net/~jwn/chicago.html ) had their flow reversed. This
probably won't work for the Mississippi ;)

The general point I'm trying to make here is that proper engineering is a
wonderful thing, and if there is a good enough economic reason to have a
port city near where a gigantic river system draining half a continent meets
the second largest ocean in the world, we possess the engineering to allow
this.

If humanity had a pattern of abandoning cities after natural and
man-inflicted disasters, how many would we have lost? Chicago for sure (1871
fire), San Francisco after the earthquake, London after the plague, large
portions of the Netherlands, etc. It doesn't generally make economic sense
to do things like this, and we usually don't do it. For sure, though, it
makes sense to learn from the past and better engineer the future.

H

Talk to the dutch, they've figured it out.

Bill H.

The biggest thing I don't understand is why people would stay in town
when a hurricane is coming. Most people have no idea how dangerous
these things can be.

I cleaned up my sister's house in Navarre, FL after Hurricane Ivan and
a huge tree had been ripped out of her back yard and fell over. She
stayed at home and it could very well have landed on her house and
killed her and her daughter. I just don't understand why people
wouldn't leave. Some people may be poor, of course, and don't have a
car or can't get their family out, but a lot more people stayed in the
area than should have.

As for the looters - well, some of them are stealing food and diapers
and whatnot from the grocery stores to survive. Hopefully, most of the
businesses have insurance to cover their losses, and aren't going to
the inventory.

And yes, some looters are robbing jewelry stores, but since I'm not
there I can't say what percentage of looting is "justified". If I were
stuck there and starving, yeah, I'd break into a store for food and
water and so would anyone, I bet.

E.k.R.

"Bill H." <> wrote in message
news:...
> And yes, some looters are robbing jewelry stores, but since I'm not
    > there I can't say what percentage of looting is "justified". If I were
    > stuck there and starving, yeah, I'd break into a store for food and
    > water and so would anyone, I bet.



I agree with looting for basic survival since it seems our governments
response has not been swift enough. But looting for computers, TV's,
jewelry, etc. is a different story. I like one store sign in NOLA I saw on
the internet ... it reads "you loot, I shoot".

Ernie

TheBaseBallBravesMan

What Happened To Killfile?

Barbara

Yes, it appears many of the people who did not evacuate were the poor.
Or maybe people who couldn't get gas. I heard the lines at the gas
stations were terrible. Do you always keep your car with a full tank?

Since the city issued an evacuation order why didn't they fill up all
their buses and get people out of town? I saw a shot on TV showing
dozens of school buses in a parking lot under water. Why weren't they
put to good use?

I think the city needs a better evacuation plan. You can't expect
everyone to get out on their own when they are poor, elderly or disabled.


Bill H. wrote:
    > The biggest thing I don't understand is why people would stay in town
    > when a hurricane is coming. Most people have no idea how dangerous
    > these things can be.
    >
    > I cleaned up my sister's house in Navarre, FL after Hurricane Ivan and
    > a huge tree had been ripped out of her back yard and fell over. She
    > stayed at home and it could very well have landed on her house and
    > killed her and her daughter. I just don't understand why people
    > wouldn't leave. Some people may be poor, of course, and don't have a
    > car or can't get their family out, but a lot more people stayed in the
    > area than should have.
    >
    > As for the looters - well, some of them are stealing food and diapers
    > and whatnot from the grocery stores to survive. Hopefully, most of the
    > businesses have insurance to cover their losses, and aren't going to
    > the inventory.
    >
    > And yes, some looters are robbing jewelry stores, but since I'm not
    > there I can't say what percentage of looting is "justified". If I were
    > stuck there and starving, yeah, I'd break into a store for food and
    > water and so would anyone, I bet.
    >

Nothermark

If he didn't another one of us would.

What I don't understand is why a local problem deserves Federal
dollars to maintain an otherwise unmaintainable lifestyle. Blow the
leveees and put up a monument.


FWIW when the Democrats ran things they also cut the budget. The
Greenies often point out that the problem is the work done by the
Corps of Engineers and their meddling with Mother Nature. The flood
control measuers and channeling of the Mississipi are why the delta is
disapearing. The problem is way too complex to be fixed by anything
that fits into a soundbite newscast.

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:11:04 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<> wrote:

    ><> wrote: (clip) I just had to rant.
    >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >No, you didn't.

jabario

When a storm is coming my tank is filled. Who's talking about leaving?
There are plenty of dry areas for people to loot from. What if they
werent so used to being kept as pets by our government and knew to have
emergency supplies on hand. A water purifier is only $50 or so- bleach
is really cheap as are containers to fill with fresh water. Mres are
widely available as emergency food. There is no reason for every home
not to have a week's worth of supplies on hand. I'm most angered by
the fact that everyone is begging and blaming the government for help.
I was raised to believe that I must take primary responsibility for the
well being of my family. I must provide food water etc. Not DC not the
governor.
The main reason for hardship it that the poor are so used to getting
handouts they have lost their edge.