<p>Sorry, i was only looking at the micro issues. Yes the overall impact was very good for rental owners. But those directly impacted were less happy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Conyat, ins’t that entirely a matter of personal interpretation. </p>
<p>Who did establish how “equitable” the share of the oil revenues should be and should have been? And, are you so sure that that an “equitable” portion of the “equitable share” of the revenues would have been spent on the improvement of the levees. I guess we’ll been able to monitor how the Landrieu windfall will be doled out. </p>
<p>Let’s see how much of it goes directly to the levees. One could assume that people who live in the shadows of a leaking wall might want to make sure that their local so-called leaders pay as much attention to this matter of life or death as to the size of the floats or drunkard beads. </p>
<p>The situation in New Orleans is the result of massive blunders at all levels - not unusual for … governmental entities and elected officials. Katrina was not the first hurricane to hit NOLA, and the impact of a flood was hardly new. While the federal government deserves a substantial share of the blame, there are few reasons not to hold the locals directly responsible for ignoring the alarm bells. The path of least resistance that consists of pointing the finger of one hand while begging with the other produced highly predictable results. Is Washington ever the best source of solutions? </p>
<p>How much Louisiana learns from this will not be known until the next hurricane seasons!</p>
<p>Xiggi, why exactly are you so hostile to Louisiana and it’s people?</p>
<p>The reason we don’t think our share is equitable is because it’s a lower percent than the other states were getting. This is well established, and it’s the basis for our finally getting an equitable share. Why on earth would anyone think it wasn’t inequitable for us to get a lower % than the other states?</p>
<p>And yes, I do feel that the money would have gone to hurricane protection and to restore the damage to our coast from the oil and gas industry. We’ve been trying to get the money for that purpose for decades. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There were no alarm bells that the levees were poorly designed and would not stand up to the very conditions they were designed for. It took a team of researchers to do an intense, months long investigation to find this out via inspection, and to dig through the paperwork to discover that the Corps knew about the mistake and didn’t address it or publicize it.</p>
<p>The MR-GO did raise an alarm bell. The local people have been trying to get the Corps to close it since Betsy in 1965.</p>
<p>Like it or not, our national security depends on the oil and gas from Louisiana. You also rely on our marshes (which are 40% of the marshland in the lower 48) for nurseries for marine species, to sequester CO2, and to protect the land inland from storms. </p>
<p>The part people keep forgetting when they talk about why we don’t just move away and let the marsh die is that as the marsh dies, land will erode further and further inland. People forget that the land won’t stay stable once we’re gone. All moving people out of harm’s way will accomplish is to move “harm’s way” further and further inland.</p>
<p>By the way, something else that Louisiana has an inequitable share of: casualties and per capita mobilization rates in this war. The last statistic I saw had us 11th in the country for National Guard and Reserve unit mobilizations per capita. Our rate was many times that of states like Ohio, Texas and Florida. You might remember that the next time you think about how undeserving Louisiana is of the rebuilding.</p>
<p>okay…this may seem like a bonehead idea. I keep thinking of Galveston and the 1900 hurricane which drove the ocean to the bay and completely inundated the island. Their response was to build a seawall and raise the most populated areas, with fill, between 10-15 feet. Cannot something like this be done in New Orleans? Conyat - has it been discussed among local leaders? It is something that could even been done in phases it seems.</p>
<p>I think we’ve looked at pretty much everything, IDMom, including the things they do in the Netherlands that have kept people safe in much more difficult circumstances than the ones people would like to dismiss as insurmountable for Louisiana. I think the Netherlands is the model for some of the things they’re planning to do with floodgates.</p>
<p>Raising the lowlying parts of the city would probably help a lot, assuming it were coupled with restoration of the marsh, so it didn’t erode away. This is the reason that the house I grew up was salvageable. We spent weeks every 3-4 summers shoveling in fill dirt to make up for the land sinking. When my mom and dad bought the house, it was level with the bayou. Over the years as we filled in and the bayou sank, we were eventually 6 feet or so above the water. The family that bought the house from us kept it up, and only got about a foot of water. It would have been almost up to the attic otherwise. </p>
<p>I don’t know how practical it would be to raise the whole city. What’s being done instead is to raise the homes (up on piers, stilts, etc), which is probably much cheaper.</p>
<p>You know conyat, coincidentally, the first thing my husband said was we need to get the Dutch over here to come up with a game plan for New Orleans. What they have accomplished in The Netherlands is engineering genius. Of course, in the private sector, it’s easy to think like that…‘call the experts…money is no object’. But when dealing with slow moving governments and when politics are in play, not so easy.</p>
<p>(Btw…I was thinking the elevated home, with garage and outdoor living on the ground floor (much like what you see on beachfront property), may become the ‘new’ New Orleans style…out of necessity.)</p>
<p>Did I miss something? If the levees had held, as they should have been expected to, there would have been little reason for the vast majority of New Orleanians to have departed. So why would one fault the people of New Orleans for trusting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?</p>
<p>From an interesting article in the NYT (not sure it has been linked here yet)…</p>
<p>"The 2000 edition of the Army Corps of Engineers manual “Design and Construction of Levees” says that the height of flood walls built on levees is an important factor in their ability to withstand a flood. For that reason, the manual says walls like those used in New Orleans “rarely exceed” seven feet. But on two of the three canals where breaks occurred - the 17th Street and London Avenue canals - the concrete sections rise 11 feet above the dirt berms.</p>
<p>The corps manual for flood control construction suggests a different design for walls higher than seven feet - walls shaped like an inverted T, with the horizontal section buried in the dirt for extra stability. But that option was never considered, corps engineers said, because “T walls” were more expensive, required a broad base of dense soil for support and were not necessarily stronger… </p>
<p>Corps officials said THEY WERE PROSCRIBED from considering stronger wall designs for the canals both by the tight quarters and by federal law, which requires that they seek and study only the level of flood control authorized by CONGRESS. </p>
<p>The broken walls, which were long seen as a second choice to earthen levees, are testament to 40 YEARS of fiscal and political compromises made by ELECTED OFFICIALS, from local levee boards to Congress and several presidential administrations, as they balanced costs and environmental concerns with the need to protect a city that lies largely below sea level and is still subsiding…</p>
<p>A surge from Lake Pontchartrain was the catastrophic situation that the corps had been guarding against since Hurricane Betsy 40 years ago. Initially, the corps wanted to build a giant barrier to keep water from the Gulf of Mexico from reaching Lake Pontchartrain and flooding the canals. [Conyat - Like The Netherlands!] </p>
<p>That project was delayed by <em>LAWSUITS from environmental groups</em> that contended the corps had failed to study ecological effects. By the late 1970’s, the corps abandoned that approach and began raising levees along the lake and the Mississippi and adding flood walls on the canals."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/national/nationalspecial/21walls.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=df9f8add53b2afa0&ex=1171515600[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/national/nationalspecial/21walls.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=df9f8add53b2afa0&ex=1171515600</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Conyat, is having a different opinion and a different perception of the extent of the problems and responsibilities a sign of hostility towards the people of Louisiana? FWIW, if we were to have a discussion in a different format, we probably could explain our mutual position a bit better. I have no hostility towards the citizens of Louisiana or New Orleans. In fact, I lament the fact that the citizens have been misled and shafted by generations of political yahoos, and that includes the local ones. I also believe that this will CONTINUE. In the early 1900’s, New Orleans was a much larger and prosperous city than Houston. The divergent evolutions of the cities are not accidents. </p>
<p>Also I believe that it is almost criminal to expect or induce people to return to areas that will not be protected adequately. If a medium sized hurricane such as Katrina could cause this damage, one should worry about a true Cat IV.</p>
<p>Further I believe that much larger amount of funds should be spent to repair the ENTIRE coastal area. I simply do not believe that New Orleans should be the main target of the CURRENT efforts until a comprehensive plan can be designed. </p>
<p>As far as the civil engineering goes, one needs to realize the extent of the problems and realize that building higher or stronger levees will not eradicate the overall problems. For the record, there are many different studies that explain the issues at length. It is naive to assimilate the problems facing New Orleans to the situation in the Netherlands as the issues are quite different. The Netherlands are below sea level but the country is not threatened to become a sinking island in the middle of a water body. </p>
<p>Regarding the funds, I also happen to believe that focusing solely on the oil and gas industry is not correct. A bigger problem has been caused by the unnatural rerouting and canalization of the Mississipi. When looking for justification for federal funds, Louisiana might want to look way upstream! Sooner or later, somebdy will have to realize that we may have to undo this man-made lunacy. Unfortunately, a huge negative is allowing for a natural course of the river will mean that the economical center of the maritime business will not be … New Orleans but a city 30 to 40 miles away. In so many words, the survival of the City of New Orleans might depend on a formidable reduction in its industrial base. </p>
<p>I would love to see a massive plan implemented that truly addresses the problems, but not the partial and misguided wasteful plan that has been followed for more than 100 years. Attempting to return to pre-Katrina days is simply a very, very dumb plan. There was a time when tough decisions and 20 billion could have made a difference. Now, the price tag is much bigger. </p>
<p>We simply have different opinions how New Orleans got where it is today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think New Orleans is the main target of the rebuilding funds. My understanding is that per person affected/house destroyed, Louisiana is not getting as much as other affected areas. If you have statistics to suggest that most of the money is going to New Orleans, I would like to see them.</p>
<p>Some estimates say that up to 50% of the coastal erosion is caused by saltwater intrusion due to the pipeline canals. This is the reason for the focus on the oil and gas industry, and Louisiana wanting the same % of the oil royalties that the other states get. However, no one is focusing solely on it.</p>
<p>The Mississippi is an issue, but an industrialized society like ours doesn’t just have the option to let rivers go where they will. Do you realize how wide a swath of the South you would have to keep relocating people and industries from as the river moved this way and that? Not to mention the constant disruption to the shipping industry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We tried explaining that for years. That it would cost more to rebuild and restore than it would for prevention. We were ignored; bridges to nowhere were more important; the war in Iraq was more important. The nation, Congress, etc., took this risk knowing what would happen.</p>
<p>You know, xiggi, it strikes me as odd that you consider the money spent on coastal erosion and hurricane protection in Louisiana to be a “waste.” Since 1991, the amount of federal money spent on coastal erosion in Louisiana has been less than one year’s fair share of our oil revenue. It’s less than about 2 days of the war in Iraq. I think even if you added up all the “wasteful” federal spending you say has occured over 100 years, it would be less than a few years of the oil revenue the feds got from Louisiana, or a few months of the war in Iraq.</p>
<p>The investment in Louisiana has been a good one for the federal government. Even with the rebuilding, I think you’ll find that the federal government has made way more in oil revenue than it has spent on hurricane protection, marsh restoration or hurricane rebuilding. I don’t think it’s fair to say that money has been a waste simply because the rest of the country hasn’t profited quite as much as you wish it had. </p>
<p>And I find it very odd that you single out New Orleans not to rebuild. In 300 years we’ve had only one storm do this kind of damage, and the scientific evidence is pretty clear that use of standard engineering practices would have prevented most of it. There’s almost no way to protect the Atlantic and the Gulf Coast. Katrina reduced to splinters an area in Mississippi about 100 miles wide and 6 miles deep. You just didn’t see much of it on your television set.</p>
<p>As another poster pointed out, the good people of Mississippi and their valiant struggle has not gotten the attention it deserves. But by your logic, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, which has suffered damage like this twice in less than 40 years, shouldn’t be rebuilt either. Other than by civil engineering (in this case, building more hurricane proof buildings), there’s no way to protect Mississippi either. Or Florida. Or Alabama. Or Georgia, on up to New York.</p>
<p>While I agree (and apparently the NYT), elected officials, at the LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL level made a decision not to mitigate risk with regard to hurricane protection, I think it is disingenuous to nail it down to a failure that occurred in the last few years. If a Corp manual already existed in 2000 which stated that the current levee construction was not the design of choice, it stands to reason this is a problem that HAS been known for years prior.</p>
<p>And according to above the NYT article, state and local officials were NOT speaking up in a forceful way until encouraged privately by the Corp to make a stink.</p>
<p>Actually, your cited NY Times article says, “…But upgrading a flood control system never became a major priority for corps officials in Washington, local and federal officials say.” Not to mention that the New Orleans corps of engineers had its annual budget slashed to practically zero every year from 2000 to 2005 by (ahem) Washington. Thus causing the corps to finish very little of the flood control projects slated for completion during that time.</p>
<p>An extensive regional planning effort from New Orleans to Lake Charles is currently underway at <a href=“http://www.LouisianaSpeaks.org%5B/url%5D”>www.LouisianaSpeaks.org</a>. It is addressing a state-wide hurricane protection plan of combining levees, flood walls, abandonment of low lying areas, consolidation of poplulation, regional mass transit, urban building patterns, etc.</p>
<p>Many people in the rest of the nation remain skeptical of the ability (and willingness) of Louisiana and NOLA elected officials to get their houses in order. I watched the CNN report last weekend (a re-broadcast, I believe). Mississippi and Louisiana politicians failed their suffering constituents. I found it hilarious that Senator Trent Lott and a House of Representatives member from Mississippi are suing State Farm insurance. They lost their waterfront properties. What were these fellas doing legislative-wise prior to Katrina? What are they doing now to address the lack of affordable housing along the coast? They took care of the casinos and the Superdome first. Where are Governor Haley Barbour’s friends in the Bush Administration? And I am not partisan; Mary Landrieu has been just as useless, as she demonstrated when Chris Wallace got under her skin during an interview on Fox News in the aftermath of the damage and suffering.</p>
<p>true mercy…absolutely. No doubt the blame can be spread from top to bottom of our gov’t structure AND over the last 40 years.</p>
<p>But, I lived in Lafayette for a very long time back (most of the '80s and '90s during the eras of Edwin Edwards, during ‘keep it clean with’ Dave Treen; during Reagan, Bush the elder and Clinton). It was an ongoing ‘joke’ about the big one that would put New Orleans underwater like Betsy back in the '60s. Everyone knew there was a chokepoint at which no levee would hold. And the attitude has always been ‘que sera’. UNTIL it finally happened. Now everyone wants to point fingers at each other saying ‘you should have told me’. That we were surprised at how little it took to take a poorly designed levee system down is no excuse; we KNEW it would happen under one circumstance or another. </p>
<p>I don’t agree with pouring billions into Iraq. But the fact that we have doesn’t mean it is also right to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into rebuilding a deathtrap…UNLESS we can come up with a plan that guarantees thousands more won’t die and we can figure out a way to make it economically feasible. And that the city re-elected Nagin doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that we are all in the same boat rowing in the same direction. </p>
<p>I ABSOLUTELY think our nation needs a New Orleans and the city is a treasure worth restoring and protecting. But the smaller footprint may become a necessity. I don’t like it either; it makes me sad. But until everyone in gov’t gets their act together, I don’t blame taxpayers from other parts of the country for guarding their wallets.</p>
<p>Sorry xigs, but between New Orleans and Houston, I’d keep NOLA any day of the week. The US has few truly interesting cities. You can count them on one hand. Most, especially the newer cities, are as dull as strip malls. Hey wait! They are mostly strip malls! Strip Mall cities which produce strip mall culture. </p>
<p>New Orleans produces a jazz music culture second to none in the US. The archtiecture is a on scale that is unfamiliar to most Americans–and a delight.</p>
<p>Just like Venice, New Orleans is worth preserving. It needs middle class citizens to function. It needs lower and middle class housing. Will that happen? Hard to tell. It might depend on the fortitude of the music industry.</p>
<p>Idmom06 - </p>
<p>Getting a viable plan with the money they have seems to be what <a href=“http://www.LouisianaSpeaks.org%5B/url%5D”>www.LouisianaSpeaks.org</a> is all about. You should check it out as it is planning all the way from nola to Lake Charles, including Lafayette.</p>
<p>Trust me, my mom did not vote for Nagin, and while I feel kinda the same as you on that point, Quin Hillyer of the Mobile (Ala) Register wrote some articles after the reelection of Nagin that might surprise you on why and how that came about.</p>
<p>My son called me in the middle of the night to report the loudest noise he had ever heard. Yes, NOLA has been hit by a tornado. There are no classes today at Loyola (no power).</p>
<p>Not the kind of call a mother expects at 2 AM!</p>
<p>PBS is broadcasting a fascinating history of New Orleans this week on its “American Experience” series. Worthwhile viewing.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/neworleans/[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/neworleans/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cheers, I am very happy to agree with you. However, as I expressed in my first post in this thread, NOLA is a city of two visages. One that would and should fascinate the art lover, the culinary buff, the historian, and the … noted architect. Alas, the picture cannot be complete without looking at the darker side of a city. </p>
<p>Oh well. here are a few tidbits I believe to be thought provoking.</p>
<p>Point
Unmasking Our Pain in New Orleans by Lolis Eric Elie - Sunday, February 11, 2007</p>
<p>This article is worth reading in its entirety. All of it! However, allow me to single out a few words: “Two years ago, before Katrina, the Corps of Engineers and the state of Louisiana estimated that it would take $14 billion to stem the tide of coastal erosion. In December, the lame-duck Congress allocated 34 percent of the federal oil royalties collected off our shores to Louisiana to combat coastal erosion. But we won’t get the full amount for 17 years. For the next decade, we will receive about $20 million a year to combat a $14 billion problem.”
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901916_pf.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901916_pf.html</a></p>
<p>Counterpoint</p>
<p>Washington Post’s editorial “Louisiana’s Looters”
Tuesday, September 27, 2005</p>
<p>Like looters who seize six televisions when their homes have room for only two, the Louisiana legislators are out to grab more federal cash than they could possibly spend usefully.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601484.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601484.html</a></p>
<p>Senator Landrieu’s presentation</p>
<p><a href=“http://landrieu.senate.gov/issues/LouisianasCoastline.pps[/url]”>http://landrieu.senate.gov/issues/LouisianasCoastline.pps</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://landrieu.senate.gov/issues/coast.cfm[/url]”>http://landrieu.senate.gov/issues/coast.cfm</a></p>
<p>Question: What happened to the $640,000,000 settlement paid out after 1986 (1 billion to date and $572,000,000 paid in 87 according to the Louisiana State budgets) reported by Senator Landrieu?</p>