The Dutch Solution to the New Orleans Problem

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 3 September 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[RobbyS]

Indeed. Given the almost religious fervor of the people and the money behind the environmental movement, this would be a problem.

[GretchenM]

So ... you're saying that those of us who love English and Poli Sci are ... party animals?

[Rockingham]

You have the advantage of me. I've seen a Discovery Channel show about the New Waterway barrier, and it is, by far, the most impressive structure of that type in the world. Nevertheless, a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane storm surge can be 30+ feet over high tide and is not a mere wave but a sustained upwelling of the sea. Could the Dutch withstand that? Perhaps, perhaps not; but, in fairness, their system seems to be defense in depth and able to stand the loss of a single barrier in a way that New Orleans' levees could not.

[konaice]

The North Sea is ever bit as dangerous as any hurricane when it is at its worst.

Absolute rubbish. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The port could be rebuilt without having to subsidize the whole bloomin' Big Easy II.

[sionnsar]

Ive seen the dyke system in Holland , it's amazing.

You mean "dike", don't you? The other might be amazing too.

[B-bone]

But then I bailed out into English and Political Science because I had heard about such things as weekends, dates, and booze. LOL.

I had to laugh. My son is an undergraduate engineering student. During his frosh orientation a couple years ago, he was told "there are 3 S's--study, sleep and social. You get 2 out of 3, take your pick."

Part way through his soph year he commented to me "they were wrong, you only get 1 out of 3"

[RobbyS]

Ask the Dutch. They have a much more elaborate diking system than you seem to realize, because the 1953 storm gave them a hint about what was possible. On a narrow front, the North Sea is just as dangerous as Katrina. If such had been in place on the Gulf coast of Mississippi, it would have stopped the "tsunami." But of course, the US does not have as much invested along that coast. The Louisiana Coast is another matter. WE need to do something to guard the oil facilities there, and THAT should come before NOLA. No such thing as a worse case, but we have now seen a good approximation. Reminding me of a conversation my dad, an oilman, had with an engineer, when he was erecting aplatform to keep his pumps out of river water. "What is the all-time highwater mark." said he? Mt Dad's drill;er who was standing by him, laughed. He was a farmer.Who knows that the worst case is? There is death, of course.

[Paleo Conservative]

One problem with damming the mouth of lake Ponchartrain is that it has low ground all around it. Your dam would have to be 100's of miles long to close off that lake. Also the Mississippi overflows into the lake during spring floods in order to save New Orleans. I supposed that could be changed to overflow the other way into the gulf, but I'm not sure.

Why not just bite the bullet and let the Atchafalaya River capture the Mississippi? The Mississippi changes it's outlets to the Gulf of Mexico every few thousand years anyway.

[Dutchalso]

The dutch are pretty serious about protecting themselves against North Sea storms. Follow the link below to learn more. The force of the storms is of course an important factor, but only one of many. I am quite confident that our primary levees would have dealt with the circumstances in NOLA easily.

http://www.tawinfo.nl/engels/index_en.htm

[RobbyS]

Thank you. I'll bookmark that for future ference. Easy to for get how much of nothwestern Europe is river delta and how much is invested in controlling those rivers. Of coyerse, none of these rivers darins as much water as the Mississippi, but depite all that we HAVE invested, it seems not enough considering the economic importance of the lower Mississippi. Too much to be left to the vagaries of (a famously corrupt) local government and congressional porkbarreling.