Posted on 03/06/2006 4:35:55 PM PST by Saints fan
Shortly after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert wondered aloud whether the Federal Government should help rebuild a city much of which lies below sea level. The most tough-minded answer to that question demonstrates that rebuilding and protecting New Orleans is in the national interest. Reason: The very same geological forces that created that port are what make it vulnerable to Category 5 hurricanes and also what make it indispensable.
One such force is the Mississippi River. Once, the Gulf of Mexico extended north to Cape Girardeau, Mo., but the river gradually deposited enough sediment into a receding sea to create tens of thousands of square miles of land stretching south to the present mouth of the river. Long after New Orleans was first settled, the entire region remained above sea level and safe from hurricanes. Engineers prevented river floods by building levees and kept shipping channels open by constructing jetties two miles out into the ocean so that the river dropped its sediment into deep water. Before the jetties were built, 100 ships at a time often waited days for deep enough water to pass over sandbars blocking the Mississippi's mouth. The levees and jetties stopped sediment from feeding the deltas; the land sank, and coastal Louisiana shrank. Similarly, other great ports on deltaic rivers, like Rotterdam, are also below sea level; the airport serving Amsterdam is 20 ft. below sea level, lower than any part of New Orleans.
If engineering the Mississippi made New Orleans vulnerable, it also created enormous value. New Orleans is the busiest port in the U.S.; 20% of all U.S. exports, and 60% of our grain exports, pass through it. Offshore Louisiana oil and gas wells supply 20% of domestic oil production. But to service that industry, canals and pipelines were dug through the land, greatly accelerating the washing away of coastal Louisiana. The state's land loss now totals 1,900 sq. mi. That land once protected the entire region from hurricanes by acting as a sponge to soak up storm surges. If nothing is done, in the foreseeable future an additional 700 sq. mi. will disappear, putting at risk port facilities and all the energy-producing infrastructure in the Gulf.
There is no debate about the reality of that land loss and its impact. On that the energy industry and environmentalists agree. There is also no doubt about the solution. Chip Groat, a former director of the U.S. Geological Survey, says, "This land loss can be managed, and New Orleans can be protected, even with projected sea-level rise." Category 5 hurricane protection for the region, including coastal restoration, storm-surge barriers and improved levees, would cost about $40 billion--over 30 years. Compare that with the cost to the economy of less international competitiveness (the result of increased freight charges stemming from loss of the efficiencies of the port of New Orleans), higher energy prices and more vulnerable energy supplies. Compare that with the cost of rebuilding the energy and port infrastructure elsewhere. Compare that with the fact that in the past two years, we have spent more to rebuild Iraq's wetlands than Louisiana's. National interest requires this restoration. Our energy needs alone require it. Yet the White House proposes spending only $100 million for coastal restoration.
Washington also has a moral burden. It was the Federal Government's responsibility to build levees that worked, and its failure to do so ultimately led to New Orleans' being flooded. The White House recognized that responsibility when it proposed an additional $4.2 billion for housing in New Orleans, but the first priority remains flood control. Without it, individuals will hesitate to rebuild, and lenders will decline to invest.
How should flood control be paid for? States get 50% of the tax revenues paid to the Federal Government from oil and gas produced on federally owned land. States justify that by arguing that the energy production puts strains on their infrastructure and environment. Louisiana gets no share of the tax revenue from the oil and gas production on the outer continental shelf. Yet that production puts an infinitely greater burden on it than energy production from other federal territory puts on any other state. If we treat Louisiana the same as other states and give it the same share of tax revenue that other states receive, it will need no other help from the government to protect itself. Every day's delay makes it harder to rebuild the city. It is time to act. It is well past time.
Shortly after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert wondered aloud whether the Federal Government should help rebuild a city much of which lies below sea level. The most tough-minded answer to that question demonstrates that rebuilding and protecting New Orleans is in the national interest. Reason: The very same geological forces that created that port are what make it vulnerable to Category 5 hurricanes and also what make it indispensable.
One such force is the Mississippi River. Once, the Gulf of Mexico extended north to Cape Girardeau, Mo., but the river gradually deposited enough sediment into a receding sea to create tens of thousands of square miles of land stretching south to the present mouth of the river. Long after New Orleans was first settled, the entire region remained above sea level and safe from hurricanes. Engineers prevented river floods by building levees and kept shipping channels open by constructing jetties two miles out into the ocean so that the river dropped its sediment into deep water. Before the jetties were built, 100 ships at a time often waited days for deep enough water to pass over sandbars blocking the Mississippi's mouth. The levees and jetties stopped sediment from feeding the deltas; the land sank, and coastal Louisiana shrank. Similarly, other great ports on deltaic rivers, like Rotterdam, are also below sea level; the airport serving Amsterdam is 20 ft. below sea level, lower than any part of New Orleans.
If engineering the Mississippi made New Orleans vulnerable, it also created enormous value. New Orleans is the busiest port in the U.S.; 20% of all U.S. exports, and 60% of our grain exports, pass through it. Offshore Louisiana oil and gas wells supply 20% of domestic oil production. But to service that industry, canals and pipelines were dug through the land, greatly accelerating the washing away of coastal Louisiana. The state's land loss now totals 1,900 sq. mi. That land once protected the entire region from hurricanes by acting as a sponge to soak up storm surges. If nothing is done, in the foreseeable future an additional 700 sq. mi. will disappear, putting at risk port facilities and all the energy-producing infrastructure in the Gulf.
There is no debate about the reality of that land loss and its impact. On that the energy industry and environmentalists agree. There is also no doubt about the solution. Chip Groat, a former director of the U.S. Geological Survey, says, "This land loss can be managed, and New Orleans can be protected, even with projected sea-level rise." Category 5 hurricane protection for the region, including coastal restoration, storm-surge barriers and improved levees, would cost about $40 billion--over 30 years. Compare that with the cost to the economy of less international competitiveness (the result of increased freight charges stemming from loss of the efficiencies of the port of New Orleans), higher energy prices and more vulnerable energy supplies. Compare that with the cost of rebuilding the energy and port infrastructure elsewhere. Compare that with the fact that in the past two years, we have spent more to rebuild Iraq's wetlands than Louisiana's. National interest requires this restoration. Our energy needs alone require it. Yet the White House proposes spending only $100 million for coastal restoration.
Washington also has a moral burden. It was the Federal Government's responsibility to build levees that worked, and its failure to do so ultimately led to New Orleans' being flooded. The White House recognized that responsibility when it proposed an additional $4.2 billion for housing in New Orleans, but the first priority remains flood control. Without it, individuals will hesitate to rebuild, and lenders will decline to invest.
How should flood control be paid for? States get 50% of the tax revenues paid to the Federal Government from oil and gas produced on federally owned land. States justify that by arguing that the energy production puts strains on their infrastructure and environment. Louisiana gets no share of the tax revenue from the oil and gas production on the outer continental shelf. Yet that production puts an infinitely greater burden on it than energy production from other federal territory puts on any other state. If we treat Louisiana the same as other states and give it the same share of tax revenue that other states receive, it will need no other help from the government to protect itself. Every day's delay makes it harder to rebuild the city. It is time to act. It is well past time.
Post #17 - that's a fake photo taken by the Bush administration to absolve them of blame < /Sarcasm >
Go ahead, go there.
The Corps of Engineers is simply to coordinator, just as that is all FEMA is.
Blame the Corps all you want, you'd still be dead wrong.
They were at the prescribed 17.5 feet. Try again.
Saints fan, from the article you referenced, even that is in debate. Driving deeper does not automatically mean more strength--it all depends on the soil profile.
Worst case is that the water comes to the top of the sheet piling. The piling and depth are designed to withstand the worst case, and then some, called a factor of safety.
That the sheet piling failed below design strength points to either faulty design assumptions or to faulty construction or maintenance.
So far the theory is that the overtopping water scoured away supporting soil. We may yet find that connections were poorly made, or poorly maintained. Once the integrity of the sheet piling wall is broken, it cannot withstand the force of the high level of water.
The engineer in the article said that the number of soil borings was more than he had ever seen on any other project-so he felt he had an excellent picture of subsurface conditions, and designed the way he did. Whether the sheet piling went to 10.5 feet or to 17.5 feet doesn't matter if the soil profile matches the design criteria.
Bridges fail, walls fail, buildings collapse,dams fail--time and force take their toll.
Had there been proper maintenance, there would have been tell-tale signs that the sheet piling was undermined or in extreme stress prior to the storm. Since they were the key to the survival of NO in a storm, they should have been examined more often and more carefully.
We both know that didn't happen, and no surprise there, due to infamous NO money diversions and corruption.
The blame game can go on ad infitum, but the buck stops squarely in NO.
I appreciate your reasoned replies though. It must hurt to see your city come to this. As hard as it is to hear, this may yet be the best thing that has happened to NO in the long run.
That's exactly the point. The soil profile should have made it obvious that they should drill deeper. The sheet piles ended in the middle of a pocket of peat soil, a mixture of decaying biological matter. The canal bottom was 18 feet deep and the piles were only driven to 17 feet. The Engineering firm that did the soil samples called for a depth of 35 feet but was overuled by the ACof E. Corps engineers in Vicksburg, Mississippi questioned the designs, but the local Corps project leader again overuled. Water seeped under the piles and eroded away the base of the levee. The levees were not overtopped. I have talked to several witnesses who said the water level was a couple of feet below the top of the wall just before they broke. I am talking about the 17th street canal levee that is about 2 miles from my house. I am sitting in a 1 bedroom apartment as I type this because my home and everything that I worked 30 years to earn was destroyed when that levee broke. Perhaps it is too strong to say the feds destroyed my city but it is hard to amagine it was the best thing to happen to New Orleans. An investigating engineer from LSU called it the worst Engineering failure in the nation's history. I'll tend to take his word for it.
Saints fan, your row is a hard one to hoe. I'm sorry for your loss--I hope you had insurance--but that can't bring back cherished possessions, a neighborhood, a way of life.
In America, we somehow assume we are immune to natural disasters, and we are not.
Looking back, I apologize if my remark about this being the best thing for NO in the long run seems aloof. I realize how it must sound to one who has suffered your losses.
But I would be lying if I said I did not mean it. I think this storm will ultimately wash away the power of corrupt NO politics, although it will take time. NO could not thrive on tourism and Mardi Gras alone. It will be built better and smarter then before, and the lessons learned the hard way may well save many lives in the future due to improved readiness and experience in such a disaster.
Concerning the canal walls, if it wasn't overtopping that caused the scour, then the wall was in the process of failing under design conditions. My own view is because the overtopping was not necessarily the culprit(it is the easiest explanation but not necessarily the correct one)there was a problem in the side to side connections of the piling. Once breached, the water kept widening the opening,then the rushing water undermined the piling on both sides, causing the collapse. The collapse was continuous in one area for about 300 feet-that width of the opening equalized the forces, which left the rest of the piling on both sides of the breach intact. The wall did not fail in all locations--but it only takes one.
Had Katrina hit has a Cat 5, the same result could well have occurred, as the entire wall on both sides was now out of design limits and factors of safety
The investigation has not been complete, and the forensic engineering examination must be thorough and objective. I don't think that has happened yet. We have a lot of theories by non objective parties in CYA mode.
Regardless, that doesn't change your situation. You have seen the destruction that nature can do, in spite of man's efforts to contain its forces. I hope that you will look to future optimistically, as to do otherwise will make you stuck in a past that can never be again. My best to you and yours.
bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.