Oh Crap - looks like a couple Nawlins levee's may be coming down afterall...

[RC45]

At first it looked like the wavelets were just over topping the flood gates and walls, but it does look like at least one structure in Plaquemines Parish is weakening now.

[philip]

I was somewhat surprised at how high the water was at the levees with this hurricane. It appears someones calculation of the height to build the new improved stronger costing US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars levees was way off.

This was only a barely CAT 3 hurricane that didnt even hit NOLA straight on. The waves were topping the concrete T levees that they have been showing on TV.

Seems these levees needed to be at least 5 feet higher. So much for NOLA not being flooded again for 100 years.

[Pokiou]

WTF are you talking about?

[RC45]

Originally Posted by philip I was somewhat surprised at how high the water was at the levees with this hurricane. It appears someones calculation of the height to build the new improved stronger costing US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars levees was way off. This was only a barely CAT 3 hurricane that didnt even hit NOLA straight on. The waves were topping the concrete T levees that they have been showing on TV. Seems these levees needed to be at least 5 feet higher. So much for NOLA not being flooded again for 100 years.

And this was not even a large storm surge coming in from the lake, this is a mild surge coming up the Mississippi river.

The water has been abotu 3 feet below the top of the walls, but the wind has been whipping up 4 and 5 foot waves - i guess they forgot to factor in the wind factor.

[Mattk]

I think once again, the folly of building New Orleans where it is has been proved. It's generally not a good idea to build a city below the level of surrounding water.

Like Canberra, built amidst forested hills. Guess what happens when a bushfire strikes? Canberra burns.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by Mattk I think once again, the folly of building New Orleans where it is has been proved. It's generally not a good idea to build a city below the level of surrounding water. Like Canberra, built amidst forested hills. Guess what happens when a bushfire strikes? Canberra burns.

So by that logic they should shut Holland down, off the Dutch people and call it a day.

The problem is not the location fo the city, it is the destruction of the Mississippi delta. The region has survived hurricanes for millions of years, but that was with the natural levee system of marshes, trees intact and in place.

Its not quite the same as living in a forest, it would be like living across from the forest, but having a large expanse of dry grass replace the river that was seperating your house from the forest

[philip]

Originally Posted by Pokiou WTF are you talking about?

Nawlins = (as pronounced by natives) New Orleans, Lousiana USA. Outside of Las Vegas the party city of America. Orginally French, purchased by Madison from France in the Lousiana purchase. This city and most of the center of the United States was purchased for five million dollars in gold, in what has to be one of the best/worst real estate sales ever in the world.

New Orleans features the French Quarter the only part of America that looks European. It has bars, nightclubs restaurants and shopping. Some of America's best food can be found here along with jazz clubs which go back to the founding of the sound. Every year before the start of Lent, it is Mardi Gras time. This is probably where Girls Gone Wild got there start. Every day parades are scheduled for the City. The ones at night get pretty wild.

George Bush made sure New Orleans came back, because he like most of us in the South has fond memories of getting blind drunk in Nawlins, and unique places like that just can not go away.

NOLA = New Orleans, Lousiana the abbreviation. Largest city in Lousiana, but not the capital in a state known for corruption. New Orleans is located on a crescent bend in the Mississippi River near the mouth of the river as it enters the Gulf of Mexico. The French Quarter is not below sea level but a lot of the city is. When a hurrican comes the storm surge raises the sea level by as much as twenty feet. This combined with the outflow of the Mississippi river which drains most of the central United States continues to head down stream, amplifing the effect. The city is protected by a system of levees constructed by the US Corps of Engineers and private levee boards. Untill 2005 everyone though it was just peachy. After hurricane Katrina killed 1600 in the city, the levee system was rebuild at a cost of 100's of billions of dollars.

Todays hurricane which past nearby the city, showed that these new levees work, but it was not much of a hurricane and if the city gets a direct hit by a big hurricane, the damage will be much worse.

There are questions about whether it is viable to spend so much taxpayer money on a city that is partially below sea level.

Galveston which is near Houston, after it was hit by a killer hurricane in 1906 (6000 people died) raised the city up by filling the land. Many of us in Texas think this is a better solution than building dikes.

[Pokiou]

then raise the mother f#%knig land.

[79TA]

easier said than done when there's already an exising city there

The levee option is much more convenient, even when done correctly.

[dutchmasterflex]

I find it unbelievable that the levees were so low. What the hell is wrong with people who were in charge of building them.

[nthfinity]

Originally Posted by dutchmasterflex I find it unbelievable that the levees were so low. What the hell is wrong with people who were in charge of building them.

Nawlins has 12b in federal money, which they have only excersized 1b of it. Their plan is the slow plan, apparently.

[FoxFour]

Since the city was pretty much destroyed the first time around, the city government should have seriously considered moving a majority of the city inland like some people suggested.
Where I live, in Charleston SC, we had a lot of the flooding in the downtown area when Hugo struck and yes the peninsula city itself is like 6 feet below sea level, but that is just the small section of the Charleston area. The rest of Chas. is not sitting inside a large bowl of land like N.O. is.
When I saw the amount of levees N.O. has to protect itself, I was flabbergasted.

Originally Posted by RC45 So by that logic they should shut Holland down, off the Dutch people and call it a day. The problem is not the location fo the city, it is the destruction of the Mississippi delta. The region has survived hurricanes for millions of years, but that was with the natural levee system of marshes, trees intact and in place.

I was reading some stuff online, and it seems that N.O. has been having a problem with subsidence (the ground eroding, causing it to sink) since N.O. was settled way back when.
Here is an interesting article on satellite topography of the city and surrounding area even before Katrina hit.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...3?img_id=17295

Here is another piece of text I found on geology.com

Rebuilding New Orleans - Subsidence and Sea Level Rise



From USGS Science Picks: "The rates of subsidence and sea-level rise are important considerations in the restoration of the city of New Orleans and the wetlands that protect it. New Orleans is sinking two inches per decade, and it is anticipated that it will sink roughly one meter in the next 100 years relative to mean sea level. The ocean is also rising. During the last century, the ocean rose one to two millimeters per year. Within the next century if nothing is done to modify the existing infrastructure, some areas of the city that did not flood as a result of Hurricane Katrina will likely flood in a future storm due to subsidence and sea-level rise."

With costs of rebuilding New Orleans estimated to be at over $200 billion and thousands of people as permanent residents in a below-sea-level location these facts should be given detailed consideration.

[silentm]

Originally Posted by RC45 So by that logic they should shut Holland down, off the Dutch people and call it a day. The problem is not the location fo the city, it is the destruction of the Mississippi delta. The region has survived hurricanes for millions of years, but that was with the natural levee system of marshes, trees intact and in place.

yea but i can't remember the last time that holland was threatened by a hurricane

the choice to build such a city there is very poor of course, and i think the fact that it was built in a region where hurricanes are something that could happen quite realistically, is somewhat shortsighted. but that fact can't be changed now.

I heard Tokio has measures against tsunamis that are underground but i guess that is something different again.

[philip]

Originally Posted by silentm the choice to build such a city there is very poor of course, and i think the fact that it was built in a region where hurricanes are something that could happen quite realistically, is somewhat shortsighted. but that fact can't be changed now.

New Orleans is one of the oldest cities in the United States. Its location was selected because it was a port on the Gulf of Mexico and cargo was off loaded from deep draft ocean ships to riverboats who could sail all the way up to probably Pittsburg. Its location is kind of like London, and there were not any scientists around saying not to build here.

However the old city is in the French Quarter which has never flooded. The old French never built where it flooded, it was the post World War II subdivision builders who made that mistake. They built levees and pumped out swamps to build new homes after WWII. Building a city below sea level is kind of like owning a boat. Its a hole in the water that you pump money into.

I'm for filling the low lying areas, of course that would have been before rebuilding all the houses.

[Apac102]

not much can be done and deja vu (ironically a french term) will strike again. More money will be put in rebuilding New Orleans again and its going to go like this forever. The 12b dollar plan is going too slow for the levees to become effective. Everytime a new hurricane hurts, the levees break and then more money then the original 12b is going to be spent before they can be built.

We could move the millions of people off the land, but I would think, since this is the second time its happening in a short span that they would have the common sense to move themselves. Of course they probably know this, but heck, the "in-debt" government is there, why not let them keep spending 200 b to rebuild the city (sarcasm)?

The only way to stop this from happening is when the people who live there let go and move on. All the tradition that the city has will sadly be lost (it already happened though the first time, but N.O. is a money pit and this will continue for the next 200 years.