The Unnatural Disaster: Reprise
In response to the claim I made in my last post that the new floodmaps make a tacit admission that this was an unnatural disaster, commenter Dilan Esper responds:
"That may be the conclusion of POLITICIANS who don't want to lose votes by seeming heartless, but that doesn't make it SCIENTIFIC fact."
I find this kind of comment maddening, not because I question Dilan's good will, but because anyone of good will who wants to know what's going on would probably be with Dilan. The story is just not being told.
Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. Bad things would have happened in New Orleans no matter what, because it is low lying and prone to flooding. But it would have been comparable to other disasters. What turned New Orleans from a disaster into an apocalyptic nightmare is not Mother Nature, but sub-standard engineering.
As Harry Shearer points out, even the the New York Times -- who has laudably expended much energy reporting here -- is failing to punch this most basic of points. But as Harry has also noted, the is no point in hating on Times, because nobody outside of New Orleans is reporting on the Senate hearings where the Corps of Engineers' explicitly admit "design failure" (and also get grilled for their overall level of fraud and corruption.)
Let's take the 17th street and London canals. (For simplicity, not lack of concern, I'm ignoring NO East and non-NO parishes). These levees were designed to absorb the waters coming in from Lake Ponchartrain all the way up to their height. Beyond that, the levees would be "topped" and flooding would occur. The fact is that the massive flooding in Lakeview, Mid-City, Broadmoor, City Park, Hollygrove, Gentilly, parts of Uptown and the CBD, virtually everything west of the Industrial Canal, was not because these levees were topped. In fact, the stress put on them was significantly below their design specifications. And yet they broke anyway, because their footings were inadequately designed.
The independent engineers say this. Now the Corps of Engineers admits it. I'm not sure where the bar is set for "scientific fact," but I'm pretty sure this clears it.
When commenter Ellen advises us to "keep in mind that little of the areas Americans generally associate with "New Orleans" suffered much in the way of damage," I have no idea what that could mean. First of all, casual tourists don't get to define the city. But let's say they did. The Superdome? City Park? Claiborne and Napoleon where the Mardi Gras parades assemble? Mid City? Uptown, down to Freret and even St. Charles?
All flooded. All because of preventable structural failure.
So when Ellen (who demonstrably lacks good will here, and is thus a decent representative for the nation in general), grumbles resentfully about "welfare" for New Orleans, I can only respond as follows.
When someone has a job to do and they fail to do it properly, and that failure leads to a disaster that causes a whole lot of people much suffering, asking that someone to accept responsibility and deal with the consquences has nothing whatever to do with a request for "welfare" or "charity" or even good will. It is a demand that those who failed at their task clean up their own mess.
. . . asking that someone to accept responsibility and deal with the consquences . . . .
When we are harmed as the result of others' negligence, we demand restitution and damages for the harm caused. We don't ask unless, that is, we have no legal right to such relief. If we have no legal right, then, what we are asking for is "charity."
And as I pointed out in an earlier comment, New Orleanians have no legal claims against the Corps, a fact they have known and lived with -- carelessly, I might add -- for about 79 years.
April 14, 2006 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. A city destroyed, its people scattered, and it's concerned citizens are discussing is who is to blame.
Interesting approach to recreating the city. It will be fascinating to see how all that works out for you folks.
If you don't mind a well meaning outsiders point of view (or even if you do), blame has nothing to do with what decisions are made on funding for restoring NOLA.
After all, if you were a member of this administration, guilt is the least of your worries, more likely you would probably be spending most of your spare time praying there is no god, or at least not one with a sense of humor.
The decision will be made on purely pragmatic grounds, whats it will take to turn a profit on the city. So, If I were a concerned citizen, what I would be doing right now, is feverishly working up ROI scenarios for whatever I felt ought to be restored, not wondering who I should blame.
April 14, 2006 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for responding to my comment. I am sure that the levees were poorly designed. Many times, disasters are made worse by poor disaster preparedness, and this one clearly was-- both by badly built levees and by incompetent emergency response.
Remember, though, that the issue with respect to what to rebuild and what not to rebuild is the next storm, or the next flood (and the ones after that), not the previous storm and flood. And while political appointees are always going to gravitate towards factual findings that favor extensive rebuilding (not only does this generate votes, but also campaign contributions from the construction industry), the fundamental problem here is to what extent can the city be repopulated (and this includes not only rebuilding, but luring people back to live there) in a manner that will leave the residents protected against future storms and flooding. And to answer this, you need to analyze what sorts of storms are possible in the future thanks to the greenhouse effect, as well as whether the Mississippi River is going to make an attempt to relocate itself in the Achafalaya basin.
In other words, whether or not it is concluded that some or even most of THIS storm's flooding could have been prevented by better levee building (a fact that, if true, should leave us outraged at the government), there are still VERY tough questions to be answered regarding the rebuilding project.
April 14, 2006 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd, I appreciate your comments and generally agree. Your overall point should be better-received by this community, I think, and I don't want to be perceived as being in disagreement. But I've got a big technical gripe. I work in flood regulation compliance, and I think you've misread the Times-Picayune story.
First, the map to which you linked is a graphic of the current flood maps for Orleans Parish and surrounding areas. "Current" as in currently-in-effect, as in the same old maps first made effective in 1984. Compare the graphics you linked with those you find for the 1984 maps on FEMA's Map Service Center website and it's exactly the same. Exactly. Again, I work in flood regulation compliance with a national company; it's my job to know when a new map is released, and there's no new FEMA map out right now, not in NOLA anyhow.
The news in the article isn't as happy as you seem to think. The story's explanation is less-than-clear, but here's the deal: FEMA has not released new map graphics for NOLA yet, mostly because they haven't decided on the BFE (base flood elevation) for the new maps. What FEMA has done this week is issue advisories, temporary advisories, concerning minimum building regulations they enforce only indirectly. It is a temporary advisory that says the 1984 BFE is currently applicable, and adds the 3-foot rule. These advisories do serve to answer people's questions and help those wishing to apply for a permit in 2006-2007. But the new maps could change all of that, quite a bit.
When the new FEMA maps are released for public review sometime next year, it might involve a hefty increase in the BFE and any such changes will overrule these temporary advisories as soon as the maps go into effect, which is typically seven-to-nine months after the graphics are released (but in this case it'll probably take much longer, due to the likelihood of serious legal challenges). So in theory the 1984 BFE and the 3-foot rule could be gone before people have time to get approval for a renovation permit.
Something tells me the Bush administration won't want to make it easy to rebuild a lot of single-family residences that have been significantly damaged. So I'd expect a two-or-three-foot rise in the BFE, enough to retard rebuilding efforts in the poorer (lower) residential areas but not enough to effect areas that are currently dominated by commercial structures. That way big development could come in, raze the 9th ward and build a massive luxury condo on stilts, and the business and party districts would remain largely unaffected. A shame, but it's what I'd expect from the Bush-ites.
April 14, 2006 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone considered that sometimes Mother Nature wins? Here on Long Island there is continual southern shore erosion, especially on the barrier Fire Island. For many years the government rebuilt the beaches and took other steps to preseve the expensive houses. Homeowners would rebuild when storms knocked their structures to the ground. Then at some point the government realized there was never going to be a good engineering solution. People with homes were allowed to stay. When the homes fell down, or the people died they were removed. The shoreline is now almost all public land.
There are long-standing issues with the entire Mississippi delta which have been getting worse over the past 100 years. In addition to the changes in the wetlands, we have projections of stronger storms and rising sea level. It seems to me that no one is willing to address the questions of the long-term viability of a region that is below sea level.
Communities further up stream were relocated out of the flood plain after many years of futile rebuilding. Perhaps there needs to be a real regional plan that looks at all options including resettlement of some populations further upstream.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
April 15, 2006 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jim; what a great comment! Thanks. We know it's the same as the '84 -- that was the good news, mostly. Massive drainage imporvements in, eg, Broadmoor, should have led to a lowering of the standard.
Do you have a link to something that talks about when (and ideally how) the permanent maps will be generated? Or that these are indeed temporary? (How did everybody miss that?) '06-'07 is what really matters, and it turns out the 3' above grade rule is advisory (necessary for fed grants and total rebuilds), but this is still huge. It means they made us wait 6 months for no reason, since they're just kicking the can down the road.
April 15, 2006 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen is right about one thing: We should be demanding that New Orleans be rebuilt in a manner commensurate with the negligence with which the federal government helped destroy it. That has nothing to do with charity (a concept on which she is ill-informed). It has to do with making right a wrong committed by the federal government--specifically, by the Corps of Engineers, which, as has been noted, agrees that the levee would not have failed had it been built to design specifications.
There's a word for people who hide behind the letter of the law to avoid justice--but I don't care to use that kind of language just now.
April 15, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right now I'm out of the office, on vacation in rural Georgia. When I get back on Wednesday I'll get as much info as I can and pass it along.
But yeah, I see this development as a potentially backhanded effort. It could be that this is a harbinger of a lax let-'em-rebuild policy, but there's plenty of ways that FEMA could renege.
The three-foot rule, IMHO is an absolute necessity for a longer term than just a year or two, because so much of the lower-income housing was well below base flood elevation to start out with. Without the three-foot rule those houses couldn't be easily or cheaply rebuilt, especially when you consider that under current FEMA guidelines those homeowners would also have to get flood insurance as a condition of getting construction loans. That insurance is going to be REAL expensive if FEMA doesn't find a way to subsidize it mroe than they currently do.
A real let-'em-rebuild policy would make exceptions to a large number of FEMA regulations for a much longer time than one or two years. The three-foot rule is a decent start but doesn't qualify yet as a real commitment on FEMA's part. They can still end up saying "let make NOLA follow the same rules as everyone else", a sentiment which would basically end up gentrifying the city since it would quickly become too expensive to rebuild for most people. We'll see what they do next.
April 15, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, adam!
There's a word for people who hide behind the letter of the law to avoid justice--but I don't care to use that kind of language just now.
Hypocrite? Coward? Worse that that? Whatever. Good for you.
What's right and what's legal is not necessarily the same thing.
I'd also like to see documentation for this claim:
New Orleanians have no legal claims against the Corps
April 15, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'd also like to see documentation for this claim: New Orleanians have no legal claims against the Corps" janeboatler
You might try checking the local paper, although not being local myself, I can't vouch for its authority.
April 15, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's this in the very same article that you linked to:
However, lawyer Mitchell Hoffman, who also has filed a lawsuit against the corps, said it could help his case, which seeks to sidestep the corps' immunity by alleging the levee failure amounted to a massive government seizure of peoples' homes and land.
The courts might yet have to decide.
If you can't vouch for the authority of your source, why would you use it for documentation?
April 15, 2006 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim, both your posts were thoughtful and informative.
April 15, 2006 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as hurricanes are likely to be more frequent and higher intensity due to global warming, so are tornadoes and other storms. All weather is driven by moisture in the air to some degree, and the amount of moisture in the air depends upon the temperature of the air. So, maybe it makes sense to give up on saving New Orleans, but it makes equal sense to give up on saving the state of Oklahoma, where tornadoes tear up property every year. It makes equally good sense to give up on residential land along the Missouri/Mississippi River valleys. Then, of course, the residential areas along the Atlantic coast should be abandoned too, since increased hurricane activity will be destroying those areas too. But, not to worry, eastern Washington and Oregon, and Nevada offer plenty of good land to move everyone to.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 15, 2006 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a question of giving up on residential land. It's a question of whether and how much taxpayers should subsidize the life styles of private property owners.
Let's take your area, for example.
Should we be encouraging the building of high priced homes sited on the Sacramento River flood plain by providing cheap flood insurance at taxpayer expense?
April 15, 2006 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll assume you were being slightly facetious, but not all dangers are equal. It is hard to build flood proof structures. Damage from tornados, hurricanes and even earthquakes can be mitigated by proper building design. Florida now has new codes put in place after Andrew. San Francisco is constantly revising buildings based upon additional knowlege of earthquake activity. Japan is far ahead in this area.
Most damage from natural disaster is greater than need be because most structures are built as cheaply as possible. Wooden stick construction with a shingle roof is never a good design in an area with any expected high winds, for example.
The point of my posting was to suggest that relocation should be considered along with rebuilding. There is a good probability that New Orleans won't be viable by the end of this century just due to rising sea level. Politicians these days don't look further than the next election, so expecting long-range planning from them seems unlikely. There is nothing stopping citizen's groups from doing this, however.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
April 15, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a good probability that New Orleans won't be viable by the end of this century just due to rising sea level.
rdf, that's true. New Orleans, along with many other coastal areas, will not be viable if sea levels continue to rise.
BTW, I also agree with you that building the proper type of structure can mitigate damage from natural and unnatural disasters.
April 15, 2006 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The statute in question is 33 U.S.C. § 702c (1970) which reenacted the original immunity provision which was a part of the 1928 Mississippi flood control legislation.
Lawyer Hoffman's got the right idea. He's not looking for a handout; he's looking to get what is constitutionally his. Now, if the rest of his fellow New Orleanians would just follow in his footsteps . . . .
April 15, 2006 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Flood insurance is not an answer. That would just shift the cost of rebuilding to insurance companies which would go out of business if faced with a NOLA type situation. My area faces the same problems that New Orleans does - inadequate levees, and the solution is also the same. We need to use our national resources to replace inadequate levees with adequate ones. One could argue that our country cannot afford that, but obviously we can, and quite easily. Look at the money squandered in Iraq. If that money had been spent on New Orleans the whole world would have cheered, and New Orleans would not have suffered the tragedy it did. Also, don't overstate the degree of sea level rise we are facing - it is closer to a couple of feet than ten times that much, and two more feet of levee would then protect New Orleans.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 15, 2006 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't follow you. Flood insurance is made available by the federal government -- that is, the taxpayers -- not by "insurance companies."
And the answer to securing against the risks of flooding is for those affected to adjudge those risks and act, accordingly, either by not building in flood zones or wishing to do so, by paying for their own levees.
April 15, 2006 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as University of California geologist Jeffrey Mount said of those who continue to build on the Sacramento River flood plain, "[Since the 1997 flood] the population has skyrocketed, particularly on the flood plains."
Why should the taxpayers be paying for the housing costs of the wealthiest folks in the country?
April 15, 2006 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There is a good probability that New Orleans won't be viable by the end of this century just due to rising sea level.
"rdf, that's true. New Orleans, along with many other coastal areas, will not be viable if sea levels continue to rise."
There seems to be a rhetorical strategy here, to reply to anyone who raises issues about the vulnerability of New Orleans to future disasters to say other places are vulnerable too.
True enough, but in addition to the fact that not all the other dangers are equal in magnitude to those that face New Orleands, those other places are also not debating whether and how to REBUILD. There's a difference between deciding whether to keep existing structures and deciding whether to put new ones up. If you had place A and place B, and both were in great danger, but in place A many of the structures were destroyed while in place B everything was up and running, one very well might decide not to rebuild place A even while also deciding that place B would not need to be evacuated.
The other observation about this is that several posters seem to be mentioning class and gentrification issues. These are obviously real. But the problem is that as much as the demography of New Orleans is important, the safety of the residents is more important, especially since the blacks whom people want to move back to New Orleans to preserve the demographic balance are also the people who are in greater danger of being victimized by future storms.
I must say that I am a skeptic. A lot of the rhetoric deployed in support of the rebuilding effort seems deliberately dismissive of anyone who might question whether the city (and especially the low lying areas) will be safe to inhabit when the next storm inevitably comes and when sea levels rise. People are so committed to opposing demographic changes and preserving a beautiful culture that everything else takes a back seat.
I do think, however, that the issue will eventually be forced. The fact is that New Orleans has lost a significant portion of its population. And the portion that has stayed on is apparently whiter and richer than the portion that has left. No rebuilding effort is going to bring back the old New Orleans unless those people who left are lured back. And to the extent that they have given up on the city, i.e., that they have left because they simply don't want to be there when the next storm comes, it's going to be tough to bring them back, no matter what the flood maps say. One may build as many platformed houses in the lower ninth ward as one wishes; the question is whether enough people will want to live there.
April 16, 2006 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink