Obligatory Hurricane Katrina Entry
Posted by Jim at September 10th, 2005
Undoubtedly you’ve probably read a few (okay, a lot) of hurricane Katrina related blog entries by now. I’ll just take advantage of this opportunity to make a couple observations.
1. Though the government response wasn’t particularly effective, I don’t feel a need (at this moment) to blame the current leadership of either Louisiana or the US for the problems. It’s not that I believe that either is without fault. It’s just that I don’t really have the necessary information to feel confident of my opinions at the moment.
I did, however, feel somewhat bothered to learn that the reason that New Orleans didn’t have levees that could stand up to level 5 hurricanes was due to politicians feeling that the public probably wouldn’t have wanted to pay for it. They may have been right, but it’s pretty obvious now that we the public didn’t save any money on this deal.
Learning that funds that were originally earmarked to improve levees (during the Clinton administration) were diverted for use in Iraq doesn’t make me happy either. It’s worth mentioning that according to the guy involved in planning the improvements, the changes wouldn’t have stopped everything. That being said, it would have been better than the current disaster.
2. I’m sick of hearing people say things like, “New Orleans shouldn’t be rebuilt because it’s mostly under sea level.” Using that logic, you should probably evacuate a large portion of the Netherlands immediately, but yet the Dutch don’t seem to be going anywhere.
In the course of rebuilding the levee system, it might be worth checking out the Dutch system. Apparently one of the problems New Orleans has is that thanks to the levee system, the city is actually lower with respect to sea level than it was before the levees were put in. Before the levees, the place would flood, depositing sediment all over and keeping land at a certain level. Now all the sediment just goes straight into the Gulf of Mexico.
To avoid similar problems, the Dutch apparently constructed two sets of dykes, the outermost of which has an opening when the tides are low (and closes when tides are high). Supposedly, this allows them to keep sediment that might otherwise be lost.
I don’t know how this would be adapted to New Orleans, but it seems like something worth thinking about. New Orleans isn’t the only city in the world under sea level. Hopefully the reconstruction will build on other places’ successful ideas.
I know I said two observations, but I’ll add a third…
3. Race: I’ve heard a lot of people suggest that it would have gone better if the people left behind were largely white rather than black. I don’t have the information necessary for me to be confident in saying that that’s either true or false. That being said, I could imagine race subtlely affecting the process in a number of ways. For example, whites sometimes associate being black with ciminality. This might result in a less trusting attitude toward black New Orleans residents on the part of National guard troops. Similarly, it might cause reporters to view stories of rape and violence with greater credibility than otherwise (and according to some people, some of those stories don’t hold up).
All I know for sure is that race still affects things even if the way it affects things isn’t completely obvious.
So anyway, this is a bit of my jumbled thinking about Katrina. Take it for what it’s worth.
> I’m sick of hearing people say things
> like, “New Orleans shouldn’t be rebuilt
> because it’s mostly under sea level.” Using that
> logic, you should probably evacuate a large
> portion of the Netherlands immediately,
> but yet the Dutch don’t seem to be going anywhere.
Jim, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. At this point in time, nothing has changed in the Netherlands, while New Orleans has just undergone a dramatic geographic change.
When the flooding occurred, the coastline moved. To build or rebuild a city beyond the current coastline defies common sense. If they wish to rebuild New Orleans where it stood before the storm, I think they should build it like Venice.
James
It’d certainly be amusing to rebuild it like Venice (though that’s not necessarily a sure defense either).
That being said, the Netherlands experienced a massive flood in 1953. Since then they’ve rebuilt, improving their water management system substantially. I think it likely that they had to ignore the natural coastline to do it.
What it comes down to though, is that when I wrote that I was sick of hearing people say that New Orleans shouldn’t rebuild, I wasn’t repsonding to good points like yours.
I was mostly responding to some fairly alarmist statements I’d heard in which people said that the US should abandon the city because it’s below sea level.
I tend to think that rebuilding would be quite doable (as well as costly…). I even think it’s worth doing–assuming that people are willing to pay for it.
If they aren’t, then they shouldn’t rebuild.
Jim Zoetewey