Ultima Thule

In ancient times the northernmost region of the habitable world - hence, any distant, unknown or mysterious land.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

The WaPo asks: Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild?

By Aussiegirl

You read it here first, folks. I first voiced these same thoughts last Wednesday, in my very first hurricane post entitled Thoughts on Katrina. Once again Ultima Thule leads the way in creative thinking. What probably seemed like a crackpot idea when I first proposed it just days after the hurricane struck, is now being picked up by a swelling chorus of experts and thinkers. Is it feasible or worth it to rebuild New Orleans? Don't miss this Washington Post article by an eminent geophysicist who specializes in disaster management and planning.

Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild?: "It is time to swim against the tide. The direction of public discourse in the wake of Katrina goes like this: First we save lives and provide some basic assistance to the victims. Then we clean up New Orleans. And then we rebuild the city. Most will rightly agree on the first two. But should we rebuild New Orleans, 10 feet below sea level, just so it can be wiped out again?
Some say we can raise and strengthen the levees to fully protect the city. Here is some unpleasant truth: The higher the defenses, the deeper the floods that will inevitably follow. The current political climate is not conducive to having scientific arguments heard before political decisions are made. But not doing so leads to the kind of chaos we are seeing now."

[...]What does this mean for New Orleans's future? Government officials and academic experts have said for years that in about 100 years, New Orleans may no longer exist. Period.

It is time to face up to some geological realities and start a carefully planned deconstruction of New Orleans, assessing what can or needs to be preserved, or vertically raised and, if affordable, by how much. Some of New Orleans could be transformed into a "floating city" using platforms not unlike the oil platforms offshore, or, over the short term, into a city of boathouses, to allow floods to fill in the 'bowl' with fresh sediment.

If realized, this "American Venice" would still need protection from the worst of storms. Restoration of mangroves and wetlands between the coast and the city would need to be carefully planned and executed. Much engineering talent would have to go into anchoring the floating assets to prevent chaos during storms. As for oil production, refining and transshipment facilities, buffer zones would have to be established to protect them from the direct onslaught of coastal storm surges.

Many ancient coastal cities of great fame have disappeared or are now shells of their former grandeur. Parts of ancient Alexandria suffered from the subsidence of the Nile delta, and earthquakes and tsunamis toppled the city's famed lighthouse, one of the "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World."

It is time that quantitative, science-based risk assessment became a cornerstone of urban and coastal land-use planning to prevent such disasters from happening again. Politicians and others must not make hollow promises for a future, safe New Orleans. Ten feet below sea level and sinking is not safe. It is time to constructively deconstruct, not destructively reconstruct.

1 Comments:

At 7:57 PM, Blogger Michael Morrison said...

Should we rebuild New Orleans?
Why, no; I have no interest in New Orleans, other than the Dixieland music and some of the cuisine.
How about you, Aus?
Do you have any personal interests there?
My guess is no.
Leave it to The Washington Compost, or Washington Com.post as we punsters call its Web site, to ask the collectivist question, "Should WE rebuild?"
The plutocrats of the Post are free to spend their own money as they see fit, but I resent their continual efforts to spend my money as they see fit.
If there are people who want to rebuild New Orleans, I say let 'em.
If it's their money, it's their risk.
If, though, it's our money, then first we have to disabuse the collectivists and irrationalists of their faulty premise.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home