[Mb-civic] Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild? - Klaus Jacob - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild?

By Klaus Jacob
Tuesday, September 6, 2005; Page A25

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.

This is not a natural disaster. It is a social, political, human and -- 
to a lesser degree -- engineering disaster. To many experts, it is a 
disaster that was waiting to happen. In fact, Katrina is not even the 
worst-case scenario. Had the eye of the storm made landfall just west of 
the city (instead of to the east, as it did) the wind speeds and its 
associated coastal storm surge would have been higher in New Orleans 
(and lower in Gulfport, Miss.). The city would have flooded faster, and 
the loss of life would have been greater.

What scientific facts do we need before making fateful political, social 
and economic decisions about New Orleans's future? Here are just two:

First, all river deltas tend to subside as fresh sediment (supplied 
during floods) compacts and is transformed into rock. The Mississippi 
River delta is no exception. In the early to mid-20th century, the Army 
Corps of Engineers was charged with protecting New Orleans from 
recurring natural floods. At the same time, the Corps kept the river 
(and some related canals) along defined pathways. These well-intended 
defensive measures prevented the natural transport of fresh sediments 
into the geologically subsiding areas. The protected land and the 
growing city sank, some of it to the point that it is now 10 feet below 
sea level. Over time, some of the defenses were raised and strengthened 
to keep up with land subsidence and to protect against river floods and 
storm surges. But the defenses were never designed to safeguard the city 
against a direct hit by a Category 5 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson 
scale) or a Category 4 hurricane making landfall just west of the city.

Second, global sea levels have risen less than a foot in the past 
century, and will rise one to three feet by the end of this century. 
Yes, there is uncertainty. But there is no doubt in the scientific 
community that the rise in global sea levels will accelerate.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501034.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050906/32b12d25/attachment.htm