Are the Greenies actually right on this one?

[bjoehandley]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15305378/

[XJ Dreamin']

We'll find out later when we have to spend tax dollars to go back in there, evict everybody and restore the wetlands. The lesson of Katrina/Rita (and all hurricanes in recent history) is don't develop there - not speed up development there.

In the short term this will lock everything up in the courts so that no recovery at all gets done. yeehaw

[Bradlybob]

Not much of a tree hugger myself but I think they're right on this one. Don't want to get flooded out? Then don't build your house in a floodplane! Some people willl never learn.

[Beej]

Uhhh, Joe?

Would you mind not referring to environmentalists as "Greenies"? It has a different meaning where I come from...

:greensmok

[SCW]

I think the "greenies" are wrong again. I've worked on plenty of projects where wetlands are an issue, and here in Utah we had a simple stretch of road become one of the most expensive government projects in the nation because of a wetland. My take as a VERY avid sportsman, civil/envionmental engineer (envionmental emphasis in grad school) and one-time construction worker is that most wetlands regulations are simply wrong and pointed in the wrong direction. Let the Army corps get something done there and the impact to the area will be considerably less than dragging it out. Consider the "impact" of leaving it in the shape it is in right now, not bad, but the greenies would throw a fit if you dumped that stuff and would want it cleaned up immediately.

The only reason the plan is under fire is because there is develpment in the works. If it was a cleanup without rebuilding they wouldn't be able to throw rules out the door fast enough. Don't mistake it, these people are anti-development. They don't care who suffers from loss of property, values, lost income or any other catastrophe that doesn't impact them. They are the most selfish group this nation has ever seen.

"Greenies" doesn't refer to green grass. It's greenbacks they are after and everytime their damn lawyers open their mouths they cost someone a livelyhood.

[SCW]

Another note- I doubt the long-term damage to the ecosystem could even be registered after a few months anyway. This is not the most fragile ecosystem in the world, this is an area that has seen huricanes every year for eons and will continue to exist even if someone gets to rebuild their own house on their own property.

I can't even begin to express my disgust with these arrogant self-righteous idiots.

[XJ_Vikings]

the whole reason Katrina had such a devistating impact is there isnt enough wetland down there to begin with. There is no buffer zone to absorb the impact of the hurricane. Not to mention the fact that the mississippi river is being forced to go in a direction it doesnt want to go in. Avulsion has occured for the last few hundred million years which caused a large depositional area which we now call New Orleans. It pains me to agree with greenies but they are right here, although i dont think New Orleans should be rebuilt in the first place.

[XJ_Vikings]

Not much of a tree hugger myself but I think they're right on this one. Don't want to get flooded out? Then don't build your house in a floodplane! Some people willl never learn.

dont build your city on a 10 mile deep deposit of river mud in a bowl.

[SCW]

the whole reason Katrina had such a devistating impact is there isnt enough wetland down there to begin with. There is no buffer zone to absorb the impact of the hurricane. Not to mention the fact that the mississippi river is being forced to go in a direction it doesnt want to go in. Avulsion has occured for the last few hundred million years which caused a large depositional area which we now call New Orleans. It pains me to agree with greenies but they are right here, although i dont think New Orleans should be rebuilt in the first place.

In hurricanes there are two methods of destruction, flood surge and innundation. More wetlands would have decreased the velocity of the flood surge and take a little bit of the energy out of the wave before it hit the bulk of the city, but it would do nothing for innundation. Nothing can except to build above the flood plain- which is really not practical.

And to be honest, New Orleans has an extemely valuable location down on the delta. It has been the critical artery of the nation since the river was discovered and just saying "stick the city somewhere else" won't work. Think about it, if it's been flooding since before the white man got there and has been a mosquito infested mess forever- and still the city grew, there must be a reason. That's like telling the Dutch to just move to Switzerland so they don't have to worry about the sea anymore.

[XJ Dreamin']

All moot at this point. It's going to the courts, now. It'll be years before anything gets done.

[stewie]

... i dont think New Orleans should be rebuilt in the first place.
I agree

dont build your city on a 10 mile deep deposit of river mud in a bowl.

again, i agree X2

[RichP]

Personally I think anyone stupid enough to build below sea level, between a river, the ocean, a lake and in a hurricane prone area deserves what they get... However, I was reading an article about the netherlands and their floating houses, tethered to pilings so they go up and down as needed. Normally they sit on the ground but in the event of high water they float, the one they showcased could go up 20ft, fairly big houses too..

[XJ_Vikings]

Personally I think anyone stupid enough to build below sea level, between a river, the ocean, a lake and in a hurricane prone area deserves what they get... However, I was reading an article about the netherlands and their floating houses, tethered to pilings so they go up and down as needed. Normally they sit on the ground but in the event of high water they float, the one they showcased could go up 20ft, fairly big houses too..

Venice used to be just like New Orleans and we all know what thats like now. I saw the show in the floating houses too and it was very interesting to me being an enginnering major. We have had various people from the rebuilding effort come and speak and for the most part they all agree its foolish to rebuild, but theres no way its not gonna happen.

Nothing can except to build above the flood plain- which is really not practical.

Think about it, if it's been flooding since before the white man got there and has been a mosquito infested mess forever- and still the city grew, there must be a reason.

I personally think its very practical to build above a flood plane, after all it is the area that will undergo flooding ona regular basis....

the reason the city grew was because it was a center of commerce when it was all done by boat. I believe the pro's of having a shipping city are outweighed by the cons of its geological condition. It is probably the second worst place in the United States to live (geologically) behind SF. The big complaint i have heard is that the culture will die if we get rid of the city. Look at our mexican population, do they lose their culture when they move to the US?