August 31, 2005
Katrina
Hurricane Katrina was possibly the biggest natural disaster in our history. Hundreds dead. Thousands in need of emergency rescue. Millions homeless. I don’t want to create a partisan argument here, but this event is too important to be ignored just because political credit or blame cannot be easily assigned.
I'm living in Germany this summer, so I've been relying on the internet and CNN International for my news and images. The new is horrifying.
I was glad to hear this morning from a cousin in Mobile, Alabama, and to know that she is ok. She's amazingly fortunate in her misfortune. She moved from Alabama from Montana two years ago, and Katrina is the third hurricane she's survived practically unscathed in that time.
Millions of others are not so lucky.
In terms of political impact, I anticipate Katrina being discussed in debates about budget priorities, energy policy, the environment, regulations, global warming, and the economy for years ahead. I think time will come for those debates later.
Posted by LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 01:49 PMhttp://www.hurricane.lsu.edu/_in_the_news/houston.htm
Sobering…
Posted by: derek at August 31, 2005 02:26 PMAnd Another…
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
As horrifying as it is, I’m not sure whether hundreds of dead necessarily constitute a “huge” natural disaster. (To be fair, it is still early as far as an accurate assessment of the impact goes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters
Posted by: HY at August 31, 2005 02:48 PMIts so mindboggling and depressing — the sheer enormity of it.
A little while ago my husband called and told me that he and a few of his co-workers (they’re carpenters) are going to see if their company will let them go for a week so they can go help build some temporary shelters.
I hope everyone who can manage it will try to contribute in some small way — be it hands, skills or money. I think they’re really going to need it in a big way.
HY,
That’s a very unfair perspective. First, since people in LA aren’t even bothering to count the dead at this point, there’s no telling how many are lost.
You’re looking at a national disaster that’s going be one of our country’s most impactful in terms of economic, social and environmental effects.
Body count isn’t the issue. Think about the thousands who are displaced, the exponential potential for disease, and months of recovery that’s going to take place.
Posted by: derek at August 31, 2005 02:55 PMHY,
If the body count of 110 holds, then you’re probably right. However, they’re saying that they’re not even trying to count the dead in New Orleans yet, so the number will grow significantly.
Even without that, the economic and physical scale of this disaster is astounding. Perhaps only the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 would compare in terms of destroying a major American city, and San Francisco wasn’t a major focus of our energy industry.
It will take weeks (perhaps months) to get rid of all the flood waters. Only then will rebuilding really be able to start, and perhaps only then will all the bodies be found.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 02:58 PMLawnboy:
Thanks for the post. This is indeed a tragedy that is just starting. I was hoping that this would be a non-partison issue, but already that is apparently not the case from what I have seen on the news.
Too bad so many National Guard and equipment are in Iraq. This is a financially devastating disaster when the country is already mind-boggling in debt.
Did I really hear that what little foreign aid that has been offered has been refused? I may have heard it wrong, I sure hope so.
The last estimate I heard was $25+ billion in insured losses, I wonder about the uninsured losses. Also the future losses, folks without jobs for how long? No homes, no jobs, by the thousands.
This just breaks my heart.
Posted by: womanmarine at August 31, 2005 03:05 PMDid I really hear that what little foreign aid that has been offered has been refused?
Not that I’ve heard, and a search on Google news for Katrina “foreign aid” didn’t return anything.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 03:13 PMDerek,
If my comment came across as an attempt to diminish the impact of this event, I apologize. What I was trying to get at was the idea that we tend to be quick to label things as “one of the worst ever” when you don’t have to go too far back into history to find something that was at least as bad, if not worse. Looking at US Weather Disasters from 1980-2004 only (!) there are at least a couple of natural disasters that would be hard to beat (the two heat waves in 1980, 1988).
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/special/disasterssince1980.pdf
No, body count isn’t necessarily the only issue. But (in the west, anway) property can be replaced in time, economies will recover, and the risk of disease, while certainly present is something I’m sure the US has more than adequate infrastructure and resources to handle.
Posted by: HY at August 31, 2005 03:20 PMThe only foreign aid I believe we have been offered is Saudia Arabia upping their oil output to make up for the loss of oil. This doesn’t help the refining that is lost as well as the port we normally bring the international oil into the country, but it is something.
I don’t see any other country offering aid or assistance at this point, but I could just not be informed atm, perhaps there are offers pouring in that are just not being reported.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2005 03:22 PMHY,
That’s an interesting list. I had no idea that those droughts were so damaging, both financially and in deaths.
You’re right that I might have been using too much hyperbole, so I’m not offended by your correction. No one knows how much the damage will end up being, and I don’t want to be rooting for more damage just to win a point.
When evaluating natural disasters, we typically measure on two scales; financial impact and lives lost. Katrina probably won’t top the list on either (in addition to the heat waves/droughts, there was the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 that killed 8-10,000), but the combination of impacts in an age when we can predict hurricanes is awesome (original meaning).
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 03:29 PMThe mayor of New Orleans is now estimating thousands perished and a total evacuation of the city which will likely not return to normal for 2-3 months.
Posted by: steve smith at August 31, 2005 03:57 PMChavez offered aid. His was one of the first countries to do so.
It is much much too early to try and figure out what went wrong and who needs to fix it. There will be plenty of time for that later.
Most people feel so many emotions. For those that have the money, please contribute. For those that do not contact the various charities and see how you can help, even a pint of blood can be used.
The hardest part is waiting and that is what we all have to do right now is wait. Once this thing is under control and that will take a month or two contact those who can make sure changes are made and make darn sure your voice is heard. If they don’t listen, make sure we get people in office that do. Where was the money for the levy repairs? What exactly is Homeland security helping to secure, you don’t think that people can blow up a levy? Where were the plans? Lots of questions and more to come. I think that the priorities are straight. Fix the levy and get the people out.
Right now we are hearing from NOLA and Alabama but what about the smaller towns south of NOLA. I heard once on the news that one area is half gone, reclaimed by the gulf.
What a mess
Top Stories
Bush Releases Oil From Petroleum Reserve
Wed 3:25PM ET - AP
The Bush administration agreed Wednesday to release oil from emergency stockpiles to help Gulf Coast refiners hobbled by a loss of shipments due to Hurricane Katrina. The administration also moved to temporarily ease some pollution standards on gasoline and diesel fuel to avert shortages.
What happened in New Orleans was NOT a ‘Natural Disaster’.
Posted by: bugcrazy at August 31, 2005 04:28 PMbugcrazy,
You can’t just say something like that and slink off.
What on earth do you mean? Do you think Katrina was a ruse put in the minds of Muggles to hide an attack by Voldemort?
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 04:34 PMit was a hurricane that swept over a city that is built below sea level…if it’s not a natural disaster…what is it?
and i swear if you bring some sort of god’s wrath crap on this site….
Posted by: views at August 31, 2005 04:36 PMI think it’s all a matter of you don’t react to something like this until you get hit. This city wasn’t constructed below Sea Level- it subsided to that level because of coastal erosion and the drawing off of water from below. There’s a difference between the intellectual appreciation of your environment and an experiential one.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2005 04:43 PMI would guess that bugcrazy’s comment was directed towards the foolishness of living in a below-sea-level city on a hurricane-prone coast. It’s like building a megalopolis on a fault line, then being surprised when an earthquake knocks down your city.
So, to be honest, this was a disaster that was half natural (Hurricane Katrina) and half man-made (below-sea-level city). The sea is fickle, as are large rivers. The sea floods, the rivers move, and neither wait for man to get out of the way.
That’s why I like Indiana. Except for the occasional tornado, the only real danger we have is dying of boredom. ;-)
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 31, 2005 04:47 PMI guess the question is whether the inevitability of a natural disaster makes it any less “natural”.
I’ll partially agree with Rob’s interpretation, but I really want to hear that bugcrazy thinks it’s all tricks by the Ministry of Magic.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 04:50 PMI strongly urge that any and all discussions pertaining to the ways that this could have been avoided, the would have, could have’s etc. be postponed until the damage has been completely assessed and repaired. More importantly there are missing human beings who have families deeply concerned about their plight.
Posted by: steve smith at August 31, 2005 04:52 PMA very simple versions of why this was not a natural disaster in NOLA. Originally the city was above sea level with water of three sides. Made it a perfect place to put a port city. Good planning on their part. Advance some years. River floods leaves silt hard on shipping and hard on the people who were flooded. Place drained quickly because of swamps. Question- how do we stop floding. Build levies. More shipping more people. More land reclaimed. There goes the swamps there goes the silt that kept it above sea level. Enviromental types warn as usual they are ignored. Betsy hits damage but no massive damage. The levies hold. The Big Easy parties on. One problem levies need to be maintained. Ask the Dutch they know. That takes money. Who pays? Money divered from budgets to pay for other things most recent little argument in Iraq. Katrina comes along. People warned. Most pay attention. Many can’t or don’t. Not a direct hit. No floods. Let the good times roll. uhmmmmm see some water, not good. See some more water. This is really not good. Oh crap levy broke. You have got to be kidding another break. Now we have a mess.
See natural and man made
Posted by: C.L.O. at August 31, 2005 05:09 PMSteve Smith-
This world works on real time. We need to discuss certain events before they’re cold in our minds. Would it profit us anything to wait so long on issues like levees and reclamation that we’ve moved on to something else? Wait a little while to get better facts, sure, but don’t wait so long that you’ve moved onto other issues.
If you think that I am cold hearted I am not, just giving a short version of events to bring others up to speed.
BTW I am packing to go down there in a medical capacity and my Cousin is going down there in a mortuary capacity. I will help but not going to do it with a sad face. They deserve better than that.
If I can’t talk about who is responsible. How they are doing. If it was man made or natural.
How it will effect the economy etc etc. What exactly do you want to talk about.
From a report on NPR yesterday… there has been a loss of between 20 and 40 miles of swamp land directly between the Gulf and New Orleans. The basic benefit (aside from the wildlife that lived there) was that it was a good buffer against the wind and storm surges. I live in North Carolina, and I’ve watched as hundreds of homes - build on the Outer Banks - have been destroyed. The Outer Banks does pretty much the same thing as the swamps on the Gulf do.
There’s also the issue of global warming… but since I’ve just now turned on the TV (been working) and seen that this might actually be on the same scale as 9/11… This all kind of just sucks in a very heavy way.
Maybe we could use this blog in a positive way:
I will try my best to match dollar for dollar each Republican posting here - contributions to Katrina relief. (I mean this in the best of spirits.)
I’ll start off with $100. Any takers?
Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 05:37 PMSteve Smith,
How are we to influence the Natural Course of Human Events unless we discuss things as they happen. Could of, would of, should of are ligetiment question as The American Society comes to terms with what has to be done. While some areas hit by Katrina was caused by Nature, the dikes in New Orleans should of had a back up plan just in case. Stopping the leak within the first few hours would of saved lifes and property and should of been on record at City Hall. I wonder what the natural course of Human Events would be today if New Orleans was not getting the headlines?
Henry,
“I wonder what the natural course of Human Events would be today if New Orleans was not getting the headlines?”
Aprox. 900 people died in a paniced stampede in Iraq.
—-
I wonder what the natural course of Human Events would be today if New Orleans was not getting the headlines?
—-
965 pilgrims died today in Iraq. (This is not a very good week anywhere.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/international/middleeast/31cnd-iraq.html
Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 06:00 PMProblem is, the levies were not built to withstand anything higher than a category 3 hurricane. It just took this long for one greater than the levies could stand to come along.
Posted by: SirisC at August 31, 2005 06:01 PMI wish I could offer $1000 to every individual who chooses to not rebuild there or to everyone who does rebuild earth bermed structures on high ground which won’t be destroyed or become lethal the next time. My daughter would recoup my entire investment over and over again during the course of her working career in taxes that never had to be doled out to senselessness again.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 06:14 PMThe more oil and gas we pull out of the ground there, the more subsidence takes place. This is ultimately a lost cause rebuilding New Orleans. And I resent having to pay taxes for lost causes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 06:17 PMThis is not a very good week anywhere.
Plus, a weaker hurricane is bearing down on Taiwan.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 31, 2005 06:22 PMAdrienne,
I hope everyone who can manage it will try to contribute in some small way — be it hands, skills or money. I think they’re really going to need it in a big way.
Your right they’ll need all the help they can get.
I’ve already sent a check to the Salvation Army from my wife and me. I’ve also instruced my company’s accountant to send a check.
A couple of my employees have said that they would like to go over there and help with the cleanup efforts. I just might pay their way and pay them their regular pay too. Heck, if I can put off some business I just might go myself.
I would encorage everyone to do what they can to help in this cause.
“This is ultimately a lost cause rebuilding New Orleans.”
It’s so sad, but I think you might be right. Do you think they will actually attempt to rebuild the entire city?
Man, what a endeavor to try to relocate all those people elsewhere… But that might be a lot more sensible in the long run.
This is ultimately a lost cause rebuilding New Orleans. And I resent having to pay taxes for lost causes.You wouldn’t resent it if you were from New Orleans and it was your house being rebuilt. And why does New Orleans need to be rebuilt in the first place? It’s the trickle-down theory of the wonderful tax cuts we received during war time: When the levee breaks
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 31, 2005 06:49 PM
Rocky & Tony,
Do you think President BVush would of cut his vacation short for the 900 plus Pligrams in Iraq being killed. Would of he even addressed The Nation? True, The Gilf Coast looks bad today, but have you thought about how much money will be put into that area over the next 5-10 years?
Nevertheless, the question still remains on where these Natural Course ofHuman Events lead. If President Bush does Everything Right will it inprove his job rating? Will Katrina take the Eyes of America off what is going on in Iraq? Will OBL use this opportunity to hit America?
Although stopping Nature’s Wrath takes things like levies to stop, they are not fail safe. Therefore, the Leaders of New Orleans should of had a back up plan for not if, but when a levy broke or got over ran. Knowing that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, we can only presume that New Orleans would be better off if the city could of contained the break. The Flooding of The Mississippi River in the Early 90’s gave us the prefect chane to learn.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 31, 2005 07:32 PMTherefore, the Leaders of New Orleans should of had a back up plan for not if, but when a levy broke or got over ran. Knowing that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, we can only presume that New Orleans would be better off if the city could of contained the break.
The city had backup plans, and could have contained the leaks, but were not given the funding they needed to do so. Why not? Because it was needed for the war in Iraq! How many other American cities are in danger now from terror attacks and/or natural disasters because of the Federal government’s debt? Which city is next?
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 31, 2005 07:52 PMNope. Sorry, I tossed out $100 donation… not going to debate further until someone at least matches it.
(I love to argue and debate, but today I’d rather put my money where my mouth is.)
Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 07:58 PM“You wouldn’t resent it if you were from New Orleans and it was your house being rebuilt.”
Some of us our actually intelligent enough and fortunate enough occupationally to research and choose where we live, as in places not subject to repeated natural disasters. And some who choose to live in such areas, are fortunate enough to afford engineers and architects who can deliver natural disaster proof buildings. Very few though actually do this, because insurance companies too often underbid the capital investment cost of building disaster proof structures.
In fact, where would property insurance profits come from if houses and busineses were built to withstand natural disasters and criminal activities? Such structures are very doable, and in the case of homes, cost no more to build over the ownership of the home than conventional structures. But, who cares, right? Tax payers have infinitely deep pockets as do consumers.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 08:00 PMTony,
I’ve matched your $100 donation, and I’ll raise you another $100. I have two aunts in Mississippi that have lost their houses and nearly their lives. I have two cousins and another uncle that are still missing. I have three other family member that, while they are safe and their property only experienced minor flooding, their city is essentially gone. I can guarantee you that I’ll continue putting both my energy and my money where my mouth is… now will you allow the discussion to continue?
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 31, 2005 08:08 PM—-
I’ve matched your $100 donation, and I’ll raise you another $100.
——
YEA! That’s what I’m talking about. Excellent. Hell, with your situation, I’ll go 2 x 1 against you - and easily say - so far, you win.
Thanks.
—-
The city had backup plans, and could have contained the leaks, but were not given the funding they needed to do so. Why not? Because it was needed for the war in Iraq! How many other American cities are in danger now from terror attacks and/or natural disasters because of the Federal government’s debt? Which city is next?
—-
I agree… we’ve drained our resources, and when limits are tested (like they were with this storm) we should all expect to see things break, and break badly.
My uncle is a big-wig at Allied Chemical (or what ever it is called now.) They have a huge chemical plant in Baton Rouge… which could easily be attacked by terrorists (or even a really bad ice storm…) and make the Oklahoma bombing looks like fireworks. It’s pretty much the same stuff is raw form in a HUGE amount.
But no one has attacked something similar - so no one is pushing security as of yet…
Posted by: tony at August 31, 2005 08:22 PMDavid,
Some of us our actually intelligent enough and fortunate enough occupationally to research and choose where we live, as in places not subject to repeated natural disasters.
Which places are those, according to your research? The entire east, west, and gulf coasts are out, and much of the rest of the country. Where exactly do you deem it safe to live (and therefore worthy of your tax dollars)? What do you suggest we do with all this vacant land when we move all of human civilization out of it? This will only get worse as global warming continues and hurricanes get stronger and reach further into the land.
Your comments are incredibly insulting to the victims, some of which have lived in the area all their lives, or are not fortunate enough occupationally to be able to live elsewhere, or simply cannot afford to move at all.
Incidentally, where do you live? It sounds like an unbelievably safe place.
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 31, 2005 08:24 PMCharles:
I can tell you where David lives. It is either on the north-east coast or the west coast. That is where he said all the intelligent people live & he has already told us he is intelligent.
David:
I am perplexed that you didn’t bother answer my questions under Baby Boomers in the red column.
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at August 31, 2005 08:54 PMCharles, a person who gets a thrill out of walking 200 foot high bridge hand rails and falls to their death, are deserving of our empathy for their death. But, they were still a fool for choosing to walk the rail the first place.
And no, your absurd exaggeration that most of the nation is unsafe is just that absurd. Talk to any property and casualty folks with insurance companies, they will tell you lethal and catastrophic natural disaster risk areas in the Continental US are quite small compared to the total land mass.
The biggies are Tornado Alley, the Gulf Coast and Southeastern seaboard, and the risk goes down precipitously every mile you move inland. The fault zone extending from British Columbia to Southern California which has a high risk primarily along a narrow strip of the the geography of those states. And an extremely narrow strip of land on either sides of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. These are the big risk areas where it is a certainty that lethal and natural catastrophic disasters will repeatedly occur.
Other areas of the nation have risks associated with them but, they are by comparison very low risk, or not subject to repeated disasters in the exact same locations. The fault line from Arkansas up into the midwest is an example. If it goes, it could be catastrophic. But, the risk of it going at this time is very remote. The risk of it going in the next 1000 years, is pretty damn high.
My reference to spending tax dollars futilely was aimed at only those ares subject to repeated and predictable recurrences of catastrophe. You can view it as an insult if you wish. I call it being rational and logical about saving lives and property by investing in catastrophe proof construction or else avoiding rebuilding at all.
Anyone who builds their house on mudslide hills of California, should be denied any federal assistance when it goes, and they should of course, be told that before buying under truth in lending laws governing mortgages. And folks in such predictably high risk areas should be paying insurance rates reflecting actuarial charts based on just those high risk areas and not averaged into the risk factor of all other policy holders.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 09:15 PMPerplexed, I live in the Hill Country in S. Central Texas just below the Southern end of Tornado Alley. Two hundred miles from the coast safe from hurricanes, built on high ground away from our wet weather creek, and no fault lines in this immediate area, though we sit over a stable and extensive cave system that extends well into New Mexico.
Our biggest risk is tornado, and it is a very low risk for this particular 5 acre location. Home of Bush land. Yeah, there are millions of intelligent people here in Texas, 2/3 of them are Republican. And yes, I include myself in that group, though I am not a Republican, not a Democrat either for that matter, which makes me feel pretty comfortable with my intelligence level.
I lose track of many threads. Not enough time to respond to everyone of them, but, I give it my best shot with time available. I just got a new writing position, so, I will have even less now than before. Sorry for missing it. I will try to locate it later this evening.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 09:24 PMPerplexed, I just read your comment to me under Boomers, it contained critiquing of the messenger instead of the message, and therefore warrants no repsonse from me. I am too intelligent to fall for your flame baiting. Peace! and have a nice day! :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 09:36 PMI can’t donate money or go help, but I do get lots of kids clothes and some adults clothes donated on a regular basis, so we always end up with a surplus. I’m going to go through all our excess household goods and clothing and box it up.
1) Where do I take it? Local Salvation Army is my first choice. Will that get it there?
2) Are warm clothes needed, or just “summer” attire? Blankets?
Any other suggestions would be welcome.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 09:39 PMHenry S.,
“The Flooding of The Mississippi River in the Early 90’s gave us the prefect chane to learn.”
I don’t know about early 90’s, but late 90’s there was a major flood up north here. We were promised all sorts of assistance from Clinton about rebuilding the gates which were to help prevent such things. If it was ever provided it was kept fairly quiet. My husband and I had the misfortune of having committed to traveling during that time and most of the bridges were out, often because of disrepair added to the flooding.
In my limited experience, there is always a lot of talk after natural disasters, but little action (meaning to prevent future catastrophes, not to help the victims of the current one). Hopefully Katrina will change that, but I have my doubts.
Are the places that were hit last year built better now?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 09:56 PMDavid:
I must admit; you are a smart one. You almost fell for the old “Flame Baiting” trick.
Sounds like you have all the bases covered. No hurricanes, few tornadoes, no high water & you talk like a flaming liberal, but call yourself an independent. Life doesn’t get any better than that.
In fact I read about a guy like you in a book one time: “The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, [and] be merry. But God said unto him, [Thou] fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?”
You know, I’m curios, what if the Bible is correct & mankind actually has to answer to God?
Perplexed
Perplexed,
“You know, I’m curios, what if the Bible is correct & mankind actually has to answer to God?”
Most of us are going to get it good and hard.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 31, 2005 10:20 PMPerplexed said: “Sounds like you have all the bases covered.”
Yep, someone day before yesterday said I was a very careful person. I thanked them for the compliment. Because the root of responsibility is taking care with one’s words and deeds. Responsibility, a philosopher prof. told me once, is exercising the ability to respond appropriately. The words never leave my head. Almost divinely inspired words, wouldn’t you say?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 10:30 PMDavid,
a person who gets a thrill out of walking 200 foot high bridge hand rails and falls to their death, are deserving of our empathy for their death. But, they were still a fool for choosing to walk the rail the first place.
The US is consistently listed as one of the top 10 most dangerous countries to live in. Are we all fools to live here? By your logic we are. Automobile accidents are one of the biggest causes of death in this country…are all car owners fools? By your logic they are. Where exacly do you draw the line here? You could also make the claim that anyone who lives near a nuclear powerplant or a river is a fool… or anyone who continues to work in a tall building even though it has previously been the target of a terrorist attack.
Your absurd exaggeration that most of the nation is unsafe is just that absurd….The biggies are Tornado Alley, the Gulf Coast and Southeastern seaboardTornado Alley alone covers approximately 25% of the land mass of the country. Now add to that the coasts and earthquake areas (factoid from FEMA: There are 45 states and territories in the United States at moderate to very high risk from earthquakes, and they are located in every region of the country), areas prone to wildfires, and areas prone to flash flooding (you do know that the Texas Hill Country is known as “flash flood alley”, right?) I stand by my statement.
And folks in such predictably high risk areas should be paying insurance rates reflecting actuarial charts based on just those high risk areas and not averaged into the risk factor of all other policy holders.This is the one and only part of your post I agree with. The insurance companies should be factoring the higher risks into their rates. However, if the insurance companies don’t do this (and they do, eg “flood insurance”, “earthquake insurance”, etc.) it is not the policy holder’s fault.
Now, you didn’t answer… what about those people who don’t have the luxury to choose where they work or live? What about those that were born there and can’t afford to move or even to pay for insurance? What about those that aren’t intelligent or informed enough to know better? Are they less deserving of aid?
Charles said: “The US is consistently listed as one of the top 10 most dangerous countries to live in.”
Did it ever occur to you the WAY we live in this country has far more to do with it being a dangerous place to live than the longitude and lattitude? Apparently not.
Charles, A lot of California experiences daily quakes. Most too small to feel, less are felt but pose no risk, and a rare few will damage life and property. There is a huge difference between stating an area is at high risk of experiencing earth quakes and saying everyone in that area is at high risk of property and life loss.
If you can’t appreciate that difference, you will never understand my comments. And that is OK. I long ago accepted the fact that not everyone would understand what I have to say or agree. Diversity is fascinating and stimulating and makes America worth living in and loving.
I appreciate your participation in this dialogue, though, agreeing with you is pretty hard to accomplish given the conclusions you reach from the words you read.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 10:43 PMCharles, we need to help those in Katrina’s wake. My argument is we should not support their choice to subject themselves to asking for our help again in the same place and in the same way. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. — Einstein.
Help them. Buy their property so they can move and turn the property into a wildlife reserve or national park that won’t cost so much human suffering and devastion the next time. And won’t repeatedly tax Americans and our economy everytime it reoccurs. A little practical thinking here could both serve those harmed and prevent millions of others from having to suffer the consequences in the future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 10:48 PMDavid:
“Almost divinely inspired words, wouldn’t you say?”
I would say borderline blasphemy. Of course when you look at the “secular humanist” background of most liberals, it is understandable. The major premise of humanism is that every man or woman has a spark of divinity within them. But then again, this is nothing new. Isn’t it the same old lie told to Eve in the garden: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil”
Perplexed
People who live in flood zones do so by choice—that’s true.
But it’s also true many of these areas along rivers and oceans are important for trade and other commercial activities that the rest of us benefit from. If we all lived in Indiana and nobody lived in potential flood zones, how would Indiana ship their corn or whatever overseas?
Every place has its dangers. Earthquakes along the west coast, blizzards and tornadoes in the midwest. You just can’t outguess Mother Nature.
Posted by: sanger at August 31, 2005 10:59 PMPerplexed said: “I would say borderline blasphemy.”
Yep, I would have bet on it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 11:05 PMSanger said: “Every place has its dangers. Earthquakes along the west coast, blizzards and tornadoes in the midwest. You just can’t outguess Mother Nature.
That is why we invented probability and statistics, Sanger. Outguessing mother nature will never be a fullproof science given her myriad variables. But, insurance companies did not become triving and immensely profitable by failing to assess risk and bet their money on those stats appropriately?
Actually it was the Ancient Greeks who started us on this quest for predictability of mother nature by using logic to fathom the sudden storms on the Aegean Sea which were destroying their commercial shipping and wreaking havoc with their insurance system. We are much better at it today with probability and statistical modeling.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 11:13 PMDavid, that’s no doubt correct.
But statistically speaking, probably the most dangerous things any of us can do is drive an automobile, but many of us do it every day. It’s a lot riskier than living in New Orleans or anywhere else. When there are car accidents, publicly funded emergency services respond—and the taxpayers foot at least part of the bill.
I agree with you up to a point. Californians who build their houses on collapsing oceanside cliffs shouldn’t be bailed out when the predictable occurs and their houses fall down. But it’s a different matter when we talk about entire cities or zones of the country. The benefits of having people in those areas are tremendous for all of us and there’s no way of living a life without danger from cataclymic natural events.
By your logic, San Francisco and LA should be abandoned and turned into national parks as well. Those places could be wiped out at any minute by a giant earthquake, and scientists continually remind us that the BIG ONE is only a matter of time—a near statistical certainty.
David,
Did it ever occur to you the WAY we live in this country has far more to do with it being a dangerous place to live than the longitude and lattitude? Apparently not.
Yes it did, but doesn’t choosing WHERE we live qualify as one of the WAYs we live? Besides, you were the one to bring up the WAY we live with your tightrope example.
There is a huge difference between stating an area is at high risk of experiencing earth quakes and saying everyone in that area is at high risk of property and life loss.
It’s funny you should discount the danger of earthquakes considering this year’s Tsunami was caused by an earthquake, but let’s put earthquakes aside and talk only about floods (skipping earthquake related floods). Flooding (including hurricane related flooding) has caused more property damage and loss of life then any other type of natural disaster in the US in the 20th century. However, property damage and loss of life is fairly uniformly scattered about the whole country: Significant Floods in the United States During the 20th Century. In fact, the 1993 flood of the Mississippi river basin caused $20 billion in damages in 1993 dollars. By this, pretty much anyone living near a body of water (and many who don’t) are at risk—and that’s most of civilization.
I appreciate your participation in this dialogue, though, agreeing with you is pretty hard to accomplish given the conclusions you reach from the words you read.
Likewise.
David and sanger,
“Californians who build their houses on collapsing oceanside cliffs shouldn’t be bailed out when the predictable occurs and their houses fall down.”
Especially since those are considered prime real estate by those that could afford to live elsewhere. Same with forest fires, people don’t need to live in those areas.
I’ve lived in Phoenix for the last 30 years, where other than it gets freakin hot (I have seen 125F here), only has the occasional flood. That is because we get our 12 inches of rain a year all at the same time.
Sanger, I didn’t make my proposal clear. Look, LA sits on a seismic zone. LA knows that, and after the last catastrophic quake, rebuilding took place that will radically reduce the losses, both human and property, WHEN it occurs again. To this very day, they are rebuilding entire bridges like the Oakland Bridge to insure catastrophic losses to property and life are minimized. These are smart investment strategies for California and intelligent responses to disaster.
My argument is when a predictable catastrophe occurs, then is the time to take the steps to EITHER rebuild letting the engineering of the new construction provide the insurance against catastrophic loss in the future, OR, if that is not possible from an engineering capacity, then buy up the property and convert to low human presence uses.
Tornado Alley should now be 40% earth bermed construction and communities if folks had followed my proposal beginning 30 years ago when it became known that earth bermed structures are virtually impervious to tornados. They are no more costly to build (though about 10% more land space is needed), and are actually far cheaper to maintain, in addition to saving up to 40% in energy consumption.
We can make the investments like this to insure aginst future losses ever occuring in the first place, or we can continue passing the costs of repetitive rebuilding disaster after disaster, generation after generation. The choice IMO is a no brainer. Which leads me to believe we have a whole lot of folks in decision making positions who have no brains.
Folks sitting on city planning committees, zoning committees, FEMA, etc. are either aware of these alternatives and ignoring them for the short term bottom line of campaign donors or special interest groups, or they are incompetently failing to seek this decades old and widely distributed research data, in which case they should be fired or sued for the losses that result in the next repeated catastrophe.
New Orleans cannot be saved ultimately by engineering. It is a giant money and life sink hole which is literally susiding more every year directly adjacent to an ocean sitting above it. It is insanity IMO, to keep putting off the measures needed to save lives and 100’s of billions in economic losses. Failing consistently to address and deal with reality is a prescription for demise and self destruction.
And we are failing in this manner in so many ways. Wouldn’t it have been wise to have a national surplus instead of a national debt when 9/11 happened and now as we face the costs of Katrina.
We have an opportunity after the life saving is accomplished to face the reality of gulf coast beach front Condos and Casinos, and the new sinking Atlantis called New Orleans. We can deal with it like responsible adults. I fear however, emotion, and greed, will rule and we will continue to act like un-self-disciplined children with wants and gottas regardless of the consequences or expense to millions of others.
I mean we have more square footage living space per citizen in America than just about any other population center in the world. It is not like we are cramped like Sardines in a place called Japan. Bugsy Siegel founded an empire paradise in the middle of worthless desert. Certainly, we are smarter, more creative, more practical, and by far more responsible than Bugsy Siegel. Aren’t we?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2005 11:59 PMCharles, not all natural disasters can be protected against. Lighting is a perfect example.
Flooding in areas prone to flooding, like the Missisippi, have reams of data and statistics predicting frequency and severity of flooding. What is so wrong designating land in the Mississippi flood plain for agricultural use and ending all new town and small city development there in perpetutity.
What is wrong with it is special interests bitching about being deprived of profits that could be reaped by selling developments to the unsuspecting. Profit trumps saving lives and billions of dollars of property underwritten by FEMA and the Government Flood insurance program (i.e. tax payers everywhere). This is the American way, but it doesn’t have to be. We can ask those who rail about the preciousness of life and lower taxes to put their policies where their rhetoric is, and outlaw new developments in areas we know are going to cause catastrophic loss of life and huge economic losses in a single incident. Doing so will save precious lives and lower economic losses and government taxes in perpetuity.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 12:25 AMThis discussion is really missing the mark. First of all, who are any of us to choose where somebody else lives? For myself, I don’t very much like where I live, but my family lives here. Since I can’t transplant all of them, I live in a place where I can be with them. My roots are here.
Also, of course after the devastating loss of life, something else has been lost that cannot ever be replace: the culture and community of New Orleans. For those of you that have never been there, you have truly missed out. It’s so powerful to be in a place with a rich history. New Orleans has never just been about a place on the bayou or a place to drink - it’s a city with a proud past. We need to honor that.
Posted by: Jill at September 1, 2005 01:20 AMStephanie,
The Mississippi Flood that I was refering to was the one that saw levy after levy give way. While many of these levies where in remote places, the damage that sent down stream from Iowa to New Orleans maqde matters worse. Now, I am smart enough to know that we can not stop everything bad from happening; however, earthen built levies are known to give way when they are over come by water that they are intended to hold back.
New Orlearns withstood the hit of the hurricane, but it was the next day that we witnessed the levy (2) break. If the City Hall would of thought a plan through pior to this than by quickly building a sand levy more of the city would of been saved. The reasons why this reasonable and logic answer was not available to the Mayor will probably remain a silient. Nevertheless,like on the East Coast the Gulf States need to be required to boost their building codes so that most homes and buildings can withstand all that Nature can throw at us.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 1, 2005 01:23 AMDavid,
First, I agree that New Orleans as we knew it shouldn’t be rebuilt. Significant incentives should be given for people to relocate. Businesses that rely on that location for trafficking will almost certainly have to stay, that’s why New Orleans was built in the first place. However, I don’t agree that we should force anyone to relocate, as for a significant group of people that would be admitting defeat. For those who wish to stay, and those who are required to stay for the type of business they do, we should invest significant effort in stabalizing that area to fix the man-made problems we created.
However, some of your arguments seem very petty to me.
Earth bermed structures: I live in a place frequented by tornados (which I too prefer to earthquakes or hurricanes), but I cannot afford an earth bermed house no matter how much I’d like one. My home is at least 90 years, never been struck, and is going to stand for a while. My insurance wouldn’t cover it being replaced by earth bermed housing if it were to be hit, and I can’t afford higher premiums. How many other people are in similar situations? Are you going to fund the extra it would take if my house is hit by a tornado? If you equate lack of wealth with stupidity, then we have a whole new argument ahead of us.
“Charles, not all natural disasters can be protected against. Lighting is a perfect example.”
As a place that gets frequent tornados, we also get frequent lightning storms. There is protection against lighting for your home, and the wisdom to return to safe locations during a storm. So, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, unless you just didn’t realize.
“What is so wrong designating land in the Mississippi flood plain for agricultural use and ending all new town and small city development there in perpetutity.”Humans have done this for…as long as civilization. Our mistake is making this housing so “permanent.”
Try making your argument without sounding so callous. Calling people you don’t know stupid is inexcusable, even if it is your right. Many people in America think (or have thought) they were invulnerable. In the last few years we’ve been learning some hard lessons that we’re not. Give people time to catch their breath.
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 02:21 AMJill,
“Also, of course after the devastating loss of life, something else has been lost that cannot ever be replace: the culture and community of New Orleans. For those of you that have never been there, you have truly missed out. It’s so powerful to be in a place with a rich history. New Orleans has never just been about a place on the bayou or a place to drink - it’s a city with a proud past. We need to honor that.”
Thank you, Jill. I’ve never gotten the chance to see New Orleans, and now I doubt I ever will really get that chance. We’ve a lot to remember and honor, considering what was lost. I’ve been told that for many New Orleans was the melting pot in action, and I’m sorry I never got the chance to experience that.
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 02:26 AMHenry,
Sorry, I was still in school when that happened. I needed something to jog my memory (the cranes is what did it, they were all over the place in Nebraska, endangered by the drastic flooding). If I’m remembering correctly, the same fixes that were supposed to be done after the ‘93 flooding weren’t done in time to prevent the flood of 2001.
Rest assured, David, some people do learn.
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 02:38 AMSadly, but not surprisingly, the politicization and demagoguery has begun.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 1, 2005 03:00 AMLawnBoy,
That’s truly sad… This should be a time to unite, not to fight.
Besides, Rocky and others (including me) already blamed it on Robertson. ;-)
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 03:05 AMThough, in our defense, it hadn’t hit yet and we had no idea how bad it was going to be.
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 03:06 AMStephanie,
I never said the government works quickly, but I will stand by my complaint that at least more of New Orlearns could of been saved if action was taken quicker and equipment was in place. However, that information wil come out in a report once the clean up has begun. I’m just glad it was not alot worse. Could you just imagine the Eye staying over the Mississippi River up through the Middle of the Country? As long as the Eye of the Strom stays over water, it has the ability to remain strong.
The Mississippi River is neither large enough nor warm enough to supply a hurricane the energy it needs to continue growing. That’s a misplaced concern.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 1, 2005 03:26 AMLawnboy,
Check out the weather channel, one of the biggest threat of a hurricane is going up the mouth of a river. Just as Katrina came acroos Flordia and regained strength so would following the Mississpi River allow the Eye to draw the energy that it needs. Open water is the mark and as wide as the river is in some places provides the playing field. However, off the top of my mind the only Hurricane to do such a thing was Hazel, although I may be wrong.
Th real danger with a hurricane going up a river is the water surge that the storm pushes up the river, not from gaining energy from the river.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 1, 2005 04:07 AMAmerica is now at its most vulnerable state in recent history. As we mobilize to deal with this catastrophe and continue fighting the war in Iraq our resources will be stretched to their limits. The social and political pressures to focus on this disaster will reduce our ability to defend against and respond to a major terrorist event in our country. With the anniversary of 9/11 looming near the terrorist would love nothing more than to kick us when we are down.
I believe it is possible to manage the ongoing situation resulting from hurricane Katrina and maintain the necessary vigilance against and in response to terrorism but it will require strong leadership from our President. He must be made aware of all vulnerabilities resulting from redeployments and reallocations of our assets. If necessary, he must bring online all available assets through military reserve call ups and involuntary reserve recalls. In areas where their may still be weakness he must raise the threat level to assure vigilance by the civilian population. Any assets such as food, water, medicine, etc that have been deployed to the disaster zone must be replenished immediately. I could go on for some time but to put it shortly he must be the Commander and Chief. History will judge him if he fails to maintain our defense and response to terrorism during this crisis and we are attacked.
I urge all of you to call your Senators and Representatives to make them aware of the vulnerable state we find ourselves in regarding terrorism. My calls today resulted in statements such as “we weren’t even thinking of that”. If they have been waiting for the perfect time to attack now is it.
wisevil, that thought occured to me as well early this afternoon. Excellent point. This could be a way to somewhat objectively assess whether or not there really are sleeper cells in America. There would appear to be no more opportune time from their perspective to strike again than now. The economic consequences could be magnitudes larger than if an attack occured 2 weeks ago.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 05:30 AMStephanie, you are right. The storm kept losing power as it approached land until about 12 hours before striking, when it suddenly increased in ferocity. In retrospect, one might hypothesize it was the shallower and therefore warmer water very close to land fall, but, I doubt previous models ever anticipated such an effect and had no reason until now, to consider that possibility.
Predicting hurricanes is still as much art as science and like many other natural phenomena, the variables are simply too myriad to accurately predict the net outcome of the event.
It appears our leadership in the area disseminated the information necessary and well in advance for rational people to heed. This is America, where we don’t expect our government to mandate our behavior and risk tolerances and assessments for us, thank goodness.
I don’t think there is any objective basis for laying blame on authorities for this disaster. Precautions were taken, warnings issued, and evacuations conducted. We did the best we could.
I would hope however, that when we get around to planning rebuilding, we will realistically assess our abilities and limitations in protecting future inhabitants of the area and plan and rebuild accordingly.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 05:39 AMStephanie, I must partially rescind may comments above based on the following new information (to me). Pnionline.com
Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA [Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project] dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security — coming at the same time as federal tax cuts — was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. (Much of the research here is from Nexis, which is why some articles aren’t linked.)
The GOP’s priorities for tax cuts as opposed to ending deficits and reducing national debt, forced SELA to a low priority. They are responsible for their priorities.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 06:14 AMRegarding foreign aid,
I dunno if your government have or will ask for some, even unofficially, and I’m not aware of any public offer *yet* from my country. :-(
Anyway, I really hope that european countries have propose it unofficially via diplomatic channels at least. Or we’re just dumb.
We all share climate worsing responsabilities there, so we should all help whatever the place whoever we help.
I forgot that most will have to wait until Tuesday to call their Senators and Reps. My calls were to friends I’ve made in these offices. Try also fax/e-mail until they return on Tuesday.
Posted by: wisevil at September 1, 2005 07:08 AMThe storm kept losing power as it approached land until about 12 hours before striking, when it suddenly increased in ferocity.
Are you sure about that? The Wikipedia article on Katrina says nothing about a sudden increase at the end.
Katrina, however, encountered wind shear and drier air from a trough approaching from the west just before landfall, sparing the coast from a Category 5 hurricane. Nonetheless, the system made landfall as a strong Category 4 hurricane on 5:30 a.m. CDT (1030 UTC) August 29 at the mouth of the Mississippi with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph.
I read that as saying pretty much the opposite of what you said.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 1, 2005 07:51 AMLawnboy, that report does not cover what Katrina was doing 12 to 24 hours before. As I heard (on MSNBC I think it was) last night, the storm was losing power , downgraded from Cat 5 to Cat 4, and it was hoped it would continue to weaken before making landfall. Then, just before making landfall it strengthened.
The report you quote does not indicate it strengthened just before hitting landfall, but, I see no other disparities between the two accounts.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 08:15 AMDavid
Nice tie-in with Katerina and tax cuts due to the war.
Now Bush gets blamed for a hurricane.
How about citing a thread or two on expenditures during the Clinton administration for a comparasion.
Let’s see how much was spent during the two administrations on this issue.
If you are going to compare stats for a discussion let’s see it all.
During times like these,all Americans need to stand shoulder to shoulder and politics need to be put aside.
There will be plenty of time for blame after people are put out of harm’s way.
I suppose now that the looting will be the President’s fault too.
Sic Eagle said “Now Bush gets blamed for a hurricane.”
What an absurd comment. Please quote where I said Bush is responsible for the hurricane. You can’t because I didn’t. Your comment is pure B.S.
There is nothing about the hurricane and its effects that can be blamed on any politician anywhere. The administration made budget priorities putting Iraq at the top, and SELA at the bottom. That is a fact as evidenced by Bush’s budget which cut SELA funding to a trickle before the work had been completed. These are facts.
You can put the blame, or not blame whomever you wish or don’t wish. The facts remain the same. SELA needed to be completed, that is why the work was begun and originally funded. Iraq was elective. We could have kept Hussein in check for another decade at perhaps 1/100th the cost to date of the the invasion and occupation, using the savings to complete the SELA project.
Priorities have consequences and priorities for budgeting in the federal government begins with the President of the U.S. and ends with the President’s signature or veto. He began as president with a 5.65 Trillion dollar national debt and has to date expanded it to 8 Trillion with his tax cuts and a lost veto pen.
With Katrina, the national debt will be 9 Trillion. And with another 3 years in Iraq, it could easily be 10 Trillion. With Colonies on Mars and the Moon, Starwars defense system, and advertising dollars to promote marriage, another 1/2 half trillion. Making his tax cuts permanent, another 2 Trillion over the rest of the decade. That puts us at about 12.5 Trillion dollars national debt, which not a single conservative think tank believes is sustainable.
And many of which state such levels of national debt will injure our military might and economic competitiveness for decades to come. So believe what you will. I am not bashing Bush with my comments above. I am critiquing his spending priorities and as I have outlined, for very good reasons based on where we are headed.
—-
Now Bush gets blamed for a hurricane.
How about citing a thread or two on expenditures during the Clinton administration for a comparasion
—-
So - you agree with the point that Bush cuts spending to the programs that have directly caused harm in this natural emergency… you just want to bring Clinton into the argument to see if he messed something up as well…??? Is that you take?
If Clinton made a mistake, does that some how relieve Bush from responsibility? I think bringing Clinton is equates to the apex of politicizing this discussion. The point here is that there have been quite a few short-cuts taken here at home to fund the war in Iraq - a war that has proven unnecessary or at least not as pressing as to be carried about when it was. This disaster was made worse from the neglect caused by the budget choices made.
Posted by: tony at September 1, 2005 09:47 AMI’m going to go out on a limb a bit here and wager that no one is surprised by the impact of this storm other than the 20% or so of the New Orleans pop. who stayed behind to ride it out.
Now there are more important things then pointing fingers, but there will come a time when decisions will have to be made about what to do with that city. More on that in a minute.
I’d like some feedback on anyone who is ligitimately surprised by the devestation in New Orleans. I know for a fact that New Orleans (the city government administrations throughout the past 35 years or so) have been warned repeatedly that this “could” happen. Every hurrican season the threat is there that they “could” get blasted. In 1993 National Geographic aired a special on NBC that was focused on tornadoes and hurricanes. The hour long special was split between the two topics. The last 10 minutes of the hurricane segment was devoted to the city of New Orleans and stated that if a Category 5 storm was to hit that city, the effects would be total devastation.
It is bad enough that the city is below sea level, but man has to answer for the his part in the destruction also. When developers came into that area, they destroyed quite a bit of the marshlands and cut down acres upon acres of trees. This is nothing new since it is done the same way everywhere, especially during the real estate boom of the past few years.
But there is a price to be paid for destroying these natural habitats. The absence of those trees contributed greatly to allowing the full force of those winds to get through to downtown and to be sustained. The absence of marshlands contributed greatly to the flooding because had they been there, they would have naturally provided someplace for at least some of that water to go. Add to that a city’s infrastructure that was outdated with a levee system designed to handle nothing more than a Cat 3 ‘cane, and buildings that were kept around for historical significance even though they couldn’t meet modern city and state codes, and you have the foundation laid for a catastrophe.
There are more things for sure, but the only other one that you need is…the people.
Coastal city developement has grown in leaps and bounds over the past 30 years. People came to New Orleans to work the trade ports (it is one if the major ports of the US), work in the tourism industry, and to buy investment property. It is a major convention center that rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars every year for corporate conventions. As a result, the hotel industry has a strong presence which naturally led to the casinos.
But the people came from far and wide and it is arguable that the majority of the newcomers did not come from someplace where they had to deal with hurricanes often or at all. Time passes and one hurricane season after the other passes with it and dispite what they always hear from the government and the forcasters, when all is said and done, they find that they were simply “inconvienced.” Maybe there was some minor flooding and a “few” deaths, but that was it.
That bread the “Chicken Little Syndrome” where forcaster’s said the sky will fall only for the effected people to be inconvienced again.
So again I ask: Is it any surprise that when told a Cat 5 storm is coming and it could make New Orleans its’ ground zero that 20% of the city’s population decides to “ride it out?”
And where is the money going to come from to handle this disaster. I don’t want to get on a Bush bashing campaign, but with the deficit where it is and his war growing it like a weed, not to mention his tax cuts, this whole thing gets interesting indeed.
So now what?
I think someone has to ask the question of whether or not New Orleans should be rebuilt. Since the city is indeed below sea level, this could conceivably happen again (especially in this current cycle of more numerous and more violent storms). Not to mention that the city got off light this time around since it was predominately on the Western side of the eyewall, which anyone can tell you is a hell of a alot better than the Eastern side with its’ higher storm surge, winds, and tornadoes.
If you do rebuild it, can you protect it? We know the current infrastructure was inadequate, but if billions are invested to take another shot and that fails with the next Cat4 or 5, then what?
Something the government needs to consider?
Posted by: cnw at September 1, 2005 09:53 AMHenry,
“Could you just imagine the Eye staying over the Mississippi River up through the Middle of the Country? As long as the Eye of the Strom stays over water, it has the ability to remain strong.”
I don’t know enough about hurricanes to verify this, but… Can I imagine it? Yes, but only as a wicked sci-fi story. I don’t think there would be enough water in the Mississippi to fuel a hurricane, but I could be very wrong about that.
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 10:14 AMTh real danger with a hurricane going up a river is the water surge that the storm pushes up the river, not from gaining energy from the river.
There’s another danger, too. I live in Indiana. Late Tuesday/early Wednesday, Katrina hit here, but by that time it was just heavy rains and flash floods. But every drop of rain that fell on my house eventually will make its way to the Wabash River, which flows into the Ohio, and then the Mississippi, and ultimately RIGHT THROUGH NEW ORLEANS! A coastal city on the mouth of a major river gets hit twice by the hurricane — once by sea, and once by land.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at September 1, 2005 10:20 AMWe can always talk about an idealized move away from places that experience natural disasters, but let’s put this in perspective-
a)Natural disasters are not everyday events.
b)There are other factors that determine the placements of communities.
c)The move will cost a great deal.
d)You may trade the risk of one kind of natural disaster for another.
The placement and construction of a city is often the result of a combination of historical accident, persistent natural conditions, and economic necessity. It’s not a thing of foresight vs. hindsight. Even where designed, cities are designed with imperfect human judgment, and imperfect human means.
We should be careful not to get up too high on our high horses. Every city, every region has it’s vulnerabilities, its obnoxious problems. I live near Houston. Anybody remember 2001? Hurricane Allison? New Orleans may be one of th worst inundated cities in history, but it’s not the first by any means. The Bayou City ended up submerged in it’s own swollen bayous and creeks. The damage was enormous. Would relocating the city solve the problem? Sure. But how do you relocate a metropolis of this size, in this region, and move all the infrastructure that goes with it? Can you live with the occasional risk of a natural disaster from Hurricanes and tropical storms?
Well, many of us don’t really have much of a choice. We invest our lives in a location, often have family and memories rooted in place. Unless we get hit repeatedly, we’ll stay in the place we call home. Is it irrational? Perhaps if you only think of the risk of disaster. Otherwise, there are plenty of reasons that people do what they do.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2005 10:21 AMStephen, logic and rational thinking dictate that when rebuilding after a natural disaster that is very highly probably to occur again, that the plan include engineering new construction to withstand the next occurance (building on high ground in the area in this case, or building tethered floation structures that can rise and fall with water levels in place). And if engineering cannot accomplish that in certain areas, those areas get rezoned for low population density uses, like parks, monument, agriculture, etc.
What is idiotic is taking the position of building back the way it was good as new, or letting free market forces dicate what gets built and where. Those who profit from the latter will be long gone with their profits when the next catastrophe hits those they profited from. Let them profit form intelligent design in rebuilding and zoning to insure against repreat catastrophic loss of life and property. And remember, this logic only applies to catastrophe locations which are a near certainty to see a reoccurance in the foreseeable future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 10:33 AMDavid,
“You can put the blame, or not blame whomever you wish or don’t wish. The facts remain the same. SELA needed to be completed, that is why the work was begun and originally funded. Iraq was elective. We could have kept Hussein in check for another decade at perhaps 1/100th the cost to date of the the invasion and occupation, using the savings to complete the SELA project.”
The fact is that politicians in general are not very good at preventative measures and environmental stewardship. You want to make this a partisan issue, I’m sure an ill-favored light can be shed on Clinton, too. However, that does nothing to help those who are hurting most from this, and seems to me to be a grave disservice to them. America needs unity, not partisanship.
“I am not bashing Bush with my comments above. I am critiquing his spending priorities and as I have outlined, for very good reasons based on where we are headed.”
But to what purpose? Who does this help? Does it change anything? Does it give any satisfaction to those who suffer?
Posted by: Stephanie at September 1, 2005 10:35 AMHaving once lived for a few years in Baton Rouge I have been to New Orleans more often than most people. It is a beautiful, historic, mysterious and vibrant city. IMO the food is among the most diverse and best in the country. Cajun people are friendly and fun to be with, the women are gorgeous and nobody parties better than the Southern Louisiana folks.
There is a price to pay for the lifestyle they live. They have made downpayments on that price over the years but this time the total debt was called in.
Prior to this disaster you could have talked to almost anybody in New Orleans (and in coastal Mississippi and Alabama for that matter) and they would have told you that they know the day was coming.
When you live below sea level at the oceans door,next to a huge lake and along the banks of the Mississippi river you are doing so on borrowed time. You know it and so does everyone else.
Two classes of people have been impacted by this natural disaster. The first are those that will be fortunate if they are ever able to re-establish themselves. These are the fishermen,(shrimpers, crawdad and frog giggers), hospitality industry workers (restaurants, casinos, nightclubs) and farmworkers. Then there are those who are only temporarily inconvenienced by this disaster. These are the owners of the businesses, oil rig workers, shipping and transportation people, etc.
Now the opportunists come along. Those who will actually do the rebuilding of homes, businesses, hotels and casinos, independent contractors of every trade, etc. Not to mention the companies and their representatives profitting from the sale of trailers and temporary housing.
Since 25% of the country’s oil passes through the port of New Orleans, that should be a very high priority. Getting the refineries up to peak production should be part of that. In the interim, alternate plans for oil receipt and processing must be in place.
IMO any cities that were devastated by flooding should not be rebuilt until proper flood control procedures can be developed and implimented. We could look to our friends in Japan for help on this.
Each and every new structure and/or replacement structure should be architecturally designed and built to withstand specific environmental events.
If necessary the city should be relocated/reconfigured to be more resiliant to natural disaster.
Specific “No Build” zones should be identified.
Posted by: steve smith at September 1, 2005 10:36 AMVery rational comments, cnw. Something government officials should be forced by the people to consider. They work for the people, a concept forgotten by many politicians today. They need a jolting reminder, and they will get it from the survivors of this catastrophe as the healing begins with rage ventilation. It has already begun from some news reports about armed gangs and shots fired at government symbols like Army Helicopters.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 10:37 AMStephanie, I never proposed that folks be asked to trade their current homes in for earth bermed ones. I am talking about zoning laws that require them in new developments before anyone buys one. No one who owns a home should be forced by the government out of their home unless through criminal activity they gave up claim to their home under due process.
I am saying 30 years ago, if we had instituted earth bermed zoning laws, between 25 to 35% of existing homes in tornado alley would now be tornado proof, enjoy up to 40% energy savings, and have virtually no exterior maintenance save landscaping their roof. Do we let another 30 years go by without acting smart in this way? I say no.
I have books on earth bermed homes and have visited a few of them, they are beautiful and they don’t feel or look underearth at all from the inside with strategic placement of windows and doorways. The walls are and roof are reinforced concrete or stacked cordwood with a rubber layer on the exterior for water proofing. The costs of poured concrete walls is recovered by the savings on all the material costs on conventional exterior materials and their maintenance. Of course, concrete prices are considerable higher today than they were just a couple years ago, so that affects the equation some.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2005 10:54 AMcnw,
I apologize for my post which I was pounding out before I read the rest of the posts. Mine seems to mimic much of what you said previously.
Posted by: steve smith at September 1, 2005 11:01 AMOne editorial hit the nail on the head today:
“George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.”
In times like these, we need a leader who can, well…. lead. We need someone who can step up to the plate and let us all know that there is a plan, that there is hope and that those in dire need will be helped. If anyone watched Bush on TV… did you feel anything at all from what he said or how he delivered it?
His ‘don’t worry, be happy’ rhetoric missed my miles, and now we are left with what we had before his speech - questions of what to do next, who will take control and make the needed steps happen… He also stated that know one could’ve expected the levies to break, and he said it with a straight face. This has been forewarned for years… is he hoping that no one will remember?
This is the first speech by him where I forced myself to put aside political biases and see how he was working to make things happen. The eyes of the country were on him, and he utterly dropped the ball.
Posted by: tony at September 1, 2005 11:05 AMCnw,
You say…
Is it any surprise that when told a Cat 5 storm is coming and it could make New Orleans its’ ground zero that 20% of the city’s population decides to “ride it out?”
You make it sound like it’s a choice. I’m sure that a very few stayed behind out of stubbornness or hubris. What is known is that the New Orleans area has a large population of poor. Many without transportation, or the means to leave. Many more without anywhere to go.
I’m very upset that they even had to be there. Those who couldn’t afford to leave should have been bussed out BEFORE not after the catastrophe. We are becoming a nation of the classes again. One in which the steerage is locked below, or forgotten.
I understand what your saying though, the 24 hours news droning on and on about bad storms, and people becoming use to it. You have a point, but from what I understand, the coverage of this one was amped-up to unheard of levels. The warnings from the National Weather Service were VERY dire. The ones I heard scared the crap out of me! (made my heart/stomach kind of flutter).
Also, what you say about the destruction of the environment is very true. Those march lands act as a buffer and have a cooling effect on those storms.
I hope they do save New Orleans, but with proper flood prevention.
The simple fact is that people WILL reinhabit New Orleans, right where it is. Many of the people who will do so are still in New Orleans (or in the Houston Astrodome, maybe). Why? Because they can’t afford to live anywhere else.
I was born in southeastern Arkansas, along the Mississippi, just north of Lousiana. A lot of people who haven’t been there don’t understand just how economically depressed the lower Mississippi region is. I’m not talking about people living paycheck to paycheck working two jobs. I’m talking about people who don’t know where the next paycheck is coming from — who live odd-job to odd-job every single day of their lives, because “steady work” simply isn’t available for everyone.
These people didn’t have the option of leaving — they couldn’t afford it. Their only option was to hope what little food they had would stretch through the low-work period while everyone else was out of town, then hope for extra work cleaning up other people’s messes when the hurricane was done.
When the flood-waters drop, these people aren’t going to be “rebuilding”. They’re going to be moving back into whatever is left of their old houses, and hoping to survive. Those whose houses are gone are going to be homeless, or living in the condemned houses of their neighbors.
Talking about building things like earth-bermed houses, hurricane-resistant structures, or whatever is great when you have enough money to build your own house. Not everybody has that luxury. I know I don’t.
As for “incentives to relocate”… well, we don’t need to provide incentives — we need to provide capability. If you can’t pay for transportation, and pay for the person to live during the transition, then many of them simply won’t be capable of moving.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at September 1, 2005 11:14 AMSlink off? Hardly. Comments were rather interesting.
“I’ll partially agree with Rob’s interpretation, but I really want to hear that bugcrazy thinks it’s all tricks by the Ministry of Magic.” -Lawnboy
It’s good to see that some people realize that the floods and destruction were not caused solely by the hurricane - ‘Natural Disaster’ - but were compounded by man. Mother Nature is not going to send a check.
Yes. There was a MASSIVE hurricane. Looking at the damage BEFORE the flooding - the problems were manageable. The storm went by on the east - meaning - winds would come from the North and push the water in the Lake towards the levees and the City. The leaders of the City and the Managers of the Levee system stood with fingers crossed HOPING they would hold and knowing that the odds were against them because they knew more should have been done over the years.
“The city had backup plans, and could have contained the leaks, but were not given the funding they needed to do so. Why not? Because it was needed for the war in Iraq! ….” - Charles Wager
New Orleans flooded because of Iraq? That is a ‘stretch’ if I ever heard one.
The funding.
Why is it that the corporate interests in the area did not take care of this inevitable problem on their own? Instead of the area demanding that the corporations, who need the Mississippi and the ports of New Orleans to survive, making sure they would be able to… they wait for tax money and then complain it didn’t come? It is not all the fault of the Federal Government. The city could have gone to the companies for money. It was in their interest too.
The ‘New’ American Way … Live our lives any way we want, wherever we want, and then expect our Government to come to our rescue and shoulder ALL the blame.
50% of our population is along the coast???
When New Orleans is rebuilt it should not be allowed to have the large population that it did UNLESS they can guarantee their safety against flooding to the extent it is now.
Posted by: bugcrazy at September 1, 2005 11:23 AMPresident Bush has authorized use of some quantity of oil from the reserves located in salt domes near the Gulf of Mexico. This oil, as I understand it, still has to be refined which may very well be the critical issue—refining capacity.
There are 700 million barrels of oil in this reserve. I have little knowledge of this entire “reserve” procedure. Obviously I know it is there for emergencies of various types including war.
My question is, does oil in reserve have to be rotated. In other words does it have a “shelf life” during which time it has to be used or it deteriorates. This would mean that oil would have to be constantly introduced and drawn from the reserve.
Posted by: steve smith at September 1, 2005 11:31 AM—-
Why is it that the corporate interests in the area did not take care of this inevitable problem on their own? Instead of the area demanding that the corporations, who need the Mississippi and the ports of New Orleans to survive, making sure they would be able to… they wait for tax money and then complain it didn’t come?
—-
I’m not whether the levee system is owned by the city, state or federal government… but the corporations could not fix the levees even if they chose to. They could’ve been made to pay more taxes or fees - but it still comes down to the government taking care of it’s responsibility.
The point about Iraq is simple - money that should’ve been (and was requested) to go into repairing and maintaining the levees was moved to the efforts in Iraq. It’s simple cause and effect.
Posted by: tony at September 1, 2005 11:36 AMbugcrazy:
I agree that fixing the Louisiana levees shouldn’t be a Federal issue, but it most certainly should be a Government issue. Unfortunately, too many people forget that we have State governments for just this purpose.
The State of Louisiana should have handled this problem years ago. Something like 25% of our country’s oil passes through New Orleans. Louisiana could have slapped a tax on that oil, and used the proceeds to pay for the levee. The American people, who benefit from the port of New Orleans, would then share the burden via higher gas prices.
The Federal Government should never be expected to fund State programs. Some states (Louisiana is a good example) need Federal subsidies because of the huge poverty levels in the state, but that money should be given to the State to manage as they see fit. The responsibility for the New Orleans levees should rest completely on the government of the State of Louisiana, NOT the Federal government.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at September 1, 2005 11:50 AMBugcrazy, I feel you.
But I think we can agree that we have to rely on the government to at least promote that kind of investment behavior from corporate America. It is logical to think that it is in their best interest to promote their own fortune, but at the end of the storm they have insurance and tax write-offs to lessen their loss and who knows; it might actually be cheaper for them to rebuild their assests since they wouln’t be paying for it with just their profits.
As far as the Feds being at fault; well, I agree that is a bit of a stretch. David can probably point me in the right direction on this, but every administration has to sacrifice when it comes to budgeting for our country’s needs. When the ax falls, it is usually as a result of having played the “Law of Averages.”
It is easy for me to see elected officials follow this line of thinking:
“Hurricane season lasts 6 months. In those six months we might have 15 tropical systems. Of those 15 we can count on maybe 9 becoming hurricanes and of those, 5 might become Cat 3 or stronger.
Now what is the chance that one of those will hit my city when we can count on at least 2 going up the East coast?
Very small!
Lets hold off on updating that levee system this year; it is an acceptable risk.”
It is the law of averages that will see New Orleans rebuilt.
Posted by: cnw at September 1, 2005 11:56 AMAmerica needs unity, not partisanship.
Why does that only get said when President Bush screws up? :)
Posted by: American Pundit at September 1, 2005 12:04 PMBecause he’s the sitting President who is on the downwind leg of his second term and who has had “questionable” policies and results.
Doesn’t make him the scum of the earth IMO, but I think even he would like a “do over” or two on a few things.
bugcrazy,
“The funding.
Why is it that the corporate interests in the area did not take care of this inevitable problem on their own? Instead of the area demanding that the corporations, who need the Mississippi and the ports of New Orleans to survive, making sure they would be able to… they wait for tax money and then complain it didn’t come? It is not all the fault of the Federal Government. The city could have gone to the companies for money. It was in their interest too.”
Could this be because the levee system along the entire length of the Mississippi river from the Gulf to Minnesota, is the responsibility of the Army Corp of Engineers?
Last time I checked they were part of the Federal Government.
“The point about Iraq is simple - money that should’ve been (and was requested) to go into repairing and maintaining the levees was moved to the efforts in Iraq. It’s simple cause and effect.”
I think it is a fair assumption that the City of New Orleans has been situated where it is, below sea level, adjacent to a huge lake and a massive river and, on the ocean for a lot longer than the Iraq War has been an issue.
It is a city that has been flooded many times, hit by hurricanes and, has lived under the threat of destruction since its inception.
To suggest that the magnitude of this disaster could have been alleviated by using funds that were otherwise used in Iraq is ridiculous.
What created the magnitude of this disaster is the failure of the City Officials and State Government to address this problem for the last 100 years.
Posted by: steve smith at September 1, 2005 12:31 PM—-
To suggest that the magnitude of this disaster could have been alleviated by using funds that were otherwise used in Iraq is ridiculous.
—-
The repair and new build up of the levee system was basically put on hold due to budget depletions - the money was moved to cover efforts in Iraq.
There have been complaints for the past several years that needs at home have been neglected due to the drain on resources from Iraq war… and this has been specifically brought up with regard to the levee system. This is a worse-case scenario come to life.
The feneral budget is signed by the President, which means he should accept responsibility for the outcomes… or am I being ridiculous?
Posted by: tony at September 1, 2005 12:47 PMI don’t think you are being ridiculous, Tony. Bush needed money for his war and that is a fact.
As I said before, you take money where you think you can get away with it. It’s like playing the lottery; you can play for years and never hit the jackpot, but then one day…
No mater what, such decisions come down to priorities and budgeting and the numbers NEVER lie. You can jack them around to fool the people for awhile, but whatever you manipulate on one end affects the other.
If the money went to the war effort, then so be it, but in all fairness it appears that no other President made getting New Orleans up to code either.
Nor did the city government of New Orleans.
Posted by: cnw at September 1, 2005 12:59 PMcnw,
“If the money went to the war effort, then so be it, but in all fairness it appears that no other President made getting New Orleans up to code either.
Nor did the city government of New Orleans.”
No offence pal but the work was being done. The money was reappropriated and the work stopped. It doesn’t matter if Jefferson started the work, Bush stopped it by taking the money away.
Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 01:07 PMThere is no pattern to hurricanes. Look at the numbers.
The worst decade was 1941-50 followed by 1881-90. We have more damage today because more people live near the ocean and their homes and businesses are worth more.
If you live near the Gulf coast, most of the hurricanes will miss you, but some won’t. How much clearer can it be?
Jack,
I guess you roll the dice and take your chances, which is, in this case, what happened.
Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 01:14 PMThere is no pattern to hurricanes.
Jack,
Not everyone agrees with you on that. Here’s a recent report:
Is global warming making hurricanes more ferocious? New research suggests the answer is yes. Scientists call the findings both surprising and “alarming” because they suggest global warming is influencing storms now — rather than in the distant future.Posted by: LawnBoy at September 1, 2005 01:43 PM
Rocky:
The problem is that too many now want the “right” to roll those dice, but do not want the responsibility
if and when the dice come up snakeyes.
When the gamble fails, they blame the government for not doing enough to help them out of their problem. Government is not there for that.
Knew a lady who gambled on living without health insurance—said she couldnt afford it. (Single, no kids, $75,000 house, and a $35-40K salary back in the early 90’s). If she got sick, I sure wouldnt want to help out, since she made a CHOICE. Her high on the hog lifestyle made it so she didnt have the money for health insurance (she did, in fact, have enough money for a boat, a slip and a membership at a yacht club).
Its a tragedy in New Orleans, and the government needs to help out in a big way. But to those who are blaming the government, or who are suggesting like Patrick did that its the govt’s responsibility to get people to evacuate, that is just wrong headed thinking.
Posted by: jeobagodonuts at September 1, 2005 01:44 PMJBOD,
“Its a tragedy in New Orleans, and the government needs to help out in a big way. But to those who are blaming the government, or who are suggesting like Patrick did that its the govt’s responsibility to get people to evacuate, that is just wrong headed thinking.”
It is indeed a tragedy. My concern was that the funding was cut for the levee system. As I stated before, that is the responsibility of the ACOE, they are part of the government, their funding was cut, the money went somewhere else.
Posted by: Rocky at September 1, 2005 01:53 PM