Sustainability is not a popular topic in the United States. The overwhelming majority of houses are built quickly and cheaply, designed to last for a couple of decades, no more. Commercial real estate is built to last 27.5 years, 39 years tops — just long enough to depreciate fully, and then give up on. Millions of people call the desert southwest home, ignoring that the area is fast leaving the wet spell that it’s been in for the past century. Thousands of homes dot the Outer Banks, where many are wiped out every decade or two by the hurricanes that have presumably been routine there since long before man walked the earth. Thousands of million-dollar-homes are perched on the cliffs of Southern California, where a good rain is all it takes to wash them into the ocean. And down in Louisiana, well over a million people live on a chunk of land situated between a lake, the nation’s largest river, and the Gulf of Mexico, where they’ve watched for decades as the wetlands were destroyed and, that buffer gone, the ocean has steadily eaten away at miles and miles of shore. The whole of southern Louisiana is slowly sinking into the ground.
In New Orleans, as I write this, the homes of hundreds of thousands of people are gone, either reduced to splinters by Hurricane Katrina or washed away by the ever-worsening flooding. As the nation now well knows, the city of New Orleans exists at the whim of nature. With the slap of a hurricane or the drum of a few weeks’ heavy rain upriver, the city could disappear. And now it appears that it has.
What now? Easy: The federal government is going to swoop in. They — we — will pay people to rebuild. (Or the insurance companies will, and the federal government will end up bailing them out, since neither they nor their reinsurers can afford the pay out.) With all of the righteous indignation due them, the residents of New Orleans will declare that they’re fighting back against inevitability, and they’ll take that money and spend billions constructing more sandcastles just beyond the waves. When the tide comes in and they’re destroyed again, we’ll pay them to do it again.
Stop it. This isn’t just unsustainable, it’s illogical. It’s foolish. It’s wasteful. A city 17′ below sea level surrounded by a lake, a river, an ocean and millions of acres of swampland that tends to get hit by hurricanes is a bad idea. It should never have been there in the first place. This thoroughly-predicted tragedy is also an opportunity to make sure that this never happens again.
Insurance companies should declare that they’ll no longer provide property or casualty coverage for the area. The federal government should declare that they’ll no longer provide flood coverage, either. People who lived there should be paid to rebuild…elsewhere. Anybody who wants to rebuild in New Orleans gets nothing.
There’s just no sense in throwing good money after bad.
Waldo: I see your point, but by this reasoning, shouldn’t we abandon south Florida as well? Earthquake- and mudslide-prone areas in California? Forest fire areas throughout the West? Flood plains on the Mississippi? Much of the desert southwest (no water). Perhaps it makes sense in a way, but the point is, the cost would be enormous and I’m not sure where you’d draw the line exactly. How about we ditch Washington DC and New York City as well, because we know that terrorists are trying to attack them — possibly with nukes? Anyway, as far as New Orleans is concerned, I tend to agree with you. I’ll never forget hiking up to the top of one of those levees and looking down at Lake Ponchartrain, realizing that this whole city behind me was well below the waterline….
This summer I attended a wedding in Cape Cod. While there I visited a house that was built on top of a dune! Hello!?!? The owners told me that the house is expected to last about 50 years until the dune melts away. Building communities in places that cannot support human life is utter insanity. The raging Colorado is whittled down to a meandering creek by the time it gets to Mexico because people in the Southwest need green lawns. What a waste! I can see trying to preserve a community that was built before people knew any better. But if that community gets destroyed, then it is sheer stupidity to go in there and build it back up again.
What I would like to know is how the world’s 5th largest port came to be ensconced in such a dangerously unsafe area?
“What I would like to know is how the world’s 5th largest port came to be ensconced in such a dangerously unsafe area?”
We think ourselves gods.
I’ve been contemplating the same thing. The reason it will not happen anytime soon is that people own the property there – it holds all of the wealth that some people or families have obtained in their lives. To make our economic system work with our environment would take a huge paradigm shift. As a society we would have to somehow provide an equivalent value somewhere else – in a place that undoubtedly is already spoken for by others who value that land and lifestyle (value being tangeble and intangeble in this case – climate preference, culture, etc.).
Despite the tremendous effort that would be required of our society to undertake relocations, we need to seriously start debating this issue. Oceans will rise faster very soon, climates will change and the face of much of the Earth’s currently desireable landmass will morph like dunes in a windstorm.
One area to watch very closely as a test case is how the relocated Israelis readjust after leaving occupied territories – not an exact scenario as New Orleans, but nevertheless valueable for seeing how people restablish themselves and their quality of life.
I know that a lot of people in Virginia State government read this blog. If any of you have Governor Warner’s ear, I beg you to ask him to offer some of our National Guard to New Orleans.
It would take way too long to move rescue equipment and generators, but even just 1,000 infantrymen with small arms could make all the difference in the world in putting down the looting and anarchy that is taking hold. Put them on helicopters with their basic gear and plenty of ammo and get them in there immediately.
FEMA and the White House are not coming through for Louisiana or Mississippi. Days have gone by and there have been few supplies and no new troops brought in. The situation is getting worse every day. If order is going to be restored and lives are to be saved then it’s going to have to involve other states and governors picking up the slack that the perpetually vacationing President Bush has left. Please Governor Warner, step in and do the right thing.
The reason it will not happen anytime soon is that people own the property there – it holds all of the wealth that some people or families have obtained in their lives. To make our economic system work with our environment would take a huge paradigm shift. As a society we would have to somehow provide an equivalent value somewhere else – in a place that undoubtedly is already spoken for by others who value that land and lifestyle (value being tangeble and intangeble in this case – climate preference, culture, etc.).
Excellent, excellent point.
Good idea, Jack. I wonder: have heavy commitments of the National Guard to the Iraq war diminished their ability to help in our current domestic disaster?
Chris, I agree with Waldo that you have an excellent point. In the case of New Orleans, I wonder if there are any insurance companies left in the world that would agree to cover anything there again. Without insurance, it would be lunacy to try rebuilding. Doesn’t it make the most sense to give this bowl of land to the water that wants so much to engulf it and rebuild the city in a safer place?
Daniel–
The Washington Post is reporting that about 40 percent of current National Guard units in the three states are in Iraq. Also, officials in New Orleans and elsewhere have attributed the war in Iraq to diminished funding for hurricane protection and emergency response. (See Dan Froomkin’s White House Briefing column at the Post for a good discussion of Iraq implications).
So yes, the war in Iraq has had a marked impact on the preparation and response to the hurricane.
It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.
— Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune has been tracking this disaster for months now. There’s no way around it.
The war in Iraq has taken massive amounts of critical funding from the states.
Hurricanes can’t be managed, but building levees is what responsible governance is all about.
Responsibility for this disaster has to rest firmly on Mr. Bush’s shoulders.
A very interesting article can be found on the issue at editor and publisher: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313
“Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? ‘Times-Picayune’ Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues”
I am a wholesale insurance broker. First of all there are almost no insurance companies that cover flood. Flood is covered by the National Flood Insurance program. This is a federally funded program.
For some years I have been of much the same mind on the matter of rebuilding in poor sites like this. My proposal is to continue the National Flood Insurance program but to make a change to the policy stating that in the event of a total loss the Federal government has the right to purchase the land from the policy-holder at whatever the fair market value for the land was prior to the loss. If you don’t like it then don’t buy the policy.
The idea here is that over time the federal government buys up this land and then does nothing with it except maybe turn it into a park if there’s enough in one place. It costs a little bit up front to buy the land but it’s going to be a lot cheaper than rebuilding the same freakin’ house 3 times every 10 years at taxpayer expense.
So you’ve got 3 great results that should make both parties happy:
1. Less taxpayer money spent rebuilding these structures in the long run.
2. A reduced loss of life and private property following natural disasters.
3. Environmental protection of large areas bordering wetlands.
This is the only way that I can think of to stop this problem without the government being heavy-handed. Every property owner gets to decide whether or not he’s going to enter into a contract that could require him to sell. If you want to be bailed out for building a house in a stupid place, then this is the deal you should have to make. This would be justice.
Jack: This sounds like it would be consistent with the recent “kelo” decision, which may suck but it’s the law now.
I don’t think Jack’s proposal would be as onerous as the sort of “takings” permitted by the Kelo decision. The only way, under Jack’s plan, that the federal government would gain possession of the property would be if the property owner chose to avail himself of the taxpayer subsidized insurance from the Federal Flood Insurance Program. If the property owner doesn’t want be in the position of having to sell the land that his destroyed property sat on, he ought not to elect to purchase the subsidized insurance. Sounds fair to me.
Wow! Even acts of God are Bush’s fault!
I thought Scott Ott at Scrappleface and basil at basil’s blog were exaggerating when they would say stuff like, “Police Captain Killed; Bush blamed” but I see they aren’t! We don’t need conservative parody sites. We’ll just read the comments on the DU, Kos, and now (through no fault of its editor) Waldo Jacquith.
C’Mon. The very point of this post is to illustrate that whatever measures are taken, whatever funding for levees, whatever funding for National Guard, it’s stupid to build there because this sort of thing is inevitable!
Waldo: Amen to the message!
The instant preview below comments is brilliant! Is this one of your innovations or is it a new WP feature?
Insightful comment Chris. I like Jack’s idea, though. That would obiviate the majority of the consequences mentioned in Chris’ comment and would accomplish the same thing.
Sorry about the extra “c” I put in your last name, Waldo.
The instant preview below comments is brilliant! Is this one of your innovations or is it a new WP feature?
It’s a WordPress plugin called LiveCommentPreview for which not only do I deserve no credit, but I deserve blame — I had it installed months ago, it broke with a WordPress upgrade, and it took me this long to get it working again.
Sorry about the extra “c” I put in your last name, Waldo.
It’s OK — I get it all the time and, frankly, getting it wrong, noticing the mistake, and apologizing is even nicer than getting it right in the first place. :)
“We think ourselves gods. ”
Not necessarily. When the city was founded it was safe. Furthermore, the closer to water that a port is, the more valuable it is. Over time as the delta eroded (because of dams upstream holding in silt, because of the way that levees channeled water, etc) it became more and more dangerous. At this point it was a valuable and strategic city, economically and militarily (remember the Civil War?). To abandon it outright would have entailed huge losses.
One thing that caused this sort of thing (building where it’s stupid) is government intervention. If the gov would have left the insurance to the open-market, insurance would have been impossible to get, and people would have built in saner places. With gov insurance, it takes most of the risk out of it for the stupid builder. The gov subsidizes stupidity and we taxpayers pay.
as a new orleans native and someone whose family has lived in new orleans since teh the city was founded in 1718, i think this is perhaps the stupidest and most offensive idea i’ve ever heard. when it comes time for y’all’s cities to face such hardships, i hope you get a chance to hear someone say that your city should be abandoned. the fact is that no place is entirely safe from natural disasters and the fact that new orleans is one of the oldest cities in north america, older than jamestown in redneck virginia by one year belies the notion that new orleans is unsuited to exist. a lot of homes in new orleans are older than most cities in the united states and are still standing today, even after the hurricane. new orleans will be rebuilt and will survive for 300 more years afterward.
i think this is perhaps the stupidest and most offensive idea i’ve ever heard.
You should really go see The Aristocrats.
when it comes time for y’all’s cities to face such hardships, i hope you get a chance to hear someone say that your city should be abandoned.
I’m not aware of any fundamental conflict between Charlottesville and the earth itself. But, if there was, then, yes, abandon it.
the fact is that no place is entirely safe from natural disasters
Indeed, we can get hurricanes (kind of) here. The occasional tiny tornado. 3.0 earthquakes. On the scale of natural disaster likelihood, we’re, like, a 2 on a scale of 10.
Then there’s New Orleans. It’s, like, a 9. Exhibit A: New Orleans right now.
even after the hurricane. new orleans will be rebuilt and will survive for 300 more years afterward.
I’m sure New Orleans will be rebuilt. But it won’t survive for 300 years. If another hurricane doesn’t smack the city in ten years, global warming will raise the ocean levels by a few feat and accomplish the job by more direct means.
New Orleans was a mistake. A hugely-expensive mistake that has killed hundreds (thousands?) of people. There’s no possible way to argue with that — look no further than your TV. You might not like that, but it remains just as true.
Ryan, I apologize if our comments seem insensitive. Given the horrific losses you and your neighbors are enduring, it seems wrong for us to discuss the future of your city so callously. I am deeply sorry for your losses. I believe that all of us, even those who feel that re-building would be wasteful, are praying for and thinking of you and your neighbors in this terrible time.
What Malena said.
I’m sure New Orleans will be rebuilt. But it won’t survive for 300 years. If another hurricane doesn’t smack the city in ten years, global warming will raise the ocean levels by a few feat and accomplish the job by more direct means.
New Orleans was a mistake. A hugely-expensive mistake that has killed hundreds (thousands?) of people. There’s no possible way to argue with that — look no further than your TV. You might not like that, but it remains just as true.
your statement makes no sense. so in calculating whether new orleans is a mistake, shall we take into consideration the millions of people that have been raised there, the cultural gifts it has given to the rest of the world, the history, the millions of dollars that have gone through her port, banks, etc. simply because one storm wrecked havoc amongst my city doesn’t make it a mistake. in fact, i think if we’re looking at a balance sheet, here. new orleans has added much more than it has taken away.most of the population of the netherlands lies below sea level as well and in 1953 a flood there killed 2000 people. do you suggest that the entire country is a mistake? how about san francisco, should it be abandoned, too? the fact is that humans have always (and continue to) lived on the coasts and the benefits of doing so have far exceeded the costs. there are risks associated with this, but we’d have long ago ceased to live there had the risks not been worth it. if you’re reasoning consists solely of the fact that new orleans is more prone to flooding/natural disasters, then i think you’ll find that most of the globe has something threatening it.also, thanks, malena, much appreciated.
Even if building levees *was* the smart thing to do, your statement is hyperbolic. Building levees may be (again, with previous caveat) one aspect of responsible governance, but it isn’t even close to “[being] what responsible governance is all about.”
I’m no expert on the Mississippi and waterflow/erosion, but I have heard that it is the effects of the levees that removed the natural protections that would have prevented a disaster such as this. Thus, it is not even a clearcut case that messing with the river’s natural flow was a smart thing to do in the first place.
This disaster could have and should have been averted and the responsibility for it rests firmly with George W. Bush
1. BUSH KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN
[In early 2001] the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters facing this country. The other two? A massive earthquake in San Francisco, and, almost prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York City.
2. BUSH CUT FUNDING TO HANDLE THE THREAT
Until recently, efforts to squeeze coastal protection money out of Washington have met with resistance. The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana’s coast, only to be opposed by the White House. Ultimately a deal was struck to steer $540 million to the state over four years. The total coast of repair work is estimated to be $14 billion.
In its budget, the Bush administration had also proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana’s chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need.
3. BUSH’S CUTS WERE DRASTIC
For the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but stopped major work on the New Orleans area’s east bank hurricane levees, a complex network of concrete walls, metal gates and giant earthen berms that won’t be finished for at least another decade.
[….]
“I needed $11 million this year, and I got $5.5 million,” Naomi said. “I need $22.5 million next year to do everything that needs doing, and the first $4.5 million of that will go to pay four contractors who couldn’t get paid this year.”
4. BUSH MADE THE CUTS TO FINANCE THE WAR IN IRAQ
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.
5. 40% OF THE LOUISIANA NATIONAL GUARD ARE DEPLOYED TO IRAQ SO SANDBAGGING WAS CRIPPLED
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is “very upset” that an attempt to fix the breach in the levee at the 17th Street canal has failed, and he said the challenges that the city is facing have “escalated to another level.”
[….]
Nagin said the sandbagging was scheduled for midday, but the Blackhawk helicopters needed to help did not show up. He said the sandbags were ready and all the helicopter had to do was “show up.”
[….]
He said he was told that the helicopters may have been diverted to rescue about 1,000 people in a church.
6. IN THE FACE OF THE DISASTER BUSH STRUMMED WHILE NEW ORLEANS DROWNED
As Katrina hit, on August 29, Bush hosted a staged “loyalty pledge” “townhall” to attack Social Security.
As the Levee broke, on August 30, Bush got guitar lessons from country singer Mark Wills.
Only today as thousands are homeless and possibly other thousands are dead, did Mr. Bush actually take notice of the disaster and finally make a statement.
The complete lack of leadership shown by this man is astounding and appalling.
New Orleans is now “Lake Dubya”.
Hans:
To clarify, what I said was:
Hurricanes are beyond our control, but cutting funding to water management in a hazardous area, after the 2004 storm season was the worst on record is criminally negligent.
The disaster could have and should have been avoided. If the levees’ had been reinforced properly, if the guard had been on hand to effect repairs when trouble started, we’d be having Mardi Gras next February. The lack of funding coupled with the near absence of the national guard resulted directly from Mr. Bush’s choices.
Those choices have now cost the nation one of its greatest cities.
Shoot the messenger if you want, but try to be honest with yourself and the rest of us about the real culprit here.
“most of the population of the netherlands lies below sea level as well and in 1953 a flood there killed 2000 people. do you suggest that the entire country is a mistake? how about san francisco, should it be abandoned, too? the fact is that humans have always (and continue to) lived on the coasts and the benefits of doing so have far exceeded the costs. there are risks associated with this, but we’d have long ago ceased to live there had the risks not been worth it. if you’re reasoning consists solely of the fact that new orleans is more prone to flooding/natural disasters, then i think you’ll find that most of the globe has something threatening it.also, thanks, malena, much appreciated.”
Ryan,
You are absolutely correct. There are areas that are much more subject to natural ‘disasters’ or more appropriately, natural changes due to geography and climate. My suggestion is that we need to open a dialogue on how to live with the threat of natural geography-changing events. Do we choose safer places? Do we subsidize the move away from change-prone areas? Do we continue to try to hold back natural changes? *side note – nature will always win eventually*
Logically, it seems correct to evaluate the long-term stability of an area and factor that in to planning on a national or global scale. But the transition for millions or billions that call risky areas home (with rich histories and maybe even rich value in terms of tourism/resources, transportation value, etc.), will be a wrenching upheaval for society. Not to say it shouldn’t be done, perhaps with policies that start like Jack’s proposal.
Natural beauty can also mean danger. No one will argue that a lava flow is not beautiful at night, a desert in its starkness, a warm oceanfront in its tranquility, a cliffside view in its commanding views – but all of these geographical experiences, when taken as a place to settle and possess for life, spell a ticking time-bomb. Nature is not beneficient or cruel – it cares not for the concerns of man. We ultimately need to respect its awesome power and live so as to minimize our impact on, and our exposure to, the powerful forces of nature. Or we could go along and just live with disaster every once in a while. I don’t know the correct response for our world. But it is time to bravely face the issue.
Oops – sorry, the above comment was mine, but somehow the fields were pre-populated with Waldo’s credentials – sorry!
That’s because I used your computer when I visited a week and a half ago, and posted a couple of comments from there. :)
Josh, two main thoughts:
#1 What makes you think that it is the federal government’s job to build local levees?
#2 What makes you think that, even if it would have been fully funded, it would have helped a bit?
#1
It’s the state and local government’s responsibility to manage local projects such as levee building, hurricane protection, etc, etc. The federal gov has no obligation to pay for or manage (that’s always an inevitable result of federal funding) local projects such as those. The locals should have control and should provide funding. We shouldn’t have federal funds building a hospital in Manassas. We shouldn’t have federal funds building a bridge in Fredericksburg. If it affects us locally on a micro scale, then we should be the ones to decide if it’s worth the money and how we want it done. Do you really want 48 senators from other states managing our state?
#2
You say that Bush but funding for this project:
So even if the funding would have been there, it wouldn’t have averted this disaster.
Plus, as Waldo has been saying, you simply can’t protect yourself from a hurricane if the city is below sea level. You can’t build a wall high enough that water won’t get over it. Once the water gets over it, you have to pump it out (a process that could never keep up with the water coming in). Once the water’s inside, the walls help keep it in.
There was an axiom during the Cold War (and it’s probably older than the Cold War) regarding weapons and armor. I don’t remember the exact quote, but it went something like this: Weapons and armor keep getting bigger and stronger, but the weapon always stays ahead of the armor. This definitely applies when you’re talking about a hurricane. This definitely applies when we are talking about Mother Nature as an opponent. The levee armor will never (with existing tech) be big enough. You can’t stop a hurricane. (You can ride it out and try to hunker down, if you’re above sea level.)
Josh, from your article:
Wow… Who still thinks that we should pay to rebuild New Orleans?