Is Bush to blame for the NOLA flooding?

lady · **Joined:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:21 pm **Posts:** 1715

psychedevil wrote:

How much Bush or any one person is to blame for that, I don't know. But there's plenty of blame to go around.

i blame the local government figure heads of LA and NOLA for their inability to take power. the area is YET to have someone really take control and power to let the people know shit is happening and it'll be okay after the rebuilding and assessment of the area. the structural integrity of all these buildings underwater are no longer trustworthy, most of the buildings will have to be rebuilt.

instead, they are hearing the wrong things - how bad they have it. that's not good for anyone's frame of mind. ESPECIALLY when people are saying your area is being singled out because of its race.

the story that has stuck the most in my head is of the 8 year old girl who was raped and her neck broken at the Astrodome.

polymer · **Posted:** Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:42 pm

play some F-ing BF2 Dirk wrote:

josh? wrote:

the levee's were blown, just like in 1927.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/42/after-ehrenreich.php

thanks...that made my weekend. have a good one!

wouldn't surprise me (that actually did happen in 1927, hence a LOT of mistrust from new orleans natives, and shots being fired upon workers repairing the levee (bet you didn't stop to figure that one out); these people tend not to forget stuff like that.

but not likely, because the integrity of the lakeside levee was greatly compromised by the direct hit it took from Katrina (western part of Katrina's eye wall passed right over that area...worst possible trajectory)

Circe · **Posted:** Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:45 pm

polymer wrote:

and you are aware that rivers do jump? (something I was taught in class while living in Harvey) building a city around it won't prevent that.

From http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/ms137.htm

Quote:

Throughout Louisiana, the flood levees that normally protect the valley and its cities are augmented by a complex series of diversion projects that divert Mississippi River floodwaters into the Gulf of Mexico via the Atchafalaya River or Lake Pontchartrain, thereby diverting as much as two-thirds of flood flows around Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

Such navigation and flood-control activities have changed the Lower Mississippi River from its natural state (Beckett and Pennington 1986; Baker et al. 1991). Levees have reduced the area of seasonally flooded wetlands along the river, and dikes and revetments used to entrain the channel prevent the river from creating new habitats. The failure to form new habitats, which historically occurred as the river meandered, is undesirable because floodplain lakes on the Lower Mississippi River (oxbow lakes and former channels) are rapidly filling with sediment (Gagliano and Howard 1984; Cooper and McHenry 1989).

and

Quote:

Under natural conditions, the Mississippi River would probably have switched its course to the Gulf of Mexico via the Atchafalaya distributary between 1965 and 1975. The river has been prevented from doing so by artificial levees and control structures. The Atchafalaya previously captured the Red River, and in the past 20 years the Atchafalaya delta complex has emerged and is rapidly filling Atchafalaya Bay (Autin et al. 1991). Natural diversion of Mississippi River flow to the Atchafalaya has been imminent because the Atchafalaya is both steeper than the Mississippi (3:1 ratio in bed slope) and shorter (225 kilometers to the Gulf of Mexico from the Red River entrance versus 480 kilometers for the Mississippi). The Atchafalaya now drains about 30% of the combined flows of the Mississippi and Red rivers to the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 3).

If the Mississippi's flow switched to the Atchafalaya, the supply of fresh water to the cities of Baton Rouge and New Orleans could be reduced, and river transportation would be curtailed during periods of low flow. Moreover, flood-control and navigation structures could be lost (Lower Mississippi Region Comprehensive Study Coordinating Committee 1974; Keown et al. 1981; Fremling et al. 1989). In addition, increased flows in the Atchafalaya River could be detrimental to the Atchafalaya basin, North America's largest bottomland hard- wood swamp.

From http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_20061.shtml

Quote:

Louisiana's barrier islands are eroding faster than any around the country. Millions of tons of sediment used to exit the Mississippi River's mouth every year and be dragged by longshore currents to the islands, building up what tides had worn away. But in part because levees and dredging prevent the river's last miles from meandering naturally, the mouth has telescoped out to the continental shelf. The sediment just drops over the edge of the underwater cliff into the deep ocean.

Yes, rivers meander. But the southernmost part of the Mississippi river is prevented from doing so to keep New Orleans on the river and the river as a usable channel for shipping.

polymer · **Posted:** Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:50 pm

that would be the delta tributaries that branch out into the gulf (plaquemines parish)

Circe · **Posted:** Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:48 am

Where has the river moved in the vicinity of new orleans in the last 20 years? What part of the city went underwater and what new land is there that was underwater 20 years ago?

polymer · **Posted:** Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:11 am

Circe wrote:

Where has the river moved in the vicinity of new orleans in the last 20 years? What part of the city went underwater and what new land is there that was underwater 20 years ago?

you're taking my point out of context...

meandering is a phenomenon that is unpredictable. do rivers have a meandering period every 20 years?

i don't think so.

NO is sinking, levees won't do anything for that. I'm sure Katrina did a pretty good number on the riverbeds too. does this mean the city will become 'atlantis' in 20 years (or will greater NO become the size of Houston)? probably not...
will dumping money into reinforcing the levees prevent future catastrophes from occuring in that area? lol I seriously doubt it.
meandering is just one of nature's phenomena, and probably the least of their worries.

people just have the tendency to blame and point fingers, when disasters occur; but it seems more reasonable to assess the lack of immediate response, than this whole reinforcing-the-levee-that was-rated-for-Cat. 3-hurricanes issue. Apparently, no one ever really expected anything greater than a Cat. 3 hurricane to ever hit the GNO area.

not trying to sound all "gloom and doom", just illustrating that reinforcing levees is a temporary fix for a permanent dilemma, doesn't matter who's in charge of federal spending; nature > man.

Circe · **Posted:** Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:19 pm

polymer wrote:

Also take into account, that rivers like to "jump" (shift position), from time to time, and levees don't do anything for that....and because sedimentary rocks and sand get eroded/washed away over time, cities like New Orleans that are built along major riverways have the tendency to sink.

Mother Nature will have her way, and technology isn't going to stop her.

polymer wrote:

and you are aware that rivers do jump? (something I was taught in class while living in Harvey) building a city around it won't prevent that.

polymer wrote:

meandering is a phenomenon that is unpredictable. do rivers have a meandering period every 20 years?

So now your claim is that New Orleans is still on the river (and it hasn't meandered away) because 'we are lucky'?

polymer wrote:

but not likely, because the integrity of the lakeside levee was greatly compromised by the direct hit it took from Katrina (western part of Katrina's eye wall passed right over that area...worst possible trajectory)

If a hurricane is moving north, then the west side is the weaker side and the east side is stronger. Katrina veered slightly to the east at the last minute and so New Orleans DID NOT see the worst of the hurricane, Mississippi did.

But I bet I am taking that comment out of context too, huh?

polymer · **Posted:** Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:54 pm

Circe wrote:

polymer wrote:

but not likely, because the integrity of the lakeside levee was greatly compromised by the direct hit it took from Katrina (western part of Katrina's eye wall passed right over that area...worst possible trajectory)

If a hurricane is moving north, then the west side is the weaker side and the east side is stronger. Katrina veered slightly to the east at the last minute and so New Orleans DID NOT see the worst of the hurricane, Mississippi did.

But I bet I am taking that comment out of context too, huh?

actually, you are. where did I say that NO saw the worst of it? obviously, the levee along the lake did (meterologists even suggested BEFORE the storm hit, that this would be the worst case scenario...travelling NE of the city, right across St. Bernard Parish) . mississippi caught all the wind, and of course, their damage appears more severe.

Circe wrote:

So now your claim is that New Orleans is still on the river (and it hasn't meandered away) because 'we are lucky'?

?? not sure how you deduce that from my response, or how you came up with the "20 years" time frame in the first place. Rivers can meander ANYWHERE inland, regardless of the delta tributaries; if channels get backed up with sediment, the chances for meandering increase.

Circe wrote:

Throughout Louisiana, the flood levees that normally protect the valley and its cities are augmented by a complex series of diversion projects that divert Mississippi River floodwaters into the Gulf of Mexico via the Atchafalaya River or Lake Pontchartrain, thereby diverting as much as two-thirds of flood flows around Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

Such navigation and flood-control activities have changed the Lower Mississippi River from its natural state (Beckett and Pennington 1986; Baker et al. 1991). Levees have reduced the area of seasonally flooded wetlands along the river, and dikes and revetments used to entrain the channel prevent the river from creating new habitats. The failure to form new habitats, which historically occurred as the river meandered, is undesirable because floodplain lakes on the Lower Mississippi River (oxbow lakes and former channels) are rapidly filling with sediment (Gagliano and Howard 1984; Cooper and McHenry 1989).

is New Orleans lucky? *shrugs* maybe the Bush Admin should drop a few billion to build more canals, and drop more sandbags along the levees (as if building a bunker). :roll:

can man prevent rivers from meandering? *laughs*

i don't think a bunch of engineers are going to prevent the sediment from flowing/building up elsewhere.

That Guy · **Posted:** Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:50 pm

VOTE CLINTON 2008!!!

:badteeth:

Dom · **Posted:** Sat Sep 10, 2005 6:51 pm

In the battle of man versus nature, gamble on nature.

lady · **Joined:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:21 pm **Posts:** 1715

polymer wrote:

(or will greater NO become the size of Houston)?

not with all the incentives evacuees have to re-locate (re-settle) in houston. i know our company is providing them an incredible opportunity (housing + gift certs to buy items).

lady · **Joined:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:21 pm **Posts:** 1715

That Guy wrote:

VOTE CLINTON 2008!!!

:badteeth:

which one?

That Guy · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:36 pm

Well, considering that Bill can't run again, I'm gonna go with Hillary.

Once again :badteeth:

lady · **Joined:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:21 pm **Posts:** 1715

That Guy wrote:

Well, considering that Bill can't run again, I'm gonna go with Hillary.

Once again :badteeth:

why does everyone forget about Chelsea?

That Guy · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:42 pm

We all try because she is so hideously ugly. :sick:

lady · **Joined:** Wed Feb 05, 2003 5:21 pm **Posts:** 1715

That Guy wrote:

We all try because she is so hideously ugly. :sick:

she's looking a hell of a lot better. PLUS, she's got one hell of a paycheck AND a great resume for political office...

Grand Moff Tarkin · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:52 pm

Nope, still ugly.

cheebs · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:12 pm

gimme a 12-pack of beer and about 3 shots of tequila and i'll think about hitting it.

psychedevil · **Joined:** Thu Oct 24, 2002 4:01 am **Posts:** 1012

Circe, this is from the same article that you cited:

"During the past 5,000-6,000 years, formation of a new delta lobe has begun roughly once every 1,000 years in response to major changes in the Mississippi River's course to the Gulf of Mexico. The formation and aging of delta lobes are accompanied by changes in habitat types and plant communities (Neill and Deegan 1986)."

The above paragraph states that a major change in the course of the Mississippi River occurs about once every 1,000 years. Since Louisiana only has a historical record going back to the early 1700's (which is 300 years ago), then how can you say for sure that polymer isn't right when he says that 20 years is too short of a time span to see any big changes in the flow of the Mississippi River (with or without the presence of levees)?

Personally speaking, I'm not convinced that we have the Mississippi River under control. The levees have proven inadequate before, in particular during the great flood of 1927. A good book to read on the topic and on how man has attempted to control the Mississippi River since early European settlement is "Rising Tide" by John Barry. The author goes into detail about how levees themselves are inadequate for several reasons, although they remain the primary effort to control the Mississippi by the Army Corps of Engineer. The author suggests that some of the ideas private engineers have come up with would be better suited for the situation and provides evidence of the superiority of these methods.

Even if we prevent the Mississippi River from changing course, then we still will be left with the negative effects of preventing the river from changing course. I think that it's only a matter of time before the forces of nature have their way.

Is Bush to blame for the NOLA flooding?

Who is online

Social Network

Night Club Culture

GlobalBeatz.net