I was born in New Orleans, and most of my mother's family comes from there. As someone who lived much of her youth in that unique city, it has broken my heart to see what has happened there this year. I live in Florida, so I didn't go through Katrina, but I went through three hurricanes last year, and I went through Betsy and Camille when I lived in the New Orleans area.
New Orleans is only part of the problem: The infrastucture in many areas is destroyed as completely as if they'd been bombed to oblivion. The hurricanes cut a swath of destruction through the lower third of three states, for hundreds of square miles. Businesses are relocating. If the people do not have carpentry skills, there are few jobs. There are few houses without damage, in some areas no houses are left at all. People are living in tents, without money to buy basic needs like groceries. Food stamps are being cut. FEMA has dragged their feet in releasing needed trailers and supplies.
I'm appalled at the inaction on the part of our government in making concrete steps toward putting into action the promices it has made for rebuilding, and protecting our people. We did more for Southeast Asia after the Tsunami.
Yes, we have thrown money at the problems there, but it is all for naught if the wetlands are not rebuilt. The wetlands are the real protection for the city, since the Hurricanes used to spend their energy there, and enter the city only after being weakened by the barier islands and the Atchafalya basin's wetlands. At this time the wetlands part of the rebuilding project is being dumped.
We can rebuild Iraq (of course we DID break it), we can send foreign aid across the world, without expecting anything back, but we are doing so much less for the American Cities that went through this years Hurricanes. Gulf coast communities from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are going bankrupt from lack of revenue, and are slowly dying.
What are your thoughts on this?
quote:Death of an American City
The New York Times | Editorial Sunday 11 December 2005
We are about to lose New Orleans. Whether it is a conscious plan to let the city rot until no one is willing to move back or honest paralysis over difficult questions, the moment is upon us when a major American city will die, leaving nothing but a few shells for tourists to visit like a museum.
We said this wouldn't happen. President Bush said it wouldn't happen. He stood in Jackson Square and said, "There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans." But it has been over three months since Hurricane Katrina struck and the city is in complete shambles.
There are many unanswered questions that will take years to work out, but one is make-or-break and needs to be dealt with immediately. It all boils down to the levee system. People will clear garbage, live in tents, work their fingers to the bone to reclaim homes and lives, but not if they don't believe they will be protected by more than patches to the same old system that failed during the deadly storm. Homeowners, businesses and insurance companies all need a commitment before they will stake their futures on the city. At this moment the reconstruction is a rudderless ship. There is no effective leadership that we can identify. How many people could even name the president's liaison for the reconstruction effort, Donald Powell? Lawmakers need to understand that for New Orleans the words "pending in Congress" are a death warrant requiring no signature.
The rumbling from Washington that the proposed cost of better levees is too much has grown louder. Pretending we are going to do the necessary work eventually, while stalling until the next hurricane season is upon us, is dishonest and cowardly. Unless some clear, quick commitments are made, the displaced will have no choice but to sink roots in the alien communities where they landed.
The price tag for protection against a Category 5 hurricane, which would involve not just stronger and higher levees but also new drainage canals and environmental restoration, would very likely run to well over $32 billion. That is a lot of money. But that starting point represents just 1.2 percent of this year's estimated $2.6 trillion in federal spending, which actually overstates the case, since the cost would be spread over many years. And it is barely one-third the cost of the $95 billion in tax cuts passed just last week by the House of Representatives.
Total allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have topped $300 billion. All that money has been appropriated as the cost of protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. But what was the worst possible case we fought to prevent? Losing a Major American City
"We'll not just rebuild, we'll build higher and better," President Bush said that night in September. Our feeling, strongly, is that he was right and should keep to his word. We in New York remember well what it was like for the country to rally around our city in a desperate hour. New York survived and has flourished. New Orleans can too.
Of course, New Orleans's local and state officials must do their part as well, and demonstrate the political and practical will to rebuild the city efficiently and responsibly. They must, as quickly as possible, produce a comprehensive plan for putting New Orleans back together. Which schools will be rebuilt and which will be absorbed? Which neighborhoods will be shored up? Where will the roads go? What about electricity and water lines? So far, local and state officials have been derelict at producing anything that comes close to a coherent plan. That is unacceptable.
The city must rise to the occasion. But it will not have that opportunity without the levees, and only the office of the president is strong enough to goad Congress to take swift action. Only his voice is loud enough to call people home and convince them that commitments will be met.
Maybe America does not want to rebuild New Orleans. Maybe we have decided that the deficits are too large and the money too scarce, and that it is better just to look the other way until the city withers and disappears. If that is truly the case, then it is incumbent on President Bush and Congress to admit it, and organize a real plan to help the dislocated residents resettle into new homes. The communities that opened their hearts to the Katrina refugees need to know that their short-term act of charity has turned into a permanent commitment.
If the rest of the nation has decided it is too expensive to give the people of New Orleans a chance at renewal, we have to tell them so. We must tell them we spent our rainy-day fund on a costly stalemate in Iraq, that we gave it away in tax cuts for wealthy families and shareholders. We must tell them America is too broke and too weak to rebuild one of its great cities.
Our nation would then look like a feeble giant indeed. But whether we admit it or not, this is our choice to make. We decide whether New Orleans lives or dies.
-------
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What part of Florida are you in? I grew up there, but I live in New Orleans now. Er, actually, I'm in Chicago NOW, but I'll be back in New Orleans in January.
-pH
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
What part of Florida are you in? I grew up there, but I live in New Orleans now. Er, actually, I'm in Chicago NOW, but I'll be back in New Orleans in January.
-pH
I live in Central Florida, near the Wekiva River. I relocated to Florida when I married a man who was from here, going on 20 years ago.
We have some interesting parallels. I lived in the Gurnee area during part of my childhood. I have relatives in both areas, though most of my New Orleans relatives are now scattered across the country because of the 'diaspora' caused by evacuation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry, Silkie. I hope 'they' rebuild New Orleans soonest.
Posted by The_Orange_ Order (Member # 8919) on :
im also a little baffled at America's reaction to new orleans as a canadian i look at the american military as this enormus force capable of moving 100,000 men across the ocean to fight a war would it not be so simple to move as many civilians not even half that distance?
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Orange_ Order: im also a little baffled at America's reaction to new orleans as a canadian i look at the american military as this enormus force capable of moving 100,000 men across the ocean to fight a war would it not be so simple to move as many civilians not even half that distance?
The only thing I can come up with, Orange, is that it is either a matter of priorities, or that those in charge are so confuzzled they couldn't get their act together to respond appropriately to a real disaster.
I am also baffled at why the Bush Administration is now backing away from the Wetlands Renewal Project. We are already spending at least what that project would cost in a Euphrates flood project in Iraq. Why are we leaving our own without?
The geologists and environmental scientists that were consulted recommend it, and even the Oil companies from that region are in favor of renewing the wetlands, since it will protect their interests in the area as well. If it is NOT done, all of the Levees and rebuilding would be for nothing. New Orleans needs that buffer zone the wetlands used to provide, to protect it from the forces of nature.
If nothing else, it doesn't make fiscal sense to rebuild without doing a thorough job of it!
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Did anyone see the Katrina Senate panel on CSPAN today? It was very disturbing to hear the New Orleans survivors and community leaders talk about everything from the the use of force on evacuees to the fact that the rebuilding contracts are being given to companies like Haliburton and not local contractors.
There also seems to be a big questions about whether or not one of the levees in the poorer area of the city was bombed.
I'm glad to see this becoming so public. Hopefully it will prevent similar mishandling in the future.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Orange_ Order: im also a little baffled at America's reaction to new orleans as a canadian i look at the american military as this enormus force capable of moving 100,000 men across the ocean to fight a war would it not be so simple to move as many civilians not even half that distance?
Well, I would say there's a difference between moving a well-trained military, in a military operation, than moving a city full of bewildered and scared people... and there are limits to how much the US military can be used, and when. The local leaders have plenty of blame to share, too.
As to the rebuilding effort, I love NO, and plan on visiting it again for a wedding in February - I hope things do start moving a little smoother. No surprise, but I've heard a lot of the insurance companies are balking on payments, or trying to find the cheapest possible solution, even if it's not very feasible. (A that has month-long water damage, plus a plethora of nasty chemicals? New paint and it'll be fine!)
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: There also seems to be a big questions about whether or not one of the levees in the poorer area of the city was bombed.
This surprised the hell out of me when I first read it. I'd heard accusations that the federal government is neglecting black communities, but actively TRYING to kill them seems just too evil. Even for this administration, it really seems just stupidly evil. As in outside-the-bounds-of-reality-evil.
According to my roommate who majored in psych, blaming conspiracies is a common way to deal with the apparant meaninglessness of tragedies like natural disaasters. Really, Bush has enough to answer for. We don't need to make stuff up.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty:
[snip] As to the rebuilding effort, I love NO, and plan on visiting it again for a wedding in February - I hope things do start moving a little smoother. No surprise, but I've heard a lot of the insurance companies are balking on payments, or trying to find the cheapest possible solution, even if it's not very feasible. (A that has month-long water damage, plus a plethora of nasty chemicals? New paint and it'll be fine!)
Yeah, I know what you mean about the Insurance companies.
"Never mind if the house blew down - it flooded afterward so you aren't covered."
They are much better at taking your money than at paying a claim. American businesses are becoming takers and users, letting go of the ideal of building a better America for Americans.
The chemicals are supposedly not as bad as was thought - though I will believe George Bush's EPA only when an independent survey has been done. The air was "OK" in New York after 9/11, but MANY of the clean-up workers from 9/11 are finding out how political that pronouncement was.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:They are much better at taking your money than at paying a claim. American businesses are becoming takers and users, letting go of the ideal of building a better America for Americans.
Wow, I always thought the ideal of a business was to turn a profit. I never knew they used to be so noble. This must have been before recorded history, how did you find out about it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No kidding - when exactly was this magical era?
Rebuilding New Orleans will take a great deal of money, more money than is currently covered by insurance. I like the idea of New Orleans coming alive again, but where is that money supposed to come from?
I think of Detroit, which is run down and has been destroyed another. As long as we are shelling out tax dollars to rebuild broken cities, why not Detroit?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They are much better at taking your money than at paying a claim. American businesses are becoming takers and users, letting go of the ideal of building a better America for Americans.
It's probably a Democratic thing...
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Insurance is a racket. "What? You want us to live up to our end of the agreement? Fine, we'll raise your rates so that still come out ahead." Considering it's a service you HAVE to have, if you drive or buy a home on credit, it should probably be regulated...
(waiting on the insurance hit men to take me out...)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, here's what was promised.
quote: And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know: There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Insurance is a racket. "What? You want us to live up to our end of the agreement? Fine, we'll raise your rates so that still come out ahead." Considering it's a service you HAVE to have, if you drive or buy a home on credit, it should probably be regulated...
(waiting on the insurance hit men to take me out...)
Again, the entire point of an insurance company is to turn a profit. What will happen to your insurance if the company goes belly-up because it was paying out more than it was taking in?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
"as long as it takes" is pretty vague...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bush shouldn't have promised to rebuild New Orleans completely. There are needs all over the place. Detroit's need is not less because their disasters didn't have a girl's name.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Av, my point was, let's say I pay $250 a month for auto insurance. Let's say in a year's time, I have a $1000 claim, of which, I have to pay $500. I'm fairly certain they can pay the claim without raising my rate to $300 a month.
Katrina was in the spotlight - Bush had to do *something*. The gov tends to step in and act the hero in an emergency, not in long term decay.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not upset by a promise not being kept that never should have been made in the first place.
As much as I dislike insurance and think the companies that jacked up the prices like crazy after mold started permeating Texas, I'd rather live in a world with it. I'd like to see it better regulated, however.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, if the US gov is going to step in for all the big emergencies, maybe it should be part of our taxes... Hmmm.... wait....
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know that was supposed to be snarky, but I am unclear as to what you are proposing or suggesting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I'm not upset by a promise not being kept that never should have been made in the first place.
I think I am upset twice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do you think that vague and soothing promises that never should have been made should be kept, despite their deleterious consequences?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Maybe I missed something, but what natural disaster destroyed Detroit?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It wasn't a single natural disaster, but Detroit is still a mess that would love to be rebuilt.
It took a couple decades for it to fall apart. Is New Orleans more deserving because it took only a week?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
If you remember all the threads on this topic back when the hurricane first hit, the argument was that the government uses federal aid money to rebuild after earthquakes and tornados, why not a hurricane.
It has nothing to do with the timeframe. Detroit's falling apart because of natural urban decay, and cheap production plants overseas which killed the job market.
Your analogy doesn't hold up beyond the fact that they both happen to be American cities in bad shape. And if you go visit New Orleans, or look at pictures of it, you'll see that it's still devastated. Like ground zero on 9/12, but about 20 times as large an area.
Should we not have repaired NYC? After all, these things happen, right?
Just because it happened quickly doesn't make NYC more deserving than, say, Oakland of being rebuilt.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I feel the same way about NYC as about New Orleans. The money has to come from somewhere. Money from the nation for the nation should be parceled out according to need and careful thought, not according to who has the most spectacular sob story.
Detroit has plenty of need of its own. Should we ignore them because it's not exciting enough to be on the news? Do you want to set priorities according to what makes the headlines?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Again, you seem to missing a key difference.
Detroit - in bad shape through their own mismanagement and poor luck
NO - levelled by what my insurance policy refers to as an "Act of god". Not that I think God sent the hurricane to punish the city or anything so OT.
If you disagree with federal aid in general, that's a different issue. If you agree with federal disaster relief but don't think it applies here then I'd just like to hear why.
And can you cite an example of tax money being parceled out according to need anywhere in this country? It seems to me that my tax dollars are spent haphazardly on anything and everything the government feels like spending it on. Rebuilding New Orleans is estimated to cost about 32 billion, spread over 3-5 years (I'd guess). Our 'war' effort in Iraq is now up around the 300 billion dollar mark. Should we be spending all that money out of town when our front door is falling off the hinges?
We could fix NO, Detroit, and every other disaster site and have enough left over to build a fence around Texas for what we poured into the sand across the ocean.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not missing anything.
I don't believe that rebuilding should be done only for the "noble" and dramatically destitute.
New Orleans wasn't considered worth saving before the hurricane. How did Katrina change your mind?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
New Orleans wasn't considered worth saving before the hurricane?
It didn't really need saving. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but the film industry was getting really involved in it, and it had a lot of potential.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's the point - I think it was worth saving before the hurricane. I also think Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston are worth saving, and since there is so much need, the federal government shouldn't swear to rebuild all of one city while ignoring the rest.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But were it not for a natural disaster, New Orleans wouldn't need saving at all.
Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston need saving (if they really do) because of things that are (or used to be) within their control, to a certain extent. I mean, I'm not saying it's entirely their fault, but I think there are huge differences between these cases.
New Orleans had really started to turn itself around. It makes me sad.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston need saving (if they really do) because of things that are (or used to be) within their control, to a certain extent. I mean, I'm not saying it's entirely their fault, but I think there are huge differences between these cases.
If you're not saying it's their fault, what are you saying?
I don't believe that help should be doled out according to the past virtues of the receiver.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Detroit - in bad shape through their own mismanagement and poor luck
I think part of kat's point may be that New Orleans just happened to have the poor luck of a hurricane combined with ill-preparedness and their own local (as well as federal) mismanagement.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: And can you cite an example of tax money being parceled out according to need anywhere in this country? It seems to me that my tax dollars are spent haphazardly on anything and everything the government feels like spending it on. Rebuilding New Orleans is estimated to cost about 32 billion, spread over 3-5 years (I'd guess). Our 'war' effort in Iraq is now up around the 300 billion dollar mark. Should we be spending all that money out of town when our front door is falling off the hinges?
We could fix NO, Detroit, and every other disaster site and have enough left over to build a fence around Texas for what we poured into the sand across the ocean.
You got that right 'de Spang. Our most recent budget had a bridge to nowhere in Alaska included in it. Louisiana lost two major bridges through the action of the storm, the I-10 bridge in Slidell plus the Lake Ponchartrain Causeway Bridge which was seriously damaged. But a bridge to nowhere was more important to the Senator from Alaska. It was proposed that we cut the Alaska bridge, instead of cutting Food Stamps and School programs, and direct the money toward Louisiana.
Well, the old Senator from Alaska raised quite a stink. He threatened to quit if "his bridge" was cut, so they gave him the money instead of the bridge, and cut Food Stamps.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's the point - I think it was worth saving before the hurricane. I also think Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston are worth saving, and since there is so much need, the federal government shouldn't swear to rebuild all of one city while ignoring the rest.
The current Congress doesn't give a rat's backside about taking care of New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, OR Houston. They DO take VERY good care of the special interests groups and their campaign donors. Those promices to New Orleans were made because of the international outrage, and the outrage of caring people who watched the disaster unfold on their televisions.
You know, it isn't JUST New Orleans, katharina. The lower third of Louisiana and Mississippi (and part of Texas) looks like Banda Ache, Indonesia did after the Tsunami. For miles inland, EVERYTHING was wiped from the face of the earth. What wasn't washed out to sea was deposited in piles of rubble that is for the most part still there, except for streets cleared through the rubble.
While I am sure Detroit deserves Federal help - just as every other nearly bankrupt city in our country does, after the Federal cuts of these past several years - I don't think they are quite as devastated as that.
quote:Originally posted by pH: But were it not for a natural disaster, New Orleans wouldn't need saving at all.
Detroit, Baltimore, and Houston need saving (if they really do) because of things that are (or used to be) within their control, to a certain extent. I mean, I'm not saying it's entirely their fault, but I think there are huge differences between these cases.
New Orleans had really started to turn itself around. It makes me sad.
-pH
Exactly, pH. New Orleans was doing just fine. Just like every big city, it had it's problems, but it was doing just fine. That changed, through an 'Act of God.'
While many of it's people WERE poor, they had homes, and jobs and a life. Most people there were born there, or left and returned, because we have - or shall I say HAD - a heritage of strong family ties. While Dubya played on a country western guitar, people were in Attics, waiting for a rescue that didn't come in time, and dying.
That didn't happen in Detroit.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I was implying that the government does act like a big insurance agency for disasters, and it IS part of our taxes. I was also imagining how much worse the process would be if I was filing a claim... FEMA can be pretty demanding.
We all know that aid is going to flow where it can make the biggest political impact. It kind of makes me wonder how much of the reconstruction budget is going to the rest of the affected areas.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
FEMA is pretty ridiculous, from everything I've heard. I posted something earlier about them denying aid to people who lived with roommates if the roommates had already filed claims.
You have no idea how grateful I am that I didn't have to deal with that.
-pH
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
I am in favor of a fair profit: that is what makes businesses work. What I am not in favor of is greed.
I worked as a temp for an Insurance agency a while ago. I saw the excessive profits that they make. I also worked for a drug distribution company, and saw the amazing profits they make. We all witnessed the 'record profits' of the oil companies, after the hurricane damage. Then the public investigation in Congress somehow coincided with the prices suddenly dropping. The Senator from Alaska wouldn't allow his Oil cronies to be sworn in. So they aren't liable to prosecution as the Tobacco giants were "way back when" there were Tobacco hearings. Those hearings were for show, IMHO, due to the public outrage - after all, the mid term elections are around the corner.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Heck, I have a bud down there that FEMA paid to relocate... of course, he had just moved into town, and was just living with some friends.
In the dealings my company has had with FEMA, every investigator has a different interpretation of what is reimbursable. And you have to keep an insane amount of paperwork, along with a few other things that tend to slide in emergencies.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You can keep saying you're not missing anything all day, but as long as you keep comparing cities levelled by natural disasters with cities that peaked and have been spiralling downward since you just disprove your own claim.
I'm not missing anything -- the guy who gets drunk and falls into an open electrical panel should get the same treatment as a guy who gets struck by lightning. They both need the help, and just because one of their injuries were self-inflicted doesn't mean that they shouldn't be equally helped, right?
Wrong. Accountability does matter. In this, and in everything. That's why the penalties are different for premeditated murder and negligent homicide. You kill someone either way, but the manner in which it happens and personal accountability have a large influence on the appropriate punishment.
Like pH said, New Orleans didn't need saving until it got washed away. It wasn't perfect, and in fact it could have gone in that Detroit/Oakland category. But no one then was saying, "Fix us!"
It's noble (to use your word) of you to consider everyone worth saving. What it's not is practical. There isn't an endless amount of money for stuff like this, and it's going to be doled out (rightfully) in order of need.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I don't think NO was all that great before Katrina. I found this article:
quote: But beyond the historic architecture, the spice-laden cuisine and the beguiling voodoo underground, live close to 500,000 people, mostly poor (more than a quarter live in poverty), mostly black (more than 66 percent), clustered into 73 distinct neighborhoods.
Crime, even before the hurricane, was high. The murder rate has come down in recent years, but remains 10 times the national average. Last year, researchers had police fire 700 blank rounds in a city neighborhood one afternoon. No one called to report the gunfire.
"Maybe New Orleans should be nicknamed The Big Un-Easy, due to a high violent crime rate and a high unemployment rate. There's also a significant number of suicides and divorces," said Bert Sterling on his Best Places web site.
The city's school system is a shambles. The district almost went broke this past year teachers nearly missed a paycheck and 55 of the state's 78 worst schools are in New Orleans.
Dozens of school employees are under indictment for corruption. But then, corruption in New Orleans is nothing new politicians, judges, the police have all been caught.
That is from the second page of the article.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Arguably New Orleans was not doing "just fine". The level of corruption was legendary, and no matter where you think the biggest parcel of blame lies, municipal government did not do its job in preparing for a natural disaster in circumstances where obviously a serious hurricane would be catastrophic.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Which is why I said you could put in the Detroit/Oakland category. And by "just fine" I meant not covered with silt and all washed away. Compared to how it's doing now, it was Xanadu before the hurricane.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Orange_ Order: im also a little baffled at America's reaction to new orleans as a canadian i look at the american military as this enormus force capable of moving 100,000 men across the ocean to fight a war would it not be so simple to move as many civilians not even half that distance?
I can answer that. The relevant military branch for natural disasters here is the National Guard. The U.S. government asked permission to use the National Guard for rescue operations in N.O. before Katrina hit, and the State of Louisiana refused. It's illegal for the U.S. to use the military on a state without its permission; part of federalism.
New Orleans did have an evacuation plan in place, but decided not to use it. The mayor has not explained why. You may have seen the pictures of the flooded lot full of empty school buses, in standing water; they were to be used to evacuate people, but they were not used.
So, yes, it was very possible to evacuate those who wanted evacuation. But the city would not do it, the state would not do it, and the state would not allow the feds to take action until the Wednesday *after* the hurricane.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is plenty of blame everywhere. JT, if you are contending that New Orleans deserves to be rebuilt because they were more virtuous than Detroit, you need to reexamine Louisiana politics.
I think the issue of who is the noble and virtuous poor and who deserves to be poor is completely irrelevant. There are many, many urban areas that could use a renewing, and Americans live in all of them. New Orleans doesn't get to be returned to better than they were and their decades of bad governance ignored before simply because they are on the front page.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I think another big part of it is that NO is a tourist attraction, so it's quick loss is felt more than a gradual decay of cities like Detroit.
Thanks for providing clarification on that Will - I was too lazy to look up the details...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, there's plenty of blame everywhere for why New Orleans got wiped out.
Maybe it was because it was poorly governed.
Maybe it was because it was a sinful, hedonistic place.
Maybe it was because George Dubya hates black people.
Maybe it was because people didn't heed the evacuation orders, or weren't able to.
Or maybe, just maybe, it was because it got hit by a Cat 5 hurricane.
Hard to say, what with all the blame going around.
I'm sorry, but taking personal responsibility out of this is irresponsible, at best. I don't know how else to say it. But I won't say it any more, because you're not being rational and that's fine, but I refuse to keep repeating myself.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yes, clearly cities that have crime and corruption are not worth being rebuilt. Those kinds of problems are SO RARE, after all.
I lump that kind of argument about New Orleans in with the "God smote the city of sin and debauchery" declarations.
Again, I say: the city really was starting to turn itself around. It was making real, honest efforts to improve and change. And what's more, they were working and would have continued to work had a hurricane not hit.
-pH
[ December 13, 2005, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Reading back I find it interesting to see Houston has a city in need of "help." I lived just west of the city, and within limits, for 14 years and have always loved the city. They've had their problems but they've always overcome. I've been gone for 2 1/2 years but I'd have a hard time believing that things have degraded so much. If anything I love Houston more now when I see it in comparision to living on New Orleans North Shore.
I also don't see the point of the "blame game." Looking at the facts...we have a major city with displaced citizens, a tourist capital for the state, a big port stop, and a historical site in the nation's history. Regardless of its state before or during the disaster, it deserves state and federal attention. Just like any other city would in the face of a freak tragedy. Stop blaming and let's get things done. I would forget that this administration abandoned us if they would step up and do something. Everyday is a chance to make-up for the mistakes following Katrina. Yet everyday, I still see no progress.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who said anything like that, pH? All I did was contradict that the city of New Orleans was "just fine". Clearly it was an unhealthy city, whether or not it was on the mend. I'm speaking in terms of its government. That doesn't make it unworthy of help.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: But I won't say it any more, because you're not being rational and that's fine, but I refuse to keep repeating myself.
*grin* Sure, if you can't actually counter an argument, descend to calling it irrational and running away. I'd be annoyed at the pathetic name-calling if it wasn't proof that you've run out of cogent ripostes.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The levee pilings in the levee were SEVEN FEET too shallow according to the Design Specifications. This is evidence of *criminal* corruption from contractors back in 1993. At least one or two engineers should *lose* their licenses over this and the contractors should be jailed.
I think it's safe to say there was severe corruption. Engineers have been brainwashed that they live in the "public trust". For a supervising engineer from a contractor to allow this sort of henious deviation from the design plan, there has to be systemic corruption.
AJ
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, speaking from experience, an engineer might design a system, but there are several layers of incompetence between "design" and "build"
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I know *exactly* what the government will and won't allow when it comes to infrastructure in the State of Illinois (which itself is pretty darn corrupt) My boyfriend is directly involved with watchdogging contractors so that they *do* follow the design specifications.
Some of the blame may be on the Army Corps of Engineers because they didn't have a licensed civil engineer standing there supervising, because you need to constantly badger the contractors to do it right. However the contractors contracted the job in the first place. Theoretically you *shouldn't* have to stand over their shoulders of every minute of the day to make sure it is done right. If they don't do it right they are in breach of their contracts!
Hmmm... they may have been the right length after all. If so, I stand corrected.
AJ
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Apologize to those poor, misunderstood engineers
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Oh, there's still lots of screwups by the engineers. I'll have to dig up some of the articles I've read, but one problem was the inadequate level of testing that was done for design. There was not enough soil borings done to adequately determine the length of sheetpile necessary. The soil stratigraphy is pretty variable in New Orleans with a lot of muck and other weak soils.
The article I read said that borings were done about every 300 feet. Even if you base your design on the worst case condition, your betting that there wasn't something even worse between them.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
AJ, ask Steve what he thinks the level of care in testing frequency should have been?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Shoot, Engineers screw up every day. *I* happened to actually wake up and come to work this morning, for example.
Posted by seespot (Member # 7388) on :
Okay, I know I'm a little late with this, but I have a few words to say about insurance companies. I am a property and casualty insurance actuary for a large insurance company. I have worked primarily on mobile home insurance and renters insurance, both kinds that would be needed in case of a hurricane. My primary job as an actuary is to make sure the rates are adequate to cover our losses, expenses, and provide profit, as well as ensure that the rates are not excessive. Each state has laws about what insurance can and can't do to rates. With homeowners, renters, and mobile home insurance, the company may not raise an individuals rates based on that individual's experience. Your homeowners does not go up because you filed a claim. I can't say the same thing about Auto, because I don't work with that type of product. We are a company and our purpose is to make a profit. We are also now a publicly traded company, so it is doubly important to make a profit. Because we insure people against "acts of God", I am required to be conservative in my analysis of our experience. The insurance industry is highly regulated. Because we are conservative, some years we have more profit than we plan. Some years(like this year and last year) we have much less. The cushion must be built in to keep the company viable and our customers insured.
Regarding the flood insurance comment earlier: As far as my company is concerned, if the wind blows your roof off and rain gets in, it's caused by the hurricane. If it is storm surge(or a wall of water) then it is flooding. Folks, if you are in a coastal area, get flood insurance! I recommend everyone in the state of Florida who lives on the ground floor get flood insurance. I know it's more money, but if you get hit by a hurricane, then can you afford not to have it? We are in for more storms next year, I'm sure. I also have experienced hurricanes--I live in Miami.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:I recommend everyone in the state of Florida who lives on the ground floor get flood insurance.
Well, not everyone, but certainly the coastal areas and people in flood prone areas. In fact, I thought that the banks required them to carry flood insurance.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Smittg I *am* an engineer. Not a PE yet though. I'm not a civil engineer but I have a Freudian affinity to them.
Zgator. I believe there should have been an engineer at least signing off to the correct material as the pilings were driven in. That is Steve's job. He samples the quality of concrete and asphalt leaving plants, and if it is at a bridge deck they supervise the material quality going in. They have another engineer supervising at each site to catch whether the contractor tries short on materials. The steel girders and rebar are approved in similar fashion.
So yes, mistakes are made, but if they catch the contractors, the contractors are *forced* to eat the cost and fix it, depending on how egregious the screwup is. There is a bit of bridge deck on a main thoroughfare near the O'Hare airport that is going to have to be completely redone at the contractors expense because the contractor out and out lied on their material QC reports.
In this particular case it wasn't caught before the pour, but shortly therafter, as the state engineers reviewed the contractors submissions and realized that the report data below the first page was totally screwed up.
AJ
(In other words there should have been a PE either from the Corps or the Contractor standing there *watching* as the girders were driven in. If the girders were indeed half the length they were supposed to be (though now they are saying they weren't) it should have been obvious from a visual inspection.
AJ
Posted by seespot (Member # 7388) on :
Perhaps in the case of regulary homeowners, but I don't think that those in mobile homes or who rent are required. In any event, it behooves everyone to know exactly what their insurance covers and what it doesn't.
The reason I say everyone, is what if it rains more than the ground can take. If it seeps into your house, than it is considered flooding and not covered by regular homeowners. Florida has a very high water table and, as recent experience has shown, the middle of the state is not safe from strong storms. When Katrina came through South Florida, there were some non-flood zones that were flooded. I guess I'm just saying to be conservative and be prepared when it comes to insurance. It may be very painful paying the premium, but it's sure worth it when you have a loss. And if you are familiar with your policy, you know what claims will be covered and what will be denied. It will give you some ammo to fight with, if need be.
Can you tell I feel strongly about this? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't have flood insurance, but I live on the second floor in Dallas, Texas. I feel okay about that. I have insurance for everything else, though. If I am offed, then my brothers get money for college. No one tell them.
Posted by seespot (Member # 7388) on :
Oh--when I said everyone, I meant everyone in Fla. I think you're okay on the second floor in Dallas. Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
AJ, I was joking. I'm sure the engineers feelings weren't hurt Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
AJ, hope ya don't mind, sent you an email from a civvie buddy, thought you might enjoy
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
seespot, I agree you should be conservative. Most homeowners probably don't know enough about their area to know if it's flood prone or not. But there are many areas of the state that don't have a high groundwater and have free draining soils. In fact, that pretty much describes the conditions you need for citrus groves.
I do see what your saying, though. There are entire communities in Central Florida that struggle to stay above water.
AJ, I was actually referring to the testing that was done prior to design to determine what size and length sheetpile was necessary. From what I read, the spacing they used didn't even meet what I would consider the standard of care for a wall in Florida and our soils are generally much more consistent. Ask Steve how far apart he would space borings for something like this. They used 300 feet. I would say 100 feet, but hindsight's a grand thing.
edit: Oh, and I disagree that a PE needs to be in the field checking everything the Contractor does. They need to be watched by an experienced technician who is under the responsible charge of an engineer, but I don't think an actual engineer needs to be there. I don't know about where you are, but engineers are in too short a supply to have in the field verifying things like depth of piles
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Unfortunately state contractors are too dishonest to not be babysat. Perhaps not always a P.E., Steve actually isn't one yet, but a PE guarantees more honesty than anything else. Cause they know they are legally responsible and if something goes wrong it is their head.
I don't think *everything* needs to be checked and sometimes spot checking is sufficient. (For example if they are putting in a curb instead of a bridge). However in the cases of Dams (which is what a levee is) and Bridges, *absolutely*. A PE should be on site around whenever any construction of import is happening. (There is always an IDOT PE present on major interstate rebuild projects, around the clock. If the contractors are there, a state PE is there.) In the case of major work on bridges a Structural Engineer has to be present too.
If that's what it takes to keep contractors honest and insure public safety, so be it.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:(In other words there should have been a PE either from the Corps or the Contractor standing there *watching* as the girders were driven in. If the girders were indeed half the length they were supposed to be (though now they are saying they weren't) it should have been obvious from a visual inspection.
This would absolutely be required in a Navy Facilities Engineering Command Project. I don't know that it always gets done, but it's clearly required by the regulations. I've never gotten the impression that the Corps had more relaxed rules.
There are construction criteria that exist solely so that things can be inspected properly. For example, there are bolts in steel construction that have to include a special kind of washer, not for holding power, but because deformation of the washer is a reliable indicator of torque. 10% of those bolts are checked by a P.E. in certain types of construction.
Pre-made concrete door lintels have to have reinforcing on both the top and the bottom, even though they add nothing to the strength of the top (concrete is very strong in compression, weak in tension, so a concrete span supported at the ends needs reinforcement in the lower section where it would tend to pull apart). The rebar in the top is there just in case the lintel gets installed upside down.
Anytime I've seen pile driving, I've seen engineers on site every day taking measurements.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote: But I won't say it any more, because you're not being rational and that's fine, but I refuse to keep repeating myself.
*grin* Sure, if you can't actually counter an argument, descend to calling it irrational and running away. I'd be annoyed at the pathetic name-calling if it wasn't proof that you've run out of cogent ripostes.
Actually, your arguments WERE addressed, and you kept repeating the same points and questions, almost word for word, as if nothing had been posted to address those points in your posts. When are you going to address the rebuttals to your posts?
*knock* *knock* *knock*
The lights are on, is anybody home?
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Anytime I've seen pile driving, I've seen engineers on site every day taking measurements.
Then you definitely haven't been watching pile driving in Florida. That is one of the main things I do - design the pile foundation, determine what criteria is required before the Contractor can stop the pile, etc. You absolutely do not have to have an engineer, much less a PE, on site checking that criteria when they drive the piles. You need someone who has been trained in doing that, but they don't have to have a degree. I'm registered in the state now to train people how to do that.
I or one of the other engineers is on hand if a problem arises, but we're not out there full time. Who in the world would actually do the engineering work if we were always out in the field babysitting contractors?
Same with the bolt. You don't have to be an engineer to check that, you just have to be trained properly. In Florida, we have threshold inspectors that handle that under the responsible charge of a PE.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by seespot:
Regarding the flood insurance comment earlier: As far as my company is concerned, if the wind blows your roof off and rain gets in, it's caused by the hurricane. If it is storm surge(or a wall of water) then it is flooding. Folks, if you are in a coastal area, get flood insurance! I recommend everyone in the state of Florida who lives on the ground floor get flood insurance. I know it's more money, but if you get hit by a hurricane, then can you afford not to have it? We are in for more storms next year, I'm sure. I also have experienced hurricanes--I live in Miami.
One of the issues in Mississippi is the fact that the homes there were damaged by wind AND the storm surge. Many of these homes were not 'coastal' but were miles inland. This storm surpassed the standard set by Camille many times over. The houses further inland were not considered to be flood risks.
There is litigation right now about whether the Insurance companies can refuse to pay anything when there is both wind damage AND a storm surge, as happened along the entire gulf coast from south of New Orleans through Mississippi. Pine trees were snapped off well above the storm surge, proving that the force of the winds were at least a major factor in the damage. The contention is that the storm surge was PART of the destruction, and finished the homes off, but it did not cause ALL of the damage. Paying all or nothing when a storm surge to finishes the destruction of the homes AFTER the wind has damaged the homes first just doesn't seem fair. So the State of Mississippi stepped in and sued.
I live in Florida. I am literally in the middle of the state, but only a couple of miles from a river. When we bought our home I asked about flood insurance. We were told that being in a designated flood plain is a requirement for whether you can buy Federal flood insurance. So we couldn't get Federal flood insurance since we were not 'in a flood plain.' Buying it on our own was too expensive.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj:
[snip] If the girders were indeed half the length they were supposed to be (though now they are saying they weren't) it should have been obvious from a visual inspection.
AJ
According to the link posted above (and on NBC Evening News this evening, showing the engineers pulling the metal sheets out of the ground) the depth specifications were correctly followed. The specs actually were exceeded by 6 inches. At this point (and that could change) it looks like there were design flaws. Perhaps the stability of the ground was not correctly assessed. It is still being investigated.
Had the Levees held, life could have gone back to normal in most of New Orleans. The deep water Canal which was created by the Corps of Engineers (called Mr.Go) would still have flooded the area south of New Orleans ... most of St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes ... but the flooding would have been substantially less.
Oh well, if wishes were horses...
The fact is New Orleans flooded, and we are left the the clean-up and rebuilding. If the government doesn't help restore the wetland buffer then the locals will do what they can. And pray that next year's Hurricanes go somewhere else.
From what I saw on the news during the waiting game in watching for where Rita was going to hit, Houston has a serious flood potential too. Had Rita not gone into western Louisiana, Galveston and Houston would have been dealing with what New Orleans is now dealing with.
And by the way, as someone who has dealt with a lifetime of Hurricane seasons, I can tell you why they didn't evacuate sooner. You really have no idea where Hurricanes are going until the last 24 - 48 hours, and even then they can turn at the very last minute - literally.
Last year Charlie was heading straight for Tampa/Clearwater, and along the way it took a sharp turn into the Peninsula at Punta Gorda, at least a hundred miles south of there. Tampa got showers, and Punta Gorda was wiped. That is why many people watch and wait - you may actually endanger yourself by evacuating INTO the storm's path.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: The floodwall on the 17th Street Canal levee was destined to fail long before it reached its maximum design load of 14 feet of water because the Army Corps of Engineers underestimated the weak soil layers 10 to 25 feet below the levee, the state's forensic levee investigation team concluded in a report to be released this week.
quote:Several high-level academic and professional investigations have found that the sheet piling used in the design to support the floodwalls was too short for the 18.5-foot depth of the canal. In addition to holding up the concrete "cap" on the walls, the sheet piling is supposed to serve as a barrier preventing the migration of water from the canal through the porous soils to the land side of the levee, an event that rapidly weakens the soils supporting a wall and can cause it to shift substantially.
The corps has long claimed the sheet piling was driven to 17.5 feet deep, but Team Louisiana recently used sophisticated ground sonar to prove it was only 10 feet deep.
Van Heerden said Team Louisiana's latest calculations prove investigators' claims that a depth of 17 feet would have made little difference. He said the team ran the calculations for sheet piles at 17 feet and 16 feet deep, and the wall still would have failed at a load of 11 to 12 feet of water.
Investigators have been puzzled by the corps' design since it was made public in news reports. They said it was obvious the weak soils in the former swampland upon which the canal and levee were built clearly called for sheet piles driven much deeper than the canal bottom. It was not a challenging engineering problem, investigators said.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:From what I saw on the news during the waiting game in watching for where Rita was going to hit, Houston has a serious flood potential too. Had Rita not gone into western Louisiana, Galveston and Houston would have been dealing with what New Orleans is now dealing with.
Yes! I can't remember when it was exactly, but in the decade I lived in Houston we did get one really bad storm that flooded the city. It wasn't the intensity of Katrina or Rita but it left the city in water for days, if not weeks. I remember the big controversy was a basement full of animal test subjects that drowned. Took them forever to pump the water out of all the parking garages.
quote:And by the way, as someone who has dealt with a lifetime of Hurricane seasons, I can tell you why they didn't evacuate sooner. You really have no idea where Hurricanes are going until the last 24 - 48 hours, and even then they can turn at the very last minute - literally.
Again, dead on! With Rita I spent 48 hours on the phone begging my friends in Houston to leave. Then I woke up one morning, checked the weather channel and saw that it had taken a big turn west and my town, in West Louisiana, was now in Rita's path. Suddenly, I was the one who needed to evacuate and the storm was going to be hitting land in a matter of hours.
Besides, if anyone saw the Houston evacuation of tv, you saw how bad that was. The same thing happens in New Orleans. Alot of my neighbors never evacuate because they're more afraid of being stranded in their cars on the highway when a hurricane hits. When my family evacuate for Dennis, it took them 12 hours to drive to Lafayette which is usually 2 hours away. And this was with them leaving days before landfall
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Yeah, plus, a lot of people CAN'T evacuate because they can't get off work or whatever just because a hurricane MIGHT hit. Not to mention the expense of gas or plane fare and a hotel. You've gotta go really, really far away to make sure you're safe. You can't just evacuate willy-nilly.
However, I have evacuated three times in the past year and a half. The difference is that I'm a student, and the university doesn't want to be held responsible for having class and trying to make students stick around with the possibility of a hurricane. And I've got my parents as financial backing. And I generally leave town at very strange times, if I'm driving. I have no problem with driving all night if it means I can get to where I'm going in five hours instead of twenty-four. Oh, and we totally evacuated the "wrong way" for Katrina. Straight to the Florida panhandle. Everyone else went to Houston and told us we were nuts for going to Florida because "hurricanes ALWAYS hit there." We got to Tallahassee in five hours. They took over twelve just to get CLOSE to Texas.
When I was in high school, we never, ever evacuated. Not once. We didn't live near the coast, but it was also very rare for families who did to evacuate, and if they did, it was always last-minute. We did get a lot of school cancelled, though. And we never had to make up the days, unlike college, where we had Saturday classes last year because of Ivan.
-pH
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
zgator, your link is from Nov 30th. They've exhumed the pilings showing that they were actually 17 feet, since then. I don't know why the sonar tests say it was only 10 feet if this is so. Someone is wrong somewhere either way.
I'm more lenient on the "design flaw" stuff, with the subsurface soils, given that it was a category 4 hurricane.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Then you definitely haven't been watching pile driving in Florida.
Nope. Just on navy bases.
quote:That is one of the main things I do - design the pile foundation, determine what criteria is required before the Contractor can stop the pile, etc. You absolutely do not have to have an engineer, much less a PE, on site checking that criteria when they drive the piles. You need someone who has been trained in doing that, but they don't have to have a degree. I'm registered in the state now to train people how to do that. I or one of the other engineers is on hand if a problem arises, but we're not out there full time.
I didn't say they were there full time. Just every day at least once.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
zgator. I believe I addressed this above. I'm ok, with someone besides a PE checking, and I'm ok with spot checking. However I *do* think you bear some of the responsibility if someone you trained makes a major mistake since you were the PE training them. I don't think you bear the blame if the guy you train is crooked. But I also think that since the guy you train is getting paid considerably less and *isn't* a PE it's easier to become corrupted.
And I just plain don't trust state contractors any further than I can throw a backhoe.
AJ
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Can you use the backhoe to throw state contractors? 'cause that sounds wicked cool.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Oh, yeah, and my 2 cents - on the electrical side, a PE usually delegates field work to underlings he trained - the guy that signs off on our work (apparently I was too much a perfectionist) doesn't have a degree. It surprises me how few EE's go after a PE - it seems a lot easier than the ones the civvies take
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
AJ, on the above article about the levees, I was focusing more on the fact that even at 17.5 feet, they still weren't deep enough - even for the Cat3 storm they were designed for. It was a serious design flaw. But some other things I've read now say that the Corp wasn't initially responsible for them anyway. They basically took ownership of them at some point.
Sorry if I was snarky about the PE issue. It's a matter of trust. I have technicians working under me that I trust. The ones that haven't shown they can handle the responsibility don't do that level of work. If you don't have field techs you can trust, going out once a day or even twice a day won't matter.
And I don't disagree in the slightest that I'm still responsible. Anything they do, I still sign off on the paperwork.
We actually have a bigger problem with our trained guys getting hired away by CEI firms rather than them being corrupted.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Yes, the date on that article you are quoting is November 30, 2005. The article is old news, written before the completion of the excavation this week.
In this case at least, the sub contractors were doing exactly what they were supposed to do and then some. In the end I suspect they will call it 'human error' and use the new data to contruct the levees more effectively. Hopefully.
Not that that will help anyone who suffered from the mess after the levees broke.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
zgator, I've just heard way too much about the incompetency of some of the testing agencies (in IL) that the contractors subcontract to for their QA. And how hard it actually is to strip their testing license (not a PE).
Not to mention the hundreds of tons of asphalt and concrete that gets "misplaced" in the Chicago area. (I think it was a total of 71 dump trucks full). And the Feds keep a wary eye on Chicago. I don't think they've been keeping that close an eye on Louisiana, unfortunately.
As far as the design issue, that's considerably different. I wonder what sort of geological data was available to the original designers, and if it was perhaps *old* back from the 50s or so. But they couldn't squeeze out the pennies in the budget from the bureaucrats to do the new surveys. As long as those engineers can show that they followed reasonable design practice for the time, from the data they had I'm ok. I'm worrried about a bunch of butt-covering within the Corps of Engineers itself though. Not particularly a good thing for actually addressing engineering issues.
AJ
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Evidence points to man-made disaster Thursday, December 08, 2005
[snip] The levee system's design dates to the 1950s, when understanding of hurricane risks and flood dynamics was primitive compared to today. The system was never built to take a hit from the most powerful hurricanes, storms in Categories 4 or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. The levees were designed by congressional mandate to fend off floodwater heights -- up to about 11 or 13 feet, depending on location -- that Category 1 or 2, and some Category 3 storms would kick up.
But the investigations show that the levees did not live up even to that billing. When Katrina's storm surge rolled in from the Gulf of Mexico before dawn Aug. 29, the huge dome of water followed a path up the Mississippi River and then along the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (the infamous "Mr. GO") into Lake Borgne.
In a matter of hours, the sheet of water -- (the hurricane's storm surge) reaching 25 feet high at some locations -- moved relentlessly north and west, pouring over the tops of and eroding large stretches of levees surrounding Chalmette, clearly exceeding their design capacity.
When the surge reached New Orleans' southern edge along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, it caused as much as five miles of the 17.5-foot tall levee there to disappear, creating a back door for water into eastern New Orleans.
Water pushed west through the waterway into the Industrial Canal, where it met water already rising from storm surge that had entered Lake Pontchartrain. The water topped levees on both sides of the canal, causing walls to fail on the east side, flooding the Lower 9th Ward, and leaking through smaller levee breaks and a pump station on the west side, flooding the rest of the 9th Ward.
Breaches by design
Later that morning, as surge rose in Lake Pontchartrain, floodwalls along the 17th Street and London Avenue canals breached, even though the water was well below their tops. Investigators say those breaches shouldn't have happened. Observational data and computer modeling indicate that storm surge entering the canals from the lake reached heights ranging from 9 to 11 feet in the 17th Street Canal and 11 to 12 feet in the London Avenue Canal. The walls were 13.5 feet high or higher along much of the two canals and were designed to withstand water rising to 11.5 feet.
Investigators say the walls broke when floodwater, pushing through the soft, porous earth under the steel sheet pile foundations, started moving the soil. In the 17th Street Canal, one breach opened on the east side, and in the London Avenue, two breaches occurred. Water poured into the Lakefront area and moved south, inundating much of central New Orleans over the course of the day and night.
Engineers say some systemic design problem -- not merely a localized fluke -- caused the breaches because walls gave way in two canals and some walls appear to have been close to breaching at other points.
While it's easy to second-guess after a disaster, outside engineers say the depth of the sheet pile foundation appears too shallow. A survey by Team Louisiana, the state-sponsored forensics group, found -- and the corps confirmed last week -- that the sheet pile depth was about 10 feet below sea level in the breached areas at both canals, much shallower than the 18.5 foot below-sea-level depth of the canals and 7 feet shorter than the corps thought. (NOTE: An assumption now proven to be incorrect.)
Modjeski & Masters, the firm that designed the 17th Street canal wall, said last week it had initially recommended a 35-foot depth for the piling on the 17th Street Canal, then shortened it at the corps' behest, but the firm offered no documentation to back the claim.
Soil and safety
It's still unclear exactly what went wrong, though engineers suggest the soil's resiliency was overestimated. New Orleans soil is swampy and mushy, with alternating layers of peat, clay and sand. Along the length of a floodwall it varies wildly in consistency and strength. Along both canals, a layer of peat -- the weakest and spongiest of soils -- lies directly under breaches a few feet below the base of the sheet pile. Along the London Avenue Canal, coarse sand underlay the peat and now lies throughout nearby residential yards and homes, another layer of weakness, the engineers said. "Those are the kinds of subsurface conditions that lend themselves to having weak pockets or stronger pockets, and Mother Nature will always find the weak pockets," said Joseph Wartman, a Drexel University geotechnical engineer studying the levee failures. "What makes levee design and engineering so challenging is you can have a system that's many, many miles long and you only need the weakest 150 feet to rupture for the whole system to fail." Another factor in the breaches, one with national implications, is the low safety factor used in constructing the levee banks and floodwalls. A safety factor is a kind of cushion that engineers include in a structure's design to ensure it can withstand all the punishment it's designed to take, plus a little more. Corps standards for levees and floodwalls date back decades, officials say, and were intended to protect sparsely populated areas, not cities and billions of dollars of infrastructure. The safety factor of 1.3 used in the designs is significantly lower than those used in structures with similarly large-scale tasks of protecting lives and property. With data from soil borings spaced at more than 300-foot intervals along the canals, engineers could develop only a fragmentary picture of what is underground. They were supposed to account for that uncertainty. That is typically done by raising the safety factor or by making conservative estimates of soil conditions. [snip] http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/library-91/1134028092231650.xml?nola
I read an early article about the soil movement in the Times Picayune. In at least some of the levees soil moved sidewards, weakening the levees. A Local engineer noticed this in his own backyard. A small storage shed he had personally built in his yard 'floated' on the moved soil. The shed was not flooded, but his home was flooded. He brought that to the attention of the engineers researching the causes of the levee failure. I'm not an engineer so I don't remember the terminology involved for that effect.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
The Corps built "Mr. Go" for the occassional deep draft 'extra large' ship that could not use the Mississippi River. It was built very deep, and very straight, and it was rarely used.
"Mr. Go" caused many problems during and after it was built. Mr. Go is blamed for salt water intrusion into the marshes, and is believed to have accelerated their erosion. Katrina's storm surge siphoned straight up that canal, and was amplified by it.
At this time the Corps has agreed to stop dredging the canal. many locals want the canal to be filled to prevent future problems like this flood.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: With data from soil borings spaced at more than 300-foot intervals along the canals, engineers could develop only a fragmentary picture of what is underground.
In my professional opinion, that interval is too long. I can't think of any project I've worked on where the borings were greater than 200 feet. I would think 100 feet would be more appropriate for what they know (or don't know) that they're dealing with. At least when dealing with a FS of only 1.3. For geotechnical engineering, that is a very, very low number.
Of course, this is all said with the benefit of hindsight. I have no idea what the standard of care was back then.
Wow, AJ, that's scary. I understand contractors wanting to save a buck through cost cutting. But when they know it could endanger people, that's just ... wrong.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Or maybe, just maybe, it was because it got hit by a Cat 5 hurricane.
By the time the hurricane reached NewOrleans, Katrina was Category 3.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It makes me sad.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Apologize to those poor, misunderstood engineers
![[Smile]](smile.gif)