2/13/2007

Katrina Summary

The seminar on the situation in New Orleans, especially in the 9th Ward in Eastern New Orleans, focused on the historical development of the flooding problem and the various paradoxes that contributed to the disaster. The speaker commented on the past makeup in the city, which was more in line with the natural makeup of the land. He then went on to discuss the changes, especially in the last century that led up to the paradox of attempting to safely develop unsafe lands. In the end it was shown that the government played an active role in promoting the unsafe policy, and the lack of communication and planning on the local and national level played a large role in the ensuing disaster.

The city of New Orleans in the 18th and early 19th century was centered largely on the banks of the Mississippi river. This is because, when the river floods, the heavier material falls first onto the banks and creates natural dunes. The rest of the area was a naturally bounded by Lake Pontchartrain to the North and Lake Borgne to the East. The area that became East New Orleans was also swampland, so for a time, the city’s growth was checked.

However, the city obviously had planned to grow, and so decided expansion and drainage of the swampland in coordination with development would be the best strategy to take. They undertook the paradox that the speaker referred to as making unsafe land safe. The swamp land was drained, causing the dried up soil to compress and sink below sea level. It was then placed behind levees for protection that were only designed to withstand category 3 Hurricanes.

The danger was realized, and the city was sued for failing to adequately maintain the pump systems to keep the water out. However, the development of East New Orleans continued until an economic slump brought it to a standstill. The city sat relatively silently on the national scene until Hurricane Katrina.

The area that had been swamp land which was developed quickly flooded as it was already under sea level. It should be noted that the area built on the natural dunes was spared a large amount of the destruction. The levees could not withstand a category 4 Hurricane, and so they broke. Since the levees were made in one large wall, a single breech caused the water to pool in the area below sea level and then become stuck, prolonging the flooding. This was also combined with failure to communication between the national and local level of government.

The results were that thousands were killed, billions of dollars in damage was suffered, and thousands of people were left homeless and forced to move outside of the city. All of this could have been avoided with proper planning. New Orleans had planned for growth but had not taken into account the natural limits of the growth of the city. Also, the failure in communication on the national and local level led to confusion in the area of exactly what needed or should be done to keep the residents safe in and unsafe area. The disaster was foreseeable and yet was ignored due to a one track focus on growth, which in the end was thwarted by inadequate plan for disaster. The speaker then suggested some ideas to prevent this in the future such as: not resettling Eastern New Orleans, putting up levees with multiple walls, and making the levees capable of withstanding category 5 Hurricanes. It is overall an example of the dangers that come with asymmetric information.

5 comments:

pissed off patricia said...

Also what happens when we try to control nature. Once you begin, you must tend it at all times and even then something like this can happen. In John McPhee's book, "The Control of Nature" copyright 1989, he speaks to the situation in NO and also what could happen to the city.

agreenearth said...

i agree with Patrica here. We need to work with nature not against it. We only have stewardship of our land, not ownership, best wishes, The Artist

Coffee Messiah said...

Nicely done!

When you see what other countries have been able to do (much better than us) I tend to wonder why so much money has been sqaundered on work totally inept?

Knowing also, that there is no way to really fight "Mother Nature" only to hold your loss down a wee bit.

Gracie said...

Great post. We indeed need to treat the earth with dignity and respect.
PS - I hope you'll take a moment and read here

Anonymous said...

I wrote a post last spring questioning the conventional wisdom of rebuilding NO at all. Setting aside the apparent hard-heartedness of not rebuilding, it seems crazy to continue to place people in an area that is so prone to disaster.

Of course, I live in an earthquake zone, so WTF do I know.