• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Billion-dollar flood protection system around New Orleans proves reliable

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,855
2,124
126
Why would the government have to pay for jack?

If people do not like getting flooded, move.

When FEMA bought out my mom and dad, they were not forced to take the buyout.

But on the flipside, after three floods, the flood insurance would have been something like $1,200 a month.
Now we're getting into "libertarian la-la land", where the free market will magically relocate a major city without any government assistance.

The government's job is to build/maintain infrastructure for the citizens of the United States, when and where necessary. Flood control structures are infrastructure, and the government deemed it cheaper to upgrade those structures than to pay the associated costs (social and economic) of just abandoning an entire city of that size.

I'm really sorry that their decision upsets your sense of fairness. You should absolutely write them a stern letter outlining why building flood control structures upsets you so much. I'm sure they would value your input.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,853
11,053
136
Why would the government have to pay for jack?

If people do not like getting flooded, move.

When FEMA bought out my mom and dad, they were not forced to take the buyout.

But on the flipside, after three floods, the flood insurance would have been something like $1,200 a month.
I'm curious what it would cost to move the entire city of Houston when the day comes that a slow moving hurricane parks itself over the city and totally overwhelms it's drainage. TS Allison gave a taste of what could happen.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
I'm really sorry that their decision upsets your sense of fairness.
My sense of fairness is allowing people to pay for their mistakes.

Why should our tax dollars subsidize stupidity?

Just because we can build a town in a marsh, does not mean we should.


I'm curious what it would cost to move the entire city of Houston when the day comes that a slow moving hurricane parks itself over the city and totally overwhelms it's drainage. TS Allison gave a taste of what could happen.
I was in Conroe when Allison came through.

So lets build a barrier around Houston.

You know what, lets just go ahead and build a storm wall from the tip of Florida all the way to Brownsville.
 
Last edited:

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,855
2,124
126
Why should our tax dollars subsidize stupidity?
Exactly why Texas should be involuntarily seceded from the union.

There's probably an extra tens of billions of dollars for the Treasury right there. We could afford to transfer the entire city of New Orleans onto a fleet of helicarriers.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,853
11,053
136
.
So lets build a barrier around Houston.
That would be a fantastic idea if you're trying to kill several million people.

In Houston's case what is needed is a massive emergency drainage system to move water out of the city emergency reservoirs, Buffalo Bayou, and the storm sewer system.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
Exactly why Texas should be involuntarily seceded from the union.

There's probably an extra tens of billions of dollars for the Treasury right there. We could afford to transfer the entire city of New Orleans onto a fleet of helicarriers.
I am having trouble understanding "why" the government should relocate anyone, much less an entire town?

The people knew the dangers when they moved there. But for some reason the government should pat those people on the back, say its ok, we are going to take care of everything?

Isn't that what caused the current financial problems?

Mom has 10 kids by 9 different men, oh its ok, the government will take care of everything.

Mom drinks while pregnant, has child with alcohol syndrome, its ok, the government will take care of the child for the rest of its life.

People move to marsh, get flooded, its ok, the government will spend a billion dollars to stop those nasty floods.

When are people going to start taking responsibility for their actions?

This billion dollar flood control is just another example of a nanny state.

With a national debt in the trillions, why should we have to subsidize stupidity?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
1
0
I am having trouble understanding "why" the government should relocate anyone, much less an entire town?

The people knew the dangers when they moved there. But for some reason the government should pat those people on the back, say its ok, we are going to take care of everything?

Isn't that what caused the current financial problems?

Mom has 10 kids by 9 different men, oh its ok, the government will take care of everything.

Mom drinks while pregnant, has child with alcohol syndrome, its ok, the government will take care of the child for the rest of its life.

People move to marsh, get flooded, its ok, the government will spend a billion dollars to stop those nasty floods.

When are people going to start taking responsibility for their actions?

This billion dollar flood control is just another example of a nanny state.

With a national debt in the trillions, why should we have to subsidize stupidity?
I'd guess most people in New Orleans have been there their whole lives. So you want to destroy the city, leaving them homeless and jobless? And it's their own fault?


Following your logic, no one should live anywhere, because disasters happen everywhere.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
The economic cost of destroying a major city, port, and fishery would be huge.
Isn't that the way capitalism and the free market works?

I think it was back in the 1980s or 1990s the construction of a nuclear power plant in California had to be stopped. After an earthquake, it was discovered that the power plant was being built on a fault line.

Wow, figure that one out. They stopped building the reactor because it would have been dangerous.

These are not communities that were contaminated due to manmade chemicals.

These communities were build in a barely above sea level flood zone. But for some reason the government should spend billions protecting those poor decisions?


Following your logic, no one should live anywhere, because disasters happen everywhere.
I live in a hurricane prone area, my parents got 9 feet of water from hurricane Ike. But nobody is demanding the government build a barrier around Bridge City or Orange Texas?

If the government is going to spend billions on NO, what about everyone else along the gulf coast? Where is my fair share of that money? Where are the billions in new levies and pumps to protect my parents and my brother?

My brothers property backs up to the sabine river, he got 3 feet of water from Hurricane Ike. Where are the new levies and pumps to protect my brothers home?
 
Last edited:

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,855
2,124
126
The people knew the dangers when they moved there.
Here's where you assume that everyone in New Orleans purposely moved there, and weren't born there, have their entire family there etc.

Regardless, we could take your nonsensical argument and expand it to basically any natural disaster. Tornadoes? Don't live in the great plains! Earthquakes? Don't live anywhere on the west coast! Hurricanes? Don't live anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico (or a good chunk of the Atlantic coast). And if you live in any of those areas and your town gets wiped out, asking for government help means you're a dirty liberal who wants the government to take care of all your needs.

Lol.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
Regardless, we could take your nonsensical argument and expand it to basically any natural disaster. Tornadoes? Don't live in the great plains! Earthquakes? Don't live anywhere on the west coast! Hurricanes? Don't live anywhere near the Gulf of Mexico
How about equal protection under the law?

If the people in new orleans got a billion dollars spent on them, where is my storm shelter?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,853
11,053
136
I live in a hurricane prone area, my parents got 9 feet of water from hurricane Ike. But nobody is demanding the government build a barrier around Bridge City or Orange Texas?

If the government is going to spend billions on NO, what about everyone else along the gulf coast? Where is my fair share of that money? Where are the billions in new levies and pumps to protect my parents and my brother?

My brothers property backs up to the sabine river, he got 3 feet of water from Hurricane Ike. Where are the new levies and pumps to protect my brothers home?
So because you can't have it nobody should? Mature.

It's also not cost effective to protect small, isolated communities and rural property with major hard infrastructure works. That money would be better spent on coastal restoration and wetlands creation.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
So because you can't have it nobody should? Mature.
Equal protection under the law, look it up sometime.

Why should NO get special treatment while other communities are ignored?

It's also not cost effective to protect small, isolated communities and rural property with major hard infrastructure works. That money would be better spent on coastal restoration and wetlands creation.
Coastal restoration is a waste of time. We are fighting a natural occurrence, we are fighting an unwinnable and everlasting war.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,853
11,053
136
Equal protection under the law, look it up sometime.

Why should NO get special treatment while other communities are ignored?



Coastal restoration is a waste of time. We are fighting a natural occurrence, we are fighting an unwinnable and everlasting war.
Context. Go look it up sometime.

Since a large amount of coastal erosion and wetlands loss in the Gulf is our fault it stands to reason that we also can undo at least some of it. This is a large contributor to the vulnerability of towns and cities along the coast to hurricane surge and rainfall.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
Since a large amount of coastal erosion and wetlands loss in the Gulf is our fault it stands to reason that we also can undo at least some of it.
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Somehow wave action and natural erosion is our fault?

You live in Chicago, but somehow you know "all" about the gulf coast?

When I was growing up in Bridge City Texas, my backyard was a marsh. You ever make it down here I will take you on a tour.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,853
11,053
136
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Somehow wave action and natural erosion is our fault?

You live in Chicago, but somehow you know "all" about the gulf coast?

When I was growing up in Bridge City Texas, my backyard was a marsh. You ever make it down here I will take you on a tour.
So you're saying that there is no coastal erosion in Texas and even if there was none of it is man caused. You might want to check with your state government since they think that:

"Texas has some of the highest coastal erosion rates in the country. Research shows that 64 percent of the Texas coast is eroding at an average rate of about 6 feet per year with some locations losing more than 30 feet per year. As a whole, the Texas coast is eroding at an average rate of 2.3 feet per year. "

It is no secret that Texas (and the entire Gulf coast for that matter) is loosing wetlands acreage and has for decades. I don't need to sink myself in a marsh to read the studies.

From the Texas General Land Office testimony to the US house in 2007:

Coastal erosion in Texas is a result of both man-made causes and natural processes:

o Navigation structures such as jetties and dikes have changed the way sand moves along the coast, eroding down-drift shorelines.
o Maintenance dredging of navigation channels has taken sediment out of the system.
o Seawalls, groins, and other protective structures have caused erosion of down-drift beaches and shorelines.
o Wakes, surges, and waves from boats, ships, barges, and other vessels have eaten away shorelines adjacent to navigation channels.
o Groundwater and petroleum extractions have caused land subsidence and subjected large regional areas of coastal land to be eroded or converted to open water.
o Relative sea level rise and natural compaction of coastal sediments have contributed to erosion of coastal Texas, particularly the upper coast.
o Dams on the major rivers have prevented sediment from reaching the Gulf coast.
o Rivers have been diverted to develop shipping lanes, resulting in critical erosion of nearby communities and land, as well as shoaling, flooding, and safety issues.
 
Last edited:

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,855
2,124
126
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Somehow wave action and natural erosion is our fault?
On this point, you are the most woefully ignorant.

When the Corps of Engineers locked the Mississippi into it's current course, it prevented large portions of the delta from receiving regular inputs of silt from the river that it had always received. From that point on, large portions of the delta have been eroding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Delta

About every thousand years, the Mississippi River has changed course. Each Mississippi River deltaic cycle was initiated by a gradual capture of the Mississippi River by a distributary which offered a shorter and steeper route to the Gulf of Mexico. After abandonment of an older delta lobe, which would cut off the primary supply of fresh water and sediment, an area would undergo compaction, subsidence, and erosion. The old delta lobe would begin to retreat as the gulf advanced, forming bayous, lakes, bays, and sounds. The river has been diverting more of its flow to the Atchafalaya River, which branches off some 60 miles (95 km) northwest of New Orleans. In the mid-20th century, engineers observed that the Mississippi would soon abandon its current channel as the mainstream, and instead migrate to the Atchafalaya Basin.[1]
Because there is extensive economic development along the current path of the Mississippi, and because extensive flooding and evacuation would occur in the new area, Congress instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the then-present 70% / 30% distribution of water between the Lower Mississippi and the Atchafalaya River channels, respectively. They did so by building the Old River Control Structure, which consisted of massive floodgates that could be opened and closed as needed at the entrance to the Old River. While protecting from flooding and maintaining navigation interests, these controls have straitjacketed the Mississippi River within its banks. As a result, the sediment on which the delta complex depends is shunted out to sea -- the leading driver of the region's significance land loss rates
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
192
106
So you're saying that there is no coastal erosion in Texas and even if there was none of it is man caused. You might want to check with your state government since they think that:

"Texas has some of the highest coastal erosion rates in the country.
So what?

Coastal erosion is a natural process. We might as well try to stop the wind from blowing.


On this point, you are the most woefully ignorant.

When the Corps of Engineers locked the Mississippi into it's current course, it prevented large portions of the delta from receiving regular inputs of silt from the river that it had always received. From that point on, large portions of the delta have been eroding.
Ok? And?

Do yall have any idea how old the earth is? Do yall know how long erosion has been going on before mankind even walked on the face of the earth?

Erosion is a natural process, fighting that process is a waste of time, money and resources.

Texas spread these big sand bag looking things in part of southeast Texas. The cost was tens of millions of dollars.

Hurricane Ike destroyed the erosion prevention system in a matter of hours.

Come back in ten thousand years, then lets talk about how that erosion prevention is working out.

~ EDIT ~

I live 100 miles inland, and I find petrified palm wood from where this used to be coastal land.

It sure is funny how coastal regions change over their course over 10, 20, 30 thousand years, and without any interference from mankind.
 
Last edited:

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,413
9
0
Government living beyond it's means will make MILLIONS of American's do the same exact thing.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
No, the water did not get diverted to them.

Every storm is different and pushes the water in different ways.

This storm was pretty much what is called a direct strike.
So where did the pumped water go?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,114
3,651
126
Billion-dollar flood protection system around New Orleans proves reliable
Didn't see much on this around. Other cities along the Gulf need similar protections but there will be no money to build them.
On the contrary. No one should be living on that swamp land. They get wiped out by a flood, pay for them to move - NOT to rebuild. $ Billions saved. New Orleans can be an exception due to its size, and potential economic activity.
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
That way we do not have to keep fixing stuff.

Who in their right mind builds something below sea level anyway?
Who in their right mind builds on coasts, in tornado country, where fires break out, on faults, etc? People don't live where it makes sense, they live where resources are.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY