h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Naturally. When I heard about the job offer here, my first thought was, "Katrina." That was followed immediately by, "from chaos, comes opportunity."

Apparently I'm not unique, either. The local newscast last night indicated that newcomers to the area are outnumbering people leaving the state by 2 to 1. And historically the newcomers were generally in the 35-55 range, but today it's 25-40. I'm 32.

<>

Some of each. There's still some federal money from FEMA to deal with public works, though apparently there's a lot of wrangling over how it should be spent. And it seems the state budget has a surplus they're dealing with how to use.

As for individuals, most of the recovery has been based on collecting homeowner's insurance, financing any shortfalls, and hiring contractors to come put things back in order. That works pretty well where you have a strong middle-class who has the means to do that sort of thing, which is why nearby Jefferson and St. Tammany parishes, which also flooded, have come back strong in short order. Orleans parish is a very different kind of economy.

There's a program called Road Home which makes grants to people to help rebuild their homes, and it has already committed more funds to qualified applicants than it has budgeted. The state and feds are fighting about it, and no money has been disbursed.

<>

Yeah, New Orleans is actually below sea level, which is why it flooded. There is a system of levees and such, but the ones which didn't fail weren't sufficiently high enough to handle the storm surge (water rising as it's pushed by high winds) from a hurricane of that magnitude.

The levees have been repaired and in some places improved. But one thing that hasn't changed is their height. The ones that weren't high enough for storm surge still aren't. Insurance companies are being mindful of that, which can make it very difficult and/or expensive to obtain insurance. And with the hazard of another storm, not having insurance isn't an option.

<>

Shore erosion is a big problem around here. It's caused by the channeling of the Mississippi River. Back in the day, the river changed course every season, dumping silt and enriching the plain before moving on. Of course, if you lived anywhere near the river, you could expect it to run through your house sometime. Navigating it was also an adventure, because the course was always changing, and so were the hazards. So in the late 1800s various engineering projects tamed the river... and now all that silt gets dumped straight out into the Gulf. Without replenishment, the land is receding due to wind and water erosion.

So you can see why giving away a huge chunk of land is a bad idea. It makes the problem worse.

You can fortify land by sucking silt out of the river bottom and dumping it on shore. But if you do that for historical sites... what you've done is buried them.

As for relocation... I'm thinking that's going to be a natural demographic shift. People coming new to this area are looking at FEMA flood zone maps and planning accordingly. New or returning businesses are doing likewise. I think New Orleans will never be what it once was, but along the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, you can expect a transition from quiet middle-class commuter neighborhoods to a significant economic center. And by buying my house over there, I'm going to get in on that early.

wow ...okay that all makes sense i guess if i was building on the perimeters of the 'flood plain' i would build on stilts then... strong stilts.

I confess that although it seemed awful at the time, I'm pretty sure I was equating it to the sort of flooding we are having now in the UK.

The sheer scale of the New Orleans thing didn't actually hit me until I realised that it wasn't even close to being sorted a couple of years later. Although local conditions have obviously complicated things there.

Umm. Isn't there a risk though that leaving the houses in a sort of ramshackle state is going to mean people end up squatting there and bring about a particularly impressive and extensive shanty town? That was what I found particularly odd. Is it very European big government of me to say that I'd just buldoze the lot and relocate people if rebuilding on the original site was problematic?

"Bulldoze the lot" seems to be a formal public policy. They've identified all the unfit buildings and have served notice to the owners to do something with them within some timeframe... after which, the city will gladly clean up the mess themselves in that most efficient manner. There's a lot of stuff to bulldoze, though, and I imagine there are all sorts of legal ways to put that off. It's a slow process. I've got a coworker here who owns a house that got 14 feet of water. He's living comfortably in a new apartment and wondering whether it's worth it to rebuild.

It's not so much that rebuilding is problematic... you can build again, you just have to be ready to accept the risk that it might get flooded again. I'm not aware of any problems with squatters... seems to me there was a large exodus from the city after the hurricane, so there is space now. The people coming into the area in their place are people like me who are looking for someplace to live that didn't go underwater.

the land owners still get to keep, own, their land... right? ...if the city bulldozes the condemned buildings?

if so, why not wait til its done... then build on 15 foot concrete pilings? is there a stable base under the surface to drive the pilings into?

The resulting understructure could be used for a garage... and bushes and trees could be planted around the perimeter of the house.

i like this idea!

whats unfeasible about it? why hasn't it been done before? for new buildings that is... i know the old ones were built right on the land because the builders just didnt see the need.

i may even like that idea better than my original one for floodplains (like mississippi) :

my original idea was building a house on a houseboat-like base and affixing this base to the land with reeled-out anchor chains... so that in the event of a flood the house stays in the vicinity, floating, then is slowly reeled back in place as the waters recede. The foundation for the houseboat base, of course, needs to be pilings to afford airing out of the wetnesses.

One word: Polders!

i am sorry... i am not english... is that an english term?

well anyhoo i dont know what 'polders' means

ahhh just looked it up.. what they use in the netherlands to pump the water out....

yeah

Dutch .

The Nether Regions is built on polders.

answers.com:
"An area of low-lying land, especially in the Netherlands, that has been reclaimed from a body of water and is protected by dikes."

Dutch dikes are higher than they need to be. Seemingly, Louisianian dikes were as low as (they thought) they could get away with.

i am sorry i accidently hit post instead of preview

so you still need dikes along with the polders....

i just was thinking since the government hasnt been forthcoming in the past to pay for those dikes to be upkept so they work... then why not just cut to the chase and stop fighting the sea... and build on pilings!
or do my other idea... houseboat like structures.

Wellll...given that US soiety is based arond the automobile...you'd surely have to build the roads on pontoons also. And the parking lots. And the gas stations. And the goods delivery depots...It *might* work. But observe that it's not been done before; worldwide, there are no major floating cities. Dikes and polders, on the other hand, are known technology. Even so...It would require some measure of centralised, governmental planning. It seems to me that the US isn't particularly good at public infrastrure, correct?

They're not alone. In thes post-monetarist days, many countries shy away from the type of Keyneseyan public spending that supercharges economies. In Britain, for example...just think of the possible benefits of a super-fast maglev railway connecting the whole island to Europe.

And the scary thing...with global warming, we're going to *need* to invest in public infrastructures.

the land owners still get to keep, own, their land... right? ...if the city bulldozes the condemned buildings?
If so, why not wait til its done... then build on 15 foot concrete pilings? is there a stable base under the surface to drive the pilings into? The resulting understructure could be used for a garage... and bushes and trees could be planted around the perimeter of the house.

that was my first and i think best suggestion. these would be built by the landowners. the water is not always there... just once in a while. roads and etc wont be used during a flood.

my second idea was this:
building a house on a houseboat-like base and affixing this base to the land with reeled-out anchor chains... so that in the event of a flood the house stays in the vicinity, floating, then is slowly reeled back in place as the waters recede. The foundation for the houseboat base, of course, needs to be pilings to afford airing out of the wetnesses.

they are not always floating... just when water raises them off their foundations.

my point being... since the government wont pay... why should the landowners lose their land? and why wait around for the world to start making sense?

why not take our destiny into our own hands and find ways to solve the problem without having to depend on
the infrastructure or those other things you mentioned...

they own the land... they can find a way to rebuild... just rebuild smart... like piers are built... or floatable structures.

oh! oh! and i have a motto for it... a rallying call!!

got water problems?

rise above it!

Fair enough. Creative solutions.

Sorry to be negative...but there's still a problem with both ideas. They would make building in NO more expensive, and hence make it unattractive for businesses to locate there. What I'm saying is that government solutions are needed to mitigate against the impact of the market. *Maybe* the government could assist with pilings/houseboats...but I suggest that levees, pumps and other hydrological measures would be more cost-effective.

of course they would! we both know that everyone knows that...


so the trick is to find people who can convince the government or whoever has money to pay for it... right?

sokay about the negativity... we are on track now... (and if what we are talking about is negative theres no way around it anyway)

'course, it's your country, and I'm simply offering advice...but mys suggestion is that you (and we!) should stop talking of taxation as though it's a dirty word. Levees, education, healthcare...theyre all part of The Common Good and should be contributed to by all, according to their ability.