Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marichiko
Hey, tw, what was so obvious about it?
|
One idea to future protection of New Orleans is to restore marshes where homes are clearly too far below sea level. Whereas four miles of marsh (given the erroneous numbers) would provide significant additional protection; the actual numbers suggest significantly less protection of New Orleans from a Lake Pontchartrain storm surge.
However to protect New Orleans from the south, corrected numbers mean marshes must stretch for 40 to 80 miles - not just 10 plus. Based upon the xoxoxoBruce citation, that protection is therefore quickly disappearing; might require even more levees. Things that WE pay for.
Other problems should be addressed up front and now. For example, $multi-million homes should not exist on, for example, Dauphin Island. That wonderful beachfront and necessary protection for the mainland should be, for example, a state park. Not beachfront property that WE end up paying to replace the beach every four years. Now is time for free market economics and proper risk analysis to be applied to reconstruction. There is little reason for residences to be located so close to the water in towns such as Biloxi and Waveland. Time to put buildings most essential to human life in locations not so exposed - such as half mile from the water.
These are arbitrary suggestions or speculative proposals based upon numbers in articles from UT and xoxoxoBruce to demonstrate how our leaders should be thinking. Not that we will have any influence since rebuilding Trent Lott's porch apparently is more important. Numbers to reduce or eliminate damage from the next Camile are traditionally trumped by more critical political agendas such as Trent Lott's porch.