As hurricane protection goes, so goes New Orleans' future

This newly constructed levee protects an affluent neighborhood of New Orleans from Lake Pontchartrain, which is just across the street. The levee is made out of a thick clay and will be seeded with grass in order to help prevent erosion of the wall by water that might overtop the levee in the case of a major storm surge.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET News.com)

NEW ORLEANS--When I wrote Wednesday that large parts of this city are still severely damaged from Hurricane Katrina and, in some cases, potentially beyond recovery, I didn't want to leave the impression that nothing is being done to protect against the next big hurricane.

In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is putting large sums of money and significant effort into helping to reduce the risk that a future storm of Katrina's magnitude will inundate New Orleans.

All told, the Corps of Engineers here are working to fix and/or replace 220 miles of levees and floodwalls; build new flood gates and pump stations at the mouths of three outfall canals; and strengthen existing walls and levees at important points. More than $1.2 billion worth of contracts have been awarded for such work.

Of course, the Corps wants New Orleans' residents to know that nothing it can do will guarantee their protection. In fact, Corps public information officer Randall Cephus told me that the agency's efforts have been rebranded as risk management rather than hurricane protection because of a sense that the latter gave people a false impression that they would surely be safe in a Katrina-level event.

As part of Road Trip 2008, I spent several hours this week with Cephus, driving around New Orleans as he showed me a series of the Corps' major projects.

And while there is certainly a significant amount of distrust of the Corps' past, present, and future efforts, it cannot be said that the organization is doing nothing.

One of the first things Cephus showed me was a crew working on a levee adjacent to Lake Pontchartrain. The efforts focus on keeping floodwaters from eroding the levee from behind, should the water top it. That type of erosion happened during Katrina, and it's obviously a serious danger to the city.

As a result, the Corps has developed two systems for dealing with this problem. First is using a thick clay to build the levees and then planting grass on them as a way to build roots that can bind the clay and help prevent the erosion.

Another way is to top the levee with cement splash guards, or armor as Cephus called it. This, too, is designed to keep the walls from eroding from behind.

As I reported Wednesday, the city's Lower Ninth Ward is still--and is likely to remain for a very long time--a disaster area. Many residents there fear that a future hurricane will result in additional flooding that will wipe away any gains made there.

But one plan the Corps has for avoiding this is to build what it calls a surge reduction barrier out beyond the mouth of the Bayou Bienvenue, which was part of what flooded the district during Katrina. The barrier would be designed to hold back storm surge that is heading toward the Lower Ninth Ward--as well as New Orleans East and the St. Bernard Parish, which were both also severely damaged by Katrina--from the east. This, however, is only a concept, and no work has been done on it yet.

A second source of flooding during Katrina was a breach in the city's 17th Street Canal.

This new gate system is designed to protect New Orleans from storm surge that would push up through the 17th Street Canal, which breached during Hurricane Katrina.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET News.com)

As a result, the Corps built--and began operation of in 2006--what is known as an outfall canal closure structure. This is essentially a gate that is 27 feet tall, 12 feet wide and 15 inches thick and features 280 tons of reinforced steel and can be shut down in the case of a hurricane and which, it is hoped, will prevent a major storm surge from inundating the canal.

The system also includes a series of major pumps designed to push water that does get through--either from topping the gate or from torrential rains--back out of the canal and into Lake Pontchartrain. The hope is that by doing so, the floodwalls along the canal will never be breached again.

Cephus said it's important to recognize is that no single piece of the risk prevention system can itself protect the whole city from a future hurricane. Rather, he pointed out, it is a complex system made up of innumerable parts, each of which shoulders the burden for a piece of the puzzle.

Many New Orleans residents think that the Corps has dragged its feet and that it can't be trusted to do what is necessary to protect the city. But Cephus maintains that the agency is working hard to help prepare for the next giant storm.

Of course, if such a storm were to happen in the next couple of years, there could be serious problems. That's because the entire body of risk prevention work that the Corps is doing here isn't expected to be completed until 2011. And some question even that date.

But some projects are already finished, and others are close. As can be expected with such a complex system--with more than 140 total projects involved--individual pieces will come on line, one after another, over the interim period.

The pump system behind the new 17th Street Canal gate is designed to push water out of the canal in case of a hurricane. The idea is to keep the canal from flooding and potentially breaching, as it did during Hurricane Katrina.

(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET News.com)

One project that has already been completed is the renovation of many of the floodwalls along the various canals that lead into the city. Previously, they were built with what is known as an I-Wall construction. This involved a series of piles coming down from underneath the wall that just drove straight down below the surface, with no additional support on either side. This style of wall was proven to be inadequate for the amount of water that came from Katrina's storm surge.

Now, the Corps has updated the walls with what is called a T-Wall construction. This system involves piles driven as far as 67 feet below the surface, as well as a series of diagonal steel support beams on either side that go down as far as 110 feet.

Whether these new style walls will stand up to the next great hurricane is, of course, unknown. But the Corps and the thousands of New Orleans residents are hopeful that everyone involved has learned from the past and that the pain experienced by so many during and after Hurricane Katrina will never be repeated.

[Renegade Knight]

The question that I have is what is the lifespan of the improvements? Meaning when will NOLA have sank enough to where the Army Corps of Engineers has to do it all again. Risk managment is probably a good term. The risk is nerver zero, and it will go up every single year as the city keeps sinking. Rather like LA waiting for the "Big One".

[Penguinisto]

To be honest, there comes a point of diminishing returns. It would likely be cheaper (and in the long term safer) to simply move large sections of New Orleans somewhere else.

[doctorj2u]

The joke of the work done by the Corps of Engineers is that all the new work will give New Orleans what they promised us we already had before Katrina. So when the president promises flood protection better than ever, what he really means is to make it what it was supposed to be to begin with. The forensic studies done on the levees after the storm showed the design of the levee system did not come close to giving the protection that was promised. Go to levees.org and see what the citizens of New Orleans are fighting for.

[CSnDC]

First let's put things in perspective. Sea levels area expected to rise by an average of 7 to 21 inches in the next 85 years (NOAA data). The average rate of sinking in New Orleans is 1/5 inch p/y but in 10-20 percent of the area (such as lower 9th adn St. Benard) the rate is 1 inch per year. by 2095 this put the worst effected areas at a possible additional 9 feet below sea level. A significat amount for calm waters forget a level 5 Katriana Hurricane. The reasons for the sinking in N.O. are seismic shift, diverted ground water, alteration of the Mississippi R. (MR) and over-development. Seismic shift cannot be dealth with, however, returning significant portions of the lowets lying areas to nartural habitat along with a revised system of levees and canals the entire length of the MR and it's feeder rivers, the Ohio, Missouri, etc. would rebuild the Delta and slow or stop major portions of N.O. from being lost for good. In the MR pushing all levees back 1/2 to 1/4 mile in un-nhabitated areas including farmland would preven flooding disasters all along the MR and its feeders. A one lane canal wide enough for a full barge or fairy (with intermittent pass lanes) down the middle of the MR and its feeders along with the changed levve system would allow sediment to flow naturally down the MR (as it had for a millinea) and re-deposit on the MR Delta. In the mean time the Army COE could assist the process by building significant earthen works on the outer delta and the Dept of Forestry could replant and see the new ground - this could also be done by private contractors. This would add significant new jobs to the local and US economy and prevent future economic loss not only in NO but throughout the South and Mid-West.

[William Crow]

New Orleans is sinking...what a waste of fuel...not carbon efficient. Abandon the project.

[CrabkillaTX]

THIS IS A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!!!!

Since when does it become logical to build below sea level?

If you build below sea level, expect floods.
If you build near an active volcano, expect fire
If you build in the Bahamas, expect a hurricane
If you build near a fault line, expect an earthquake
If you build near a airport, expect noise.
If you build near a large river, expect floods.

It is not the govenments job to bail out stupidity.

[paulej]

CrabkillaTX, it is a bit more complicated. When folks settled New Orleans, this was not expected. The city grew and grew and now, here we are. I agree that it would be stupid to go build a city below sea level, but the fact is that the city is already there. So, we have two options: re-build and try to manage the potential threat or move the whole city up river. Over a 100-year period, what will cost more? Having said that, I do think it might be wise for folks to consider re-locating new structures elsewhere. The city should make a long-term plan to re-locate and turn vacated properties into wildlife reserves over time.

[paulej]

CrabkillaTX, it is a bit more complicated. When folks settled New Orleans, this was not expected. The city grew and grew and now, here we are. I agree that it would be stupid to go build a city below sea level, but the fact is that the city is already there. So, we have two options: re-build and try to manage the potential threat or move the whole city up river. Over a 100-year period, what will cost more? Having said that, I do think it might be wise for folks to consider re-locating new structures elsewhere. The city should make a long-term plan to re-locate and turn vacated properties into wildlife reserves over time.

[JRip MN]

NOLA should move inland an up to higher ground. The entire protection system was ONLY designed for a Category 3 storm and we know these storms come in Cat 4 and Cat 5. Simple math says NOLA is doomed.
AND
IF we could stop messing with the river and let the fishing grounds recover we might some day get more of the seafood that NOLA and the Gulf coast are famous for.
AND
see prior comments from others for rising sea levels etc.

[jimoase]

Considering the costs to recover New Orleans and the reoccurring costs to keep the levees up .... maybe it would be cheaper to buy everyone off and put up National Park signs. We can use a nice Gulf Cost National Park.

When some talks of the character of the area.... are they saying the land or those people who have already left town?

Jim

[Haasbat]

Clear a few things up: the city is not completely below sea-level. The seismic shifting is a theory. The city isn't sinking, it's subsiding, and over time there is a reduction in the rate until all organics and spongy soils are thoroughly compacted, and that slow down in subsidence has already begun. The argument that we shouldn't build in risky places is moot. No place is safe. The entire Rocky Mountain region and Great Plains is susceptible to the Yellow Stone caldera. All of California is susceptible to major earthquakes, fires, mudslides, massive levee failures, and even hurricanes. The northwest has earthquakes and volcanos. Don't forget tornado alley, Atlantic hurricanes, Madrid Fault line, ice storms (biggest FEMA expenses, year in and year out), the Canary Islands tsunami destroying the East Coast, and, oh yeah, rising sea level. More than New Orleans will have a problem when that happens. We have to buy into risk, the question is, how much is that risk worth. Not just for the locals, but for the national economy, New Orleans and southeast Louisiana provide a lot for the country. Not just the seafood either, the shipping industries and the petroleum services and refining industries (it's not all in Houston) are huge to our national economy. Does anyone remember how expensive gas was after Katrina? Until we have a cohesive alternative-energy portfolio, south Louisiana will remain important to our national security and international trade.

The answers aren't easy/cheap, but allowing re-sedimentation from the Mississippi River in order to build new wetlands, improving the levees into a system, rather than pieces, are the first steps to making the city sustainable. If Rotterdam is safe, and it has more land below sea level, then we can do it, it's just a matter of national will, which some apparently don't have. And to the question of just "moving" the city: then what would the new place be? Who would live there? Whose land was taken for this? How much would it cost? The whole New Orleans program is over $14B, so how much to build all new infrastructure farther from the gulf, but with the shipping access and community large enough to support the population? It would be a bunch of new buildings, and corporate tycoons looking to make a buck in shipping and oil, not the crazy eclectic locals who live there now, for the quality of life. For better or worse, New Orleans isn't Houston, and rebuilding it inland will only create another Houston-esk city.

If you can't tell, I'm a bit biased. But let's bring all the issues to the table for the discussion, not just cherry pick the ones that make you feel good. I certainly don't like to talk about rising sea levels, but I'm planning for it, and trying to figure out my favorite place in the world that won't be as affected. Everyone else on the coast better start thinking too. Houston, Miami, Tampa, NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland, Boston. Pretty soon, everyone will live in Dallas and Atlanta. How boring would that be?

Glad we had this discussion, it reminded me I need to visit San Francisco before it's too late.

Also, levees.org distorts their information to make it worse than it is, or misinterprets it for the masses. Not to mention, they've had two emails go out in the last 2 months talking about explosive new information they have, and it hasn't been anything but rehashed half-truths and propaganda commercials. I'd overlook it, except, they're smart enough to put it together on individual issues, they just don't use the logic to re-apply the method across different circumstances. They also refused to recognize the mistakes made by the City of New Orleans, the citizens of New Orleans, the state of Louisiana, and the New Orleans Levee Board. Only in the last few months have they finally recognized that Congressional lack of funding has been a problem for the last 40 years, but then, they don't allow that to play into the logic of why the levees failed. Seems to me, the less money you put into a program, the more likely it will be to fail. Designs were bad for I-walls because sheet piles didn't go down far enough. But money was the limiting factor on a lot of the failures, and no one wants to talk about that, because it's not simple and easy to understand.

I like Mr. Terdiman's articles, though. I think he gives a good perspective on what's not being done, and what has changed since Katrina. Good job. This is a discussion we need to have, and it needs to be intellectually honest, because one day, it will be your town we're all talking about needing to rebuild. Or maybe your state, Iowa.

[Penguinisto]

Err, the other examples you have shown of dangerous places to live aren't quite accurate, nor are they anywhere near equivalent in risk. First off, "the entire Rocky Mountain region" extends from Baja California in Mexico all the way up to Alaska. The Yellowstone Caldera inhabits only a small portion of that. Also, it is estimates that the Caldera goes off every 100,000 years or so (compared to Cat4-5 Louisiana hurricanes, which arrive every couple of decades), which makes the whole proposition a strawman at best. Same with the Canary Islands (La Parma)... it could happen sometime within the next 500,000 years... a very acceptable risk compared with New Orleans.

Atlantic states are generally above sea level (aside from parts of downtown New York City), and aren't prone to massive flooding.

California has has hurricanes? When? Earthquakes are nowhere near the same problem if you engineer against them to limit damages, as California's building codes require.

I know all about Iowa - I lost nearly everything I owned to the Des Moines River in 1993 (which is why I no longer live there. Pretty much what I'm suggesting the NOLA residents do). Most folks affected by the 1993 floods in Iowa were smart enough to rebuild their lives out of the flood zones, which minimized damages this go 'round. NOLA residents could stand to do the same. (Cedar Rapids was the statistical outlier, as it avoided the floods in 1993.)

Everything else you mentioned has too low of a statistical probability, or can be engineered against without spending a ton of tax money for what will essentially be a fool's errand. You mention Holland. As written before, Holland has land zoning and use laws specifically designed to limit flood damage. NOLA does not. Holland doesn't see Category 5 hurricanes. NOLA does.

[1nonewsladder]

I'm not really sure as to your intellectual understanding of Death as the Existential Quantifier, but I went and stuck my arms up to my elbows into the leak at the 17th Street Canal Levee Breach Repair. I felt flowing water and smelled the Lake. I could see the water flowing across the ground, right in front of this Faux Levee Repair.
In that same vein I do not understand your need to smear the actions of Levees.org, since they went and saw the very same leak on June 22nd and noted that it has grown 6 times the size of the very same leak I saw on May 26th. This is documented here:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Floods--New-Orleans-Keepin-by-Georgianne-Nienabe-080626-33.html
Today that leak is appx 40 yards wide by 50 yards long as paced-off by another witness.
I find it astounding that this CNET journalist could actually tour this levee wall without seeing this leak. Absolutely astounded.
This is not really about your intellectual understanding of differing views of amorphous hard to explain engineering, but about my visceral experience of suffering the Corps of Engineers' malfeasance before, during the week of 2/29, as did I, and seeing today that they continue to obfuscate and prevaricate on the Leaking 17th Street Canal Levee Breach Repair.

I still cannot understand why you would want to misdirect innuendo onto levees.org while not acknowledging the documented failures of the US Army Corps of Engineers. I challenge you to get specific and to stay on point. Why disparage a citizens group formed in response to the crime, in favor of the Corps of Engineers, the self-admitted perpetrators of the crime?

Thank you,
Bruce
Editilla~New Orleans News Ladder

[ssharkman]

This city is a drag on this country. The current administration has sent billions to NO in blank checks and it's been stolen. Where is tha article? This city has jumped the shark and they re-elected that idiot mayor. They don't deserve to be re-built. Remember, Bush and Cheney blew up the levies...

[kirkules]

Yes New Orleans has a great history but is this worth it?

[QueenoftheCourt]

I just want to comment on the caption under the picture of the levee. It is true that on the other side of that levee lies an affluent neighborhood, BUT realize that that is the levee that protects the whole city from the lake overflowing into it during a storm.

[1nonewsladder]

Amazing! How does the Corps do this?
You came within 5o yards of a Major Leak in the 17th Street Canal Levee Repair that PO Cephus was showing you and he never mentioned it? Whoa! You guys at CNET are really on the ball. That very levee is LEAKING BIG TIME right there by those pumps and you missed it. Was PO Cephus moving his hands back and forth like a magician or something?
Your ability to miss the obvious in New Orleans is dangerously pro Corps. Too Bad.
Here is an article on this Leak that you missed, with your friend PO Cephus in it too. Go figure.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Floods--New-Orleans-Keepin-by-Georgianne-Nienabe-080626-33.html

Bruce
Editilla~New Orleans News Ladder
http://noladder.blogspot.com/

[i_am_still_wade]

Good idea. Lets alter the land to protect a city that is going to damaged even more because we altered the land to protect a city. Part of the reason Katrina was so bad was because of things done to protect New Orleans. Sooner or later, nature is going to win. It is more powerful than us. I don't like my tax money being spent on something that is futile.

[jture]

I work in environmental protection in a coastal state and constantly have to listen to complaints from shoreline homeowners who want the government to keep the sea from swallowing their houses. I am not in a position to quote these folks the New Testament parable of the foolish man who built his house on sand, but it's tempting! Even in Biblical times they knew it wasn't a bright idea to build a house in a place where water could come along at almost any time and sweep it away. But the modern person with enough money to afford "a nice house on the beach" thinks the government has an obligation to keep nature from doing what nature is going to do. It's ultimately futile; as you said, "sooner or later nature is going to win." Block the water from coming in one place, it will find another. That's just how it works. Even the Army Corps can't change how water behaves.

[hormellr]

It is difficult for me to contemplate the long-term viability of New Orleans given all the geophysical issues that it faces. In my opinion the Corps of Engineers continually looks for projects that in their ethos justify their continued existence, generally without regard to the consequences to those "downstream". Their motto, seems to be "we've never found a river that we couldn't straighten" and in my opinion this attitude has led to the current flooding situation in the Mississippi basin from Iowa through Missouri. Yes, the significantly extraordinary level of rainfall in Iowa contributed greatly to the situation but the continued construction of levees in the area downstream exacerbates the problem for those who have no levee protection or even those for whom the levees finally collapsed due to saturation. For those people who chose to live in the "flood plain" I have some sympathy but only some. For whatever reasons, economic or whatever, that led them to choose a high risk environment to establish their "homestead", I can only maintain that they "rolled the dice and paid the price."

As a taxpayer (in my mind significant since I paid more than $30,000 in 2007), I resent that my monies are being directed to the sustaining of many conditions that should be considered high risk and not worthy of government consideration. In addition, if one considers the concept of the "rugged american" as valid, then such people should be willing to accept failure (that is, we built a house/farm in a flood plain and lost all) as a natural consequence of their actions and should not expect any significant sympathy from the USA populace.

[redneckese]

Folks, welcome to the whining & sense of entitlement from NO that the rest of Louisiana has put with for decades. After billions of dollars of investment and tax breaks for multiple levels of corupt government all the rest of the state gets is more "we're special, tourist dollars, Chocolate City, yadda, yadda, yadda".

Katrina just gave them an excuse to go nationwide. I for one want to thank the rest of you for accomodating the "diaspora". Sorry about the rocketing crime rates you've absorbed with it, but now maybe I can visit the French Quarter (which wasn't built on a wetland by the way) without getting murdered.

[ssharkman]

The people of this city are their worst enemy. This city has been a piece of crap for 100 years. Forget the "culture", it's a dump. And the people of NO like it that way. Also, they had most of the country on their side, but their "Jump the Shark" moment was when they re-elected that idiot mayor. It's then the rest of the country said realized what a bunch of losers are down there. That's also when the drive by media stopped paying attention to them. This administration has allowed so much money to be wasted down there. They have been writing blank check and billions have been stolen and everyone knows it. So that's the bigger story that is NOT mentioned here. Those people are not victims, they are crooks and lazy people. This idiot actually want to re-build the projects! But what do you expect from someone who also thinks Bush and Cheney blew up the levies. The drive-by media strikes again...

[CSnDC]

While several of the above comments fail to make any valid (or strong) argument about whether or not to rebuild N.O. others make quite valid points on either side. The most effective analysis would be a cost-benefit analysis. Factors to consider -
Risk: As a previous blogger mentioned what is the risk of damage to the city. At what point does risk of damage necessitate complete (or partial) abandonment of an entire city. San Francisco and Los Angeles, CA have earthquakes, the Mid-West tornadoes, East Coast hurricanes, Northern states snow and ice storms, Western forest fires and drought. While not all of these lead to the level of devestation that Katrina held in one day they do over time cost the US economy just as much. Yet, I do not hear discussion of abandoning cities in any of these areas depite costs of recovery (year after year in some cases) and toll on human life. Furthermore, despite the heavy damage along the rest of the LA coast we here no talk of abandonment in these prone costal regions. The vacation homes and Casinos are right back in place.

A level 5 hurricane has hitting NO is a 1 in 500 year event. Despite sinking ground and rising sea levels (see my comments above), moving NO would result in, not only loss of tourist dollars (tax revenue) to LA (let's face it not nearly as many will come to Baton Rouge), but a loss in major US tax revenue and a hit to the economy from loss of oil industry (see previous commenter), fishing, and shipping. NO is the 4th largest port in the US (tonnage) and the 3rd largest for US exports.
Looking at Cost: What is the cost of protecting, maintaining, and occasionly rebuilding NO? Over time with the right plan the cost could be diminishing (see my previous comments on rebuilding the Delta destroyed by man made projects all along the MIssissippi and it s tributaries, not just in LA) factor and it would simply be maintenence. What is the creation and distribution of money and jobs should rebuilding the city in it's place versus moving it be? What are the long term environmental costs that will (as we have seen by Mississippi River abatement- my previous comments) play out inevitablly in economic costs both in reuilding NO in place and in moving it? Also, one must weigh in the previously discussed loss of US history and culture (much of which has already been lost by the displaced population). There is no city in the US like NO just like there is no city like NYC or LA or KC or Chicago. NO has contributed to massive parts of US culture. Think of that everytime you listen to rock and roll (influence by Jazz) and new Country music (influenced by Rock and Roll) or eat Gumbo and Jumbalaya ( and that is just the tip of the iceberg). Moving a city and re-creating it elsewhere will lack the places original history (for NO it is over 400 years), will lack it's soul and character (and yes that includes it's baggage including crime), and will simply create another Disneyland. So, while my argument is skewed to NO recovery, it is not without caveats. Be sure when you make flippant comments one way or the other that you consider all the costs and benifits of both sides of the argument.