The Truth Behind Katrina

[Sphere]

Something that continually irks me is blaming the destruction wrought by Katrina on global warming/politicians/poverty etc. You don't blame gravity when a building falls over and you shouldn't blame a storm when a levy fails.

The truth is the performance of the levy system in New Orleans was one of the worst engineering failures in US history. The levies were not overtopped, the waters were always below the "safe" levels the system was designed for. And when I say below "safe" levels, I mean in feet, not inches. Hundreds of people died because of design and construction flaws.

I fear that sweeping this under the rug lets the Army Corps of Engineers and to a lesser extent ASCE, off the hook, and invites more negligence in the future.

[Tankfriend]

I have heard about that theory as well (part of a documentation; don't remember the name though) and it sounded quite reasonable, but you should post some sources that other people on this forum can get into - otherwise this just remains a theory or claim.

[the_mango55]

I rarely hear people seriously mention global warming as the cause for Katrina.

[misfitsfiend138]

the hurricane, people blame global warming as the cause of hurricane katrina

[Sphere]

Its not a theory, the title of the American Society of Civil Engineers report is:

The New Orleans Levees: The Worst Engineering Catastrophe in US History: What Went Wrong and Why.

That someone would even suspect this is just a theory is sad, and proves my point.

http://content.asce.org/Katrina%20folo/NewOrleans.html

[Tankfriend]

You see Sphere, what I based my opinion on was a documentation and this precise one was not that detailed about the mistakes that were done; it mainly just claimed that there were some mistakes done.
As a critical person that everyone should normally be, I simply doubted the claim of said documentation because they severely lacked sources (therefore the term "theory"; as I also said, it did sound reasonable though).
Because you have provided a source now that I deem reliable I think that the term "theory" is no longer suitable for this matter so I just dump it.
So please don't blame people for being critical if they don't get proof.

[Sphere]

What I meant by "sad" is that this should be common knowledge, but it isn't.

[Joker85]

White people blew up the levies duh didnt you see the spike lee documentary.

[Simetrical]

Well, here's a suggestion. How about you don't build cities well below sea level in a hurricane zone? Seems like an easier way to avoid the problem than hoping your sea walls stand.

Edit: And your link doesn't claim it's all engineering failures either. Look at this quote, for instance:

"The hurricane protection system was designed for meteorological conditions (barometric pressure and wind speed, for example) that were not as severe as the Weather Bureau and National Weather Service listed as being characteristic of a major Gulf Coast hurricane."

That's not an engineering problem, it's a policy problem. The levees just weren't built conservatively enough to protect against a hurricane of this magnitude. I'm guessing it's because not enough money was available. And look at this criticism:

"The hurricane protection system was funded on a project-by-project basis over many years. As a result, the system was constructed in a piecemeal fashion. In addition, there were pressures for tradeoffs and low-cost solutions that compromised quality, safety, and reliability."

Do they seriously expect anything different? No, I'm going to stick with saying the basic problem is people living in a ridiculously dangerous place, not politicians' failure to spend a sufficiently exorbitant sum to properly protect them, or engineers' failure to design anything properly. New Orleans should be dismantled, and the same goes for any city on a major earthquake fault or similar situation. Of course, moving San Francisco would be expensive, but better spend the money to do it now than when the Big One hits and the entire city is destroyed wholesale. How much of American taxpayers' money was wasted on recovery of New Orleans?

[Erich von Manstein]

Well, here's a suggestion. How about you don't build cities well below sea level in a hurricane zone? Seems like an easier way to avoid the problem than hoping your sea walls stand.

I remember watching a PBS documentary in the '90s about how even a glancing blow by a major hurricane would turn New Orleans into a giant lake. Yet somehow the local and state authorities tried to pass the buck upwards when just that happened; they really should have been blaming themselves. Not only was New Orleans built on a delta that was below sea level, state and local officials had allowed the city to expand over most of the wetlands that would have otherwise served as a substantial buffer against the hurricane.

The real kicker is that the wetland areas were subject to some of the most intensive government-funded rebuilding efforts, when at most only the buildings on high ground should have been allowed to remain. It's quite unfortunate that a handful of national activists and a racemongering mayor could turn a no-brainer environmental issue into an absurd racial issue. Now, not only are U.S. taxpayers getting stuck with the cost of rebuilding, they're being forced to fund a policy that will just cause the city to turn into yet another lake the next time a hurricane heads towards New Orleans. Then again, in today's day and age, common sense rarely stands a chance of winning out when forced up again Jesse Jackson and Co.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Well this is why we need to protect those wetlands and not allow state, local, or private developers at them.

[Simetrical]

I remember watching a PBS documentary in the '90s about how even a glancing blow by a major hurricane would turn New Orleans into a giant lake.

This had been known forever. New Orleans experienced massive flooding as far back as 1849.

It's quite unfortunate that a handful of national activists and a racemongering mayor could turn a no-brainer environmental issue into an absurd racial issue. Now, not only are U.S. taxpayers getting stuck with the cost of rebuilding, they're being forced to fund a policy that will just cause the city to turn into yet another lake the next time a hurricane heads towards New Orleans. Then again, in today's day and age, common sense rarely stands a chance of winning out when forced up again Jesse Jackson and Co.

Don't blame race. Precisely the same thing applies to much of California. Everyone knows that a huge earthquake could occur at any time and wipe out massive centers of business. Nobody cares, because everyone's too short-sighted. And those are all white people.

Well this is why we need to protect those wetlands and not allow state, local, or private developers at them.

No, we just need to avoid having cities in them, if they're dangerous. We can still use them for other purposes, possibly including sparse housing. Farming, say.

[Sphere]

Here are some key quotes...

Four I-Walls collapsed before water reached design levels. (slide31)

The Corps Ignored its own research on I-Walls (slide 38)

I-Walls and earth levees failed suddenly and completely leading to catastrophic breaching and greatly increased flooding. (slide 64)

50 Breaches which increased flooding by at least 300 percent. (slide 23)

Read all of slide 22 if you want an explanation of the design storm but basically the Corp did not use the proper design loads. The policy set out by the US Congress was pretty clear: "Design for the most severe storm that is considered characteristic of the region"

But to summarize, when the ASCE investigators re-calculated the designs, there were some factors of safety less than 1 (slides 41-43). As an engineer, that makes my skin crawl.

Once again I feel like this is all lost in the national discussion about New Orleans and Katrina. I was actually at this presentation, and the ASCE presenter had basically the same feeling. Many things went wrong, but at the core this was an engineering failure.

I understand and agree somewhat with the argument about not building below sea level in this area. But, if the golden gate bridge collapsed, would you say "maybe people shouldn't try and cross over water." or if a plane crashes would you say "maybe people shouldn't try and fly".

[Simetrical]

The difference is that crossing over water, and flying, are basically irreplaceable activities, in that it would be very hard for modern society to work without them. There's no good reason you would want to live below sea level, except "but we always lived here!". I'm sure there were engineering failures here too, but we shouldn't have to spend a fortune on building and maintaining these levees to begin with.

[Sphere]

Tell that to the Netherlands, London, China, Florida, California, Denmark any state along the Mississipi etc.

Our society needs reliable flood control systems to function in the same way we need planes and bridges. I see no difference.

[Richard]

The difference is that crossing over water, and flying, are basically irreplaceable activities, in that it would be very hard for modern society to work without them. There's no good reason you would want to live below sea level, except "but we always lived here!". I'm sure there were engineering failures here too, but we shouldn't have to spend a fortune on building and maintaining these levees to begin with.

True, but because they've always lived there, it's more viable to keep them there than relocate them.

[Simetrical]

It would have been perfectly viable, in the specific case of New Orleans, to shut down the city for good after everyone was already gone due to the flood, their homes and possessions destroyed or looted.

Evacuating most of the state of California, well, I guess maybe not. Not until after the Big One comes, anyway.

[Senno]

The problem is that the subject of re-locating New Orleans is treated as "rascist" by some, and is tacitly accepted and expanded on by others.

The issue of re-populating New Orleans has been studied to death. But the political realities require that it be built in the same place.

Another case of political trumping practical realities.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Because you have provided a source now that I deem reliable I think that the term "theory" is no longer suitable for this matter so I just dump it.
So please don't blame people for being critical if they don't get proof.

A source for what? That they were a disaster waiting to happen? Or that it was caused by global warming. Because that part is pure conjecture. So if thats what he is speaking of i suggest you withdraw your apology and dont be so quick to throw yourself on your sword

[Gary88]

Well, here's a suggestion. How about you don't build cities well below sea level in a hurricane zone?

i almost cry with pity every time i see a new housing project built on a flood plain, then who do the people blame when it floods?

the contracters who built there?
themselves for buying there?
the weather?

no, they blame the government.