I have read numerous posts stating that the US must spend billions and billions of dollars to rebuild New Orleans. But should they even bother to rebuild?

First off, why bother rebuilding the city in it's original location. It would, once again, be below sea level. they would have the additional expense of building levees and dykes again and, unless, they double or even triple the size of the dykes, there would be no guarentee that they would hold back storm surges.

Perhaps it would be best simply to allow the refugees of N.O. to move to other parts of the country while abandoning the delta region and allowing it to return to nature. If we all believe the global warming warnings, the sea levels are going to rise.......why not heed these warnings NOW. After all, the government is being blamed for not anticipating the Katrina disaster. If the government were to be truly far sighted, they would abandon any plan of rebuilding near the oceans. Instead, the people of N.O. should be dispersed throughout the U.S. --- it would be a lot cheaper

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
I have read numerous posts stating that the US must spend billions and billions of dollars to rebuild New Orleans. But should they even bother to rebuild?

Yes.

You try having your life destroyed. House, belongings, job, family, friends, community, your entire life thrown to the seas. It ain't that easy to just "get over it."

Here's an idea - leave your house with what you have on you now. Don't stop along the way. Move somewhere far away, and forget about everything you had. Same thing, except you're not devastated, and all your connections aren't suffering the same fate.

Ignoring all that, what kind of government would we be? What kind of government just says to it's citizens "Well, that sucked. But, it might happen again, so let's not bother. In fact, everyone has to evacuate all coastlines to at least 50 miles away. Sorry, here's a teddy bear."

Before I make any further statement, let me state for the record that I am not a cold and callous person. Of course I have sympathy for the survivors of this great calamity. I must mention that I am an American citizen who happens to have lived in Canada for the past twenty or so years. I grew up in Michigan. I have family in the States. I am an American. So I share the national pain that all Americans are feeling at this time.

However, this is ATS/BTS. This is a site where questions are asked. One can ask almost any intelligent question in a forum whose purpose is to discuss these questions; questions from an alternative paradigm which does yield to political correctness, base human emotion or alternative thinking. I am asking a serious question of this forum in the context of an Advocatus Diaboli -- a Devil's Advocate.

First I pose the question "Should we even bother rebuilding New Orleans"?
And I respond with some logical reasons why we should not rebuild "The Big Easy". Foremost among these reasons is the geographic location. It's a "big bowl" that would, but for the intervention of a carefully engineered system of dykes, locks and levees, naturally revert to a swampy lowland.

It has been raised that humans are sensitive, emotional beings prone to inhabit a region out of traditional "ties to the land" a concept based on "feelings" instead of logic. Considering this matter from a logical perspective, would it not be better to abandon New Orleans as a municipality altogether? It would make a wonderful natural habitat for wildlife, marshland for waterfowl and it would enable a natural delta marsh to develop which would provide considerable shielding for inland areas from future storm surges. It could be a wonderful remembrance for those who lost their lives and a fitting monument for future generations to consider nature and mans interaction with the environment.

Instead of rebuilding, could the survivors not simply move to other established communities throughout the United States? Instead of building new schools, new hospitals, new police stations, new government buildings, new power stations and rebuilding a new infrastructure, could people not move to communities that already have an existing infrastrucure? There are many cities and communities across the United States that could easily assimulate hundreds of survivors of New Orleans. Detroit, for example, has a population of 800,000 people. yet it has the infrastructure of a city that once held nearly two million people! Wouldn't it be cheaper to encourage N.O. survivors to move to Detroit to work, live and be assimulated as Detroiters?

It has been mentioned that there a numerous cities across the United States that are situated in precarious geographical locations; San Francisco is on a fault-line. There are regions in California that are prone to forest fires, high winds, rock and mudslides. And yet we do not abandon those places and others throughout the nation. But we do not abandon those places because they are still viable! If the worst happens in San Francisco or Los Angeles, we might just have to do so and learn from the mistakes of selecting that location in the first place! In the future it might not be wise to build anything; a home, a city or a nuclear power plant on a fault line.

Finally, why would we build a new city with such a proximity to the Sea or Ocean? If the pundits of global warming are correct, then we can expect sea levels to rise considerably in the next several decades. Surely we cannot build a city in the same location while ignoring a very "real" certainty of another calimity in the not too distant future. If we rebuild New Orleans will the government be responsible to rebuild every city on the Atlantic and Pacific Coast as the waters rise?

Everyone, it seems, is blaming one man or agency or government department of one sort or another for not anticipating the natural disaster in the making that is/was New Orleans. Why can't we anticipate, with certainty, that by rebuilding New Orleans we only serve to provide human fodder and additional economic woe for all Americans when the next Hurricane, levee failure, New Madras fault quake or rise in the ocean level occurs?

For what it's worth, I found your question to be quite reasonable...

Anyways....

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
It has been raised that humans are sensitive, emotional beings prone to inhabit a region out of traditional "ties to the land" a concept based on "feelings" instead of logic. Considering this matter from a logical perspective, would it not be better to abandon New Orleans as a municipality altogether?

Yes, logically speaking, it would be. But then again, humans are not a very logical species. That's what we have Spock for

It would make a wonderful natural habitat for wildlife, marshland for waterfowl and it would enable a natural delta marsh to develop which would provide considerable shielding for inland areas from future storm surges. It could be a wonderful remembrance for those who lost their lives and a fitting monument for future generations to consider nature and mans interaction with the environment.

Although I'm not much for environmental causes such as wildlife refuges--that's an issue for another thread though--the "buffer" idea is a valid point. Even if they rebuild NO in it's current location, it might be worth it for them to invest a good amount of money in reforming the coast.

Instead of rebuilding, could the survivors not simply move to other established communities throughout the United States? ...

While that is true, and there are quite a few areas that could potentially handle the new residents quite easily, it's still a matter of where they want to go. I'm sure many of them will never move back to NO because of this storm, even if it is rebuilt to it's former glory. But you can't force someone to move somewhere they don't want to live just because that city can handle it. What if by some fluke many of them decide they like the climate of a small town in rural Nebraska for example? That small town doesn't have the infrastructure to support a large influx of people, and the money that would've been spent on rebuilding NO would be spent there.

Granted, that's not a very likely scenario, but I hope it serves as an example to express my point. Just because the money won't have to be spent in NO doesn't mean it won't be spent else where.

It has been mentioned that there a numerous cities across the United States that are situated in precarious geographical locations; San Francisco is on a fault-line. There are regions in California that are prone to forest fires, high winds, rock and mudslides. And yet we do not abandon those places and others throughout the nation. But we do not abandon those places because they are still viable!

And NO is still viable. Although alongside Rita it's showing signs of changing, Katrina was of relatively infrequent strength for a hurricane, and while better preparation could've been implemented, it's by no means expected that those people would have had to go through that at any given time. The economic value of the NO region I mentioned in a previous post should show how viable the area is for a large city--there wouldn't have been a large city to begin with if it wasn't viable.

If the worst happens in San Francisco or Los Angeles, we might just have to do so and learn from the mistakes of selecting that location in the first place! In the future it might not be wise to build anything; a home, a city or a nuclear power plant on a fault line.

The worst has happened in San Francisco--1906 and 1989, just to name a couple. The city was hit hard, but they rebuilt. And it will happen again, and probably even worse. But fault lines aren't the only natural disasters we have here in the US either.

How many trailer parks and small towns have been leveled by tornados, only to be rebuilt again? Does that mean we clear out the midwest? No, we just try harder to prepare next time, and we try and learn more of what happens when they form. Regarding other natural disasters, look at Yellowstone: we know it's a volcano that's going to erupt with devastating results at some point in time. Why not clear everyone out of the danger area and relocate them to the southern states, where hurricanes will hit, or the midwest with it's tornados? Granted, a Yellowstone eruption is most likely quite a ways off, but why not take the preventative measures now? It would be cheaper and safer.

Finally, why would we build a new city with such a proximity to the Sea or Ocean? If the pundits of global warming are correct, then we can expect sea levels to rise considerably in the next several decades. Surely we cannot build a city in the same location while ignoring a very "real" certainty of another calimity in the not too distant future. If we rebuild New Orleans will the government be responsible to rebuild every city on the Atlantic and Pacific Coast as the waters rise?

The primary reason is the same reason your saying we shouldn't rebuild NO: money. Coast cities allow for much, much easier importing and exporting than trying to fly everything in from overseas. Whether we should be relying on importing and exporting goods is an entirely different story.

Everyone, it seems, is blaming one man or agency or government department of one sort or another for not anticipating the natural disaster in the making that is/was New Orleans. Why can't we anticipate, with certainty, that by rebuilding New Orleans we only serve to provide human fodder and additional economic woe for all Americans when the next Hurricane, levee failure, New Madras fault quake or rise in the ocean level occurs?

We can't anticipate, with certainty, whether any of the nation's larger cities will have the same effect or not. Mother nature can only be predicted so far, and she reserves the rights to do what she wishes when she wishes. Building codes in CA call for buildings to meet specific earthquake requirements. There's no guarantee though that future earthquakes will meet those same requirements. There's no guarantees that a storm that makes Katrina or Rita look pathetic might hit NY. Then again, we may get hit by an until-then-unknown asteroid, and that would make all of our current concerns regarding hurricanes and earthquakes seem minor.

At the same time, there's no guarantee that the next 500 years will bring anything more disasterous than what we've seen in the past 50. A lot of people probably aren't moving back to NO, but those who want to should be free to do so. They know the risks involved, and I'm sure the potential economic benefits of having a good port city at the mouth of the Mississippi river will outweight any economic burden caused by rebuilding.

Hurricane Rita threatens to, once again, flood New Orleans and it certainly threatens Galveston, Texas. I now expand the question to include all sea coast cities and communities. Should the United States heed the warnings of climate change and begin to abandon cities on the seacoasts? After all, beside hurricanes and storm surges, those who acknowledge the reality of climate change predict that sea levels will rise and will threaten , if not outright destroy, cities and even entire states on the coastlines of the United States. I should point out that the rise in sea levels will also adversely affect not just the U.S. but many other countries that border the oceans as well.

Countries such as the Netherlands have been planning for the rise in sea levels for decades--talk about pragmatic far sighted preparations. But, nevertheless, the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, Italy.....every nation having a border on the seas is at risk.

sombody thought about the great earthquake of 1906 of San Fransico and if it was a good idea to rebuild a city that is on an area produces earthquakes that are unpredictable and almost undetectable wen it comes. we still rebuilt it. so i say we can rebuild NO.

Originally posted by Codger
No. It should not be rebuilt. The reality is that it is a lost cause and no matter how much money is thrown at it, the city will eventually head in to the Gulf.
My wager is that there isn't a politician alive that will acknowledge reality and that billions upon billions of dollars will be poured in to an ultimately futile exercise.

Well, where do you draw the line? How much money is spent each year trying to keep people alive in this world; it's a lost cause, we're all going to die someday. We could spend all the money otherwise used on treatments for cancer, AIDS, etc. on other stuff.

Move it back up to the city level; as I said earlier, there's many cities that have been virtually wiped out before, but rebuilt. SF and LA are "lost causes". Someday they're going to be knocked into the Pacific. Seattle and Tacoma are both "lost causes", because eventually Mt. Ranier is going to go off and they'll be buried under hundreds of feet of mud and ash.

Miami, Orlando, New York, Boston, any city on the Gulf or Atlantic coast is more than likely going to get hit with a good hurricane some day. Why not take the time to do "preventative" work and relocate everyone from there now, before there's anything to really worry about? It'd probably be easier to do it now instead of when everyone's scrambling in the last 24 hours before the storm hits.

Hey, for that matter, let's not even just limit it to areas where a hurricane may hit someday. Let's relocate everyone who lives in an area with a potential for natural disaster to somewhere safe, like Idaho or Montana. So everyone who's lived in an area that has had a tornado, earthquake, volcanic activity, tsunami, or Britanny Spears concert needs to move somewhere that isn't a "lost cause." And given the fact that, at any given time, the powers that run this crazy universe may decide to throw a big chunk of rock or ice at us, I really don't think there's anywhere that's not completely immune to a natural disaster.

So find me a location that isn't a lost cause, and we'll see what it'll cost to move everyone to that ultimate safe-place.

Ever since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita blew through the Gulf States, the news media have aired numerous interviews with climatologists, "experts" in the field of global climate change. Several things stood out in every one of these discussions on climate change. First, and foremost, climate change is real. Climate change is coming and there doesn't seem to be anything that we can do about this. Certainly, we can recycle more, drive less, pollute less and consume less. But, to be frank, there are those among the "experts" who would suggest that this climate change was inevitable. Regardless of humankind may of done in the past or can or will do in the future, some of these experts would suggest that this climate change is simply part of the natural evolution of the Earth. Of course, there are also "experts" who can and do argue to the contrary. There is only one thing, it seems that everyone agrees upon. The Earth is undergoing a change in climate and that change will, in some way, shape or form, affect every creature on the planet.

One aspect of climate change is the concept of "global warming". It would seem that in spite of a recent history of broken cold temperature records and snowfall records being shattered, the Earth is getting warmer. And though, at time, it is difficult to believe this to be true, there is a good deal of scientific evidence to prove that this is true. In the Arctic, for example, patches of open water have appeared where, throughout recorded history, none has existed. The aboriginal peoples of the Arctic report being mystified at some of the profound changes taking place. Their own history does not mention such changes in their environment. And polar bears, seals and walrus populations are clearly being threatened by the receding ice floes. Indeed something is happening here.

In the Antarctic, the situation has some striking similarities. That is, the ice is melting. Glaciers are retreating and large segments of the massive Ross Ice Shelf are breaking off. Again, these are occurrences that have never, in human memory, happened before. Whether this is because of the global effects from human global activity or whether it is a natural part of Earth's own evolutionary process is unclear. There are arguments, to be honest, that could be made for either side of the question. But, frankly, at this point in time, the question is a moot one. The Earth is getting warmer -- by degrees -- and the ice at the Antarctic is melting.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have been blamed, in no small part, upon this concept of Climate Change. The Hurricane storm season has, in recent years, produced record numbers of Tropical Storms, Hurricanes and other weather situations with increasing severity. I think that everyone can agree that, indeed, something is going on! We are facing global warming -- whatever the reason. We are facing a period of global climate change and, again, the reasons are immaterial. Sooner, rather than later, we will all have to deal and adapt to the effects of this planetary situation.

The issue that perhaps, more than any other, would have the most immediate impact on humanity is the aspect of global warming as it would apply in the Antarctic. Unlike the North Pole and the Arctic regions, Antarctica is a continent. All of the ice in the Antarctic sits upon a land mass -- the Antarctic continent. And, I might add, there is a lot ice there. The ice has been measured in Antarctica not in inches, feet or even yards but in miles! Ice thickness there are over two miles thick in some places and, perhaps even thicker in others. Regardless, again we can all agree that there is a lot of ice to be found on the Antarctic continent.

Keeping in mind that the Antarctic is a continent, that is, a solid land mass, these massive sheets of ice would -- and will -- have a profound effect upon sea levels when they melt and the massive volumes of liquid water that are contained within are finally released into the oceans. It has been conservatively estimated that this additional water will raise the sea levels -- world wide -- by two to three feet by 2025. The water levels will still continue to rise and we can fully expect that the ocean levels will easily rise six to ten feet by 2100.

The concept of climate change, holes in the ozone, air pollution will be but a clear reality when water levels rise to such an extent that human population centers will be in clear danger from flooding. And, considering that in the United States alone, nearly 160 million Americans live in coastal regions, this will severely impact the United States. Of course, the U.S. is not facing the problem of rising ocean levels alone. Most notably are the Netherlands which, frankly, is the most proactive nation when it comes to dealing with this issue. Everyone, I am sure, is aware of the amazing engineering and construction marvels that the Netherlands have developed to preserve the integrity of their nation from the Sea. The famous dikes, levees and dams of the Netherlands are nearly mythic in their renown. But even the Dutch have embarked upon a fantastically expensive plan to extend, strengthen, heighten and preserve the elaborate system of dikes, dams, seawalls and levees to simply keep their nation from disappearing under the waters of the Atlantic.

What has this to do with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? What has this to do with the Gulf Coastal regions of the US? What has this to do with New Orleans and it's reconstruction? E V E R Y T H I N G !

For all intents and purposes, the City of New Orleans was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and what wasn't destroyed outright was demolished by Hurricane Rita. This proverbial "one - two" punch has all but obliterated an American city of 800 thousand people! In true American fashion, Americans across the nation are gearing up to reconstruct the "Big Easy". But should we really rebuild New Orleans? Does it really make any logical sense to do this? Does an "intelligent" species (sic) govern it's actions through sentiment, emotion and "touchy feely" desire?

I can understand the sentiments surrounding this emotional issue. It isn't easy to leave ones home behind but, in this case, it is very likely that ones home is gone --- simply GONE. Like the old adage, "you can't go home again", it's especially true where it concerns New Orleans. Only, in this case, there is no home to return to! Yet, people are clamoring to throw millions of dollars into the very same "bowl" that once contained the "Big Easy". And yet, nothing has changed. That bowl is still ten to fifteen feet below sea level and, as time goes on, those sea levels will only increase -- considerably! The costs of rebuilding the city will be compounded dramatically by the costs necessary to keep the city safe from flooding and, to be blunt, this would only be a temporary fix. To make New Orleans safe from flooding would require billions and billions of dollars as well as literal mountains of fill, steel and concrete....why? Out of some emotional need to haunt the environs of ones' birth? To sentimentally cling to the neighborhood where one roamed as a youngster? If so, then we can all expect to be paying for the rebuilding of New Orleans again in, say, one hundred years -- maybe sooner.

The solution is clear and simple. Rebuild New Orleans, if at all, on higher ground. Some would argue that other cities such as San Francisco were destroyed and then rebuilt -- why not New Orleans? Well, we are technologically more advanced. We have a better understanding of the Earth changes that loom in the not so distant future. So, unless we are eagerly willing to repeat the folly of the past we should rebuild New Orleans. Heck, it's only money, right?

Some might cry that it is important to preserve history. Well, when the Russian/Egyptian Aswan Dam was built, the Temple of Ramses was preserved by moving it. Certainly, it's not quite the same but does anything remain the same? Besides, isn't a a definition of insanity "doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result"? Well it would be insanity to repeat the same mistake of rebuilding the Big Easy in the same location.

And I'm not "picking" on New Orleans. I have no reason to do so. I would be making the same argument if any coastal American city faced the same level of destruction that occurred in New Orleans. I would be suggesting that these cities be moved inland or on higher, more secure, ground if at all.

A NEW New Orleans might not have the same ambiance or history as it once had but, then, a question that one might ask about rebuilding New Orleans in the same location might also be asked with equal validity. It's time to look at this situation logically as opposed to grasping at an emotional ideal.

benvolent tyrant, you do make some good arguments in my opinion, but I still completely disagree with the idea of giving up on the city in it's present location. In essence, that's what you're promoting, giving up, and although I haven't practiced what I'm preaching very well in my own life, that's a greater sin then just about anything else IMO.

I honestly cannot think of one area in this nation that's fully safe from a natural disaster. No matter where you live, there's always the chance something is going to happen, even if it isn't as big of a news story as the two hurricanes were. I used to live in El Paso, TX, an area that is relatively safe from many natural problems--no fault line, far from the coast, etc. We'd still get killer wind storms every once in a while, and there's even been a handful of small tornados there.

NO's most likely going to be seabed in a couple hundred years. So's LA, NY, Miami, Seattle, SF, and many other cities in the US and around the world. If the polar caps do melt, then Katrina and Rita are going to look like a walk in the park. But there's lots of other things that could go wrong, and in a much more faster manner than global warming could do. That's just part of life--you don't know for sure what could go wrong, or when. Mt. Toba wakes up tomorrow, a couple of years down the road it goes off, we're all toasted and this discussion on rebuilding NO is moot. Some scientist at NASA forgot to carry a one, that asteroid does hit in 2029, we're gone.

Yes, it's going to cost a lot of money, and I'm sure there's plenty of things that money could be better spent on. But seriously, what do you honestly think it will get spent on? Helping the homeless in other parts of the nation? Rehabilitating criminals? Foreign aid for starving children in a thirld world nation? Not likely. Most likely any of the tax money--taxes we'd be paying anyways--that would be going to help rebuild the city is going to be spent on making our senators and representatives a little more comfortable in their lifestyles.

At least by rebuilding NO there's a chance that a new school, with new textbooks and computers, will find its way into a slum. There's a chance they'll be able to put that money into the economy and give more people jobs than previously. There's a chance they'll build better and more police stations, fire departments, and hospitals. There's a chance that they might make NO a much better place to live through this.

I doubt it; I'm rather cynical (or realistic) when it comes to government spending. But I personally feel my tax dollars would be better spent rebuilding a city--even if it turns out the same as before or worse--than lining some Washington DC suit's pockets. At least there's a chance it'll do some good, and a much better chance than if we let the boys on the hill decide for themselves where else to put it.

Sure many people will want to go back, on the other hand by the time the place has been rebuilt many people will have become settled else where.
Most of New Orleans has been in economic decline since the late 60's according to the Economist magazine anyway.
So i would imagine that with 2 hurricanes within one year at only the start of the hurricane season this will be the straw that brakes the camels back.
Global warming is changing the environment and whatever the past record, I think it will be a poor guide to the future one. Certainly this is what the evidence would seem to suggest since these storms are already more powerful than ever, just as the warm water they grow on is becoming more abundant than ever.

The question is not "should we move places in dangerous locations?" but rather "should we rebuild places that have been destroyed in dangerous locations". On both an economic front and environmental one the future does not look good for New Orleans. So let’s use this unwanted opportunity to bring life to a dying area by relocating it somewhere better.
Why spend billions on something that in the way of the next decades disaster? And will also go the way of Babylon anyway?

Its original thinking on "benevolent tyrant" part and I agree with him as someone who's thinking with their brain as well as heart.

When people disagree....especially when they do so strongly...the best thing to often do is to work out a comprimise. In this case, I certainly have a tremendous sympathy for the poor citizens of New Orleans. First, because their beautiful city was decimated by an act of nature. And, secondly, I feel sympathy for these people because it is NOT a question of IF something will happen. Even if there are no more hurricanes, these people will be facing a rise in the ocean levels. And, keep in mind, we are not tallking about a few inches or a mere foot or two. We are talking about the foreseeable need to build massive sea walls, immense levees and dikes. To adequately protect New Orleans would require a constructions and engineering project that would make the construction of the Hoover Dam seem like re-paving a road. And then I have to ask....what about the rest of the Gulf Coast communities? Don't they need rebuilding as well? Will we be building dikes all around the coast?

Don't think of this disaster as, well, a disaster. In fact, it is an opportunity.
An opportunity to build a New City of the future. It would be the opportunity to build a New Orleans of the future -- a city of tomorrow and in doing so, we can be assured that New Orleans will not face the inevitable sinking of New Orleans should it remain where it is. Additionally, we do not have to abandon the historic centers of the city, it could still be rebuilt and remain a tourist attraction loaded with it's history but it would remain a strictly tourist area. All of the offices, homes, apartments, industry would be built above the current sea level or higher.

Nothing remains the same....if it did, there would be no progress. Lets' look at rebuilding New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast with a progressive view. Let's not continue doing things the "old way", lets' create a new way. At the same time, let us look at rebuilding New Orleans in a fashion that will address some the city's problems; high chronic unemployment, low tax base, poor educational standards and scores, high crime rate. All these could be addressed by being certain that they are a vital component of the plan to build a NEW New Orleans.

There is one key difference between New Orleans and the rest of the cities mentioned, well perhaps part of the SF bay area has similarities. New Orleans was built on a river delta. If it's kept dry it will continue to sink. The entire bed underneath it is sliding towards the gulf and there is nothing that can be done to stop that. The other cities have risks but they are "maybe or someday". New Orleans is a geological certainty with a definable timeline. Global warming,rising sea levels may accelerate N.O.'s demise as might futher hurricanes.

Couple of quotes from the article that I noted above.

"The Mississippi River is moving westward. The City of New Orleans will be cut off from fresh water, and be attached to a silted-in port of no value, attached to water that doesn’t go anywhere. This is a certainty. The only issue with this event is when. The event is going to happen shortly. If the events occur as a result of a flood rather than by deliberately managed processes, the USA may find that its precious Mississippi River port area is worthless. Even before Hurricane Katrina, the city was living on borrowed time. Its dance with the Mississippi River is soon to end.

The swamp in which New Orleans sits can only be supported by a continual influx of fresh water from the Mississippi River. The US Army Corps of Engineers damaged this process severely with canals and channels as well as by putting up dikes. The city is sinking for lack of this water. Mud deposited by floods would have rebuilt the naturally sinking land. This became painfully apparent when the city dikes broke."

" In about 50 years, it will be nearly 60 miles off shore and will be at least 40 feet below sea level. To keep the city the dikes will have to be so high as to stagger the imagination and our national budget.

To summarize: The river is leaving the city. The city is sinking because of its weight, because no upbuilding by new muck for many decades, because of being cut off from the fresh water, because it is falling off a cliff (the Continental Shelf), and because the Oil and Gas Industry is sucking it down like a kid slurping a root beer float."

So, this is not a maybe an earthquake in 100 years or 500 years at Mount Rainier taking out Seattle scenario.
New Orleans is 50 years if nothing accelerates it's demise. In 50 years just to keep it dry would require dikes 50 feet high. Anyone want to calculate the strength of the dikes needed to hold back that weight of water? Oh, just for fun calculate how long it would take to completely flood N.O. if there were to be a single breach of that dike given the water pressure. I don't want to consider what the population of N.O. will be in another fifty years.

I think this is an extremely racist thread.

What your basically trying to say is because alot of people that live in N.O are black, who cares?

I think that New Orleans will ultimately be rebuilt. But the question I'm posing is HOW will it be rebuilt?

I think that it would be feasible if significant improvements were made to the existing levee system, water pumping systems, and emergency management.

Lots of the destroyed buildings were very old. Now we have a clean slate to start with, and can easily implement much tougher building codes and even change the base infastructure of the city itself!

No, its a waste of money to rebuild in the same spot(i honestly think its a waste to rebuild it period).