Governor of Louisiana Declares State of Emergency as State’s Coastline Disappears

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: schuyler
Look, New Orleans should never have been built. These guys keep building in vulnerable areas and then claim. "Woe is me!" when no sensible people would have built in those areas anyway. Build on a flood plain and be surprised? Really? It's like building shoddy condos on the Florida coast. Hurricane? Who would have thought? The only disaster is the idiots who insisted on building there.

I can't believe there's no reactor there! Astonishing!

Ha ha! Good point!

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: waftist

We all know it's going to come from the tax payer anyway. Why pay to keep things as they are when they can only get worse and more expensive? Just setting yourselves up to keep that "aid" money flowing instead of doing something more reasonable.

Understandable, especially since much of the money never makes it to the intended recipients. Louisiana is still trying to sort out Katrina and other floods funding/allocations. FEMA and some La politicians are crooked(surprise?) and under investigation for last year's flooding.


It does seem more reasonable to prepare for the rising waters by relocating instead of battling this force of nature.
Maybe they could just sell the coast to conservationists for habitat or sell it to energy co's for development and use the money to assist people.

The whole problem stems from mans activity, opening canals and dredging the Delta. The natural barrier is being removed so big oil can move freely from port to gulf with their giant oil platforms and parts. Once eroded the wetlands and delta become vulnerable to storm surge, eroding even more of whats left, making the coast even more vulnerable to severe storms (like Katrina)

Been going on since they started exploiting the Gulf for oil.

Look at scenes from Easy Rider, they cruise thru the Louisiana coastal district and all in the back ground you can see the staging of oil infrastructure...You want to 'fix it' Gubner? Stop the destruction of wet lands...

images

a reply to: intrptr

Yea I bet the agenda 21 proponents are watching this unfold, ready to pounce on an opportunity to rid the area of pesky citizens.

Sigh. Some of you folks just CAN'T help throwing politics into a thread!

It seems a bit callous to make a blanket statement " they shouldn't live on the coast". Many of these people were born there - some families for generations - and didn't have the benefit of foresight to know that the property they own would be under water eventually. Now they can't sell it. Who'd buy it? How will they get the funds to uproot their families when all their net worth is tied to the land? It's a tough situation to be in. I find myself agreeing with Kali and Waftist - Climate Change is real, it has caught innocent (albiet short-sighted) people in a no-win situation, so maybe LA needs to help them get out. Yes, it's "Taxpayer $". I'd rather it go to help someone start over in a safer place than have it go to a study of whether zebras are white with black stripes, or vice versa, or something just as silly that our lawmakers tack on budgets.

Not everyone is looking to scam the system. Sometimes bad things just happen.

Ok, stepping off my soapbox now.....

a reply to: Lolliek
Hey there Lolliek, I hear ya and agree with your sentiment. It would be hard to uproot generations of residency, but this situation coupled with geological circumstance of being below sea level, certainly warrants such drastic consideration for the families there. And yes, if my tax dollars went towards relief and relocation, I'm okay with that.

Not everyone is looking to scam the system. Sometimes bad things just happen.

Ok, stepping off my soapbox now.....

This however I have to contend with a bit, particularly because of Louisiana's political history(old and recent) and FEMA's lack of transparency from the past flood tragedies. There has been a plethora of scamming from all involved down there over the years.
See above vid on hearing I just added.

originally posted by: Lolliek
Sigh. Some of you folks just CAN'T help throwing politics into a thread!

It seems a bit callous to make a blanket statement " they shouldn't live on the coast". Many of these people were born there - some families for generations - and didn't have the benefit of foresight to know that the property they own would be under water eventually.

This sounds like it is a sudden intrusion. The graveyards in New Orleans have been built above ground for generations because why? It's not as if they did not know. They knew and chose to accept the risks. WHY do they call it a "flood plain" again? Is it because, you know, it floods? Duh.

It's swamp gas.

a reply to: randyvs

I can't believe there's no reactor there! Astonishing!

There is.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ketsuko
Lousisiana's coast has always been eroding. New Orleans sits below sea level which just isn't a good place to be for long-term survival and it was like that before anyone was worried about global warming. This is a pre-existing problem.

What people seem to be missing here is that climate changes. That's what it does and will always do, and in this case ... the coastline was eroding. And it will erode even if we're dumb enough to keep living there right up until the Gulf washes away our front lawns.

Sounds like they did something wrong like deforestation or urbanisation of land with tarmac and storm drains. Both of those lead to faster water runoff, increasing river heights and currents, faster flowing water that erodes sediment rather than depositing it. In turn that washed out swamp land which leads to more coastal erosion. Normally swamp land acts as a buffer between storm surges and solid ground as the trees and vegetation break up the energy of the waves. Maybe state budgets were frozen to reduce taxes and no money was allocated for storm defences like seawalls.

Nobody is going to admit liability for any of these decisions.


nobody is going to say

so there are problems. problem number one was building and living in an area they knew full well was a bad idea. the fact that it needed dykes and such at all shows that bad planning is the root cause for this. living in a coastal area that is technically under the water table is always a bad idea. being swampland made mostly from river silt is a big clue to it being a problem. living on a river delta is a bad idea. rivers continually change course and move. because water erodes ground, as well as deposits silt. this is even worse for a river delta.

problem number two is the habitual lack of proper maintenance for most of the life of those things that keep the water out. no proper maintenance because they couldn't be BOTHERED spending the money for proper upkeep. this is exactly the reason Katrina was so bad there. it's their own dammed fault. but since they couldn't be bothered to properly maintain it, it is now an emergency? sorry no bad governing is not cause to call it an emergency. they can't shortcut all the things like all the environment impact studies that now need to be done. if they had properly taken care of things the whole time, there would not be an issue. and not only should they not get to shortcut the needed processes needed to be done before any work can be done. but NO Federal money should be given to fix the area's ang State's incompetence. those that live there are fully responsible for the problem. they are the ones who kept voting for Incompetent leadership that has resulted in this. if they want to fix it, raise the taxes in the area to pay for what they decided was not important enough until it became critical. just think all that tax money they saved that could have stopped this. well now they are paying for their shortsightedness. of course the best plan is to declare the area unsafe. and let the people move elsewhere. paid for of course with local ang not Federal tax money.

a reply to: stormcell

Could also just be that living on a swamp below sea level is a bad idea.

a reply to: generik

Yes, and the money was allocated at least in the case of the Katrina levees, but local politics saw to it that no one really thought it would be their problem, so the levees became a rich source of political payback and a lot of that money went into pockets of appointees instead into maintaining the levees.

I can only guess there is similar mismanagement funds all up and down the political food chain.

No politician sees the problem as really his if it isn't actually happening now. That's a lesson we all should be well aware of.

Build barrier islands and then condos on them to help hold the water back. Maybe they need to quit pumping oil out so the land quits sinking???

a reply to: TheRedneck

There is?........

Buhahahahaha!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: stormcell

Could also just be that living on a swamp below sea level is a bad idea.

People stay in Florida with all it's hurricanes; people stay in California with all it's earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires; people stay in Oklahoma with it's tornado alley, and arid, hot Arizona too, just like Louisiana with it's erosion.

They stay because it's home.

a reply to: randyvs

Never let a chance to escalate a natural disaster go to waste...

TheRedneck

I would like to add my 2 cents to the conversation. Has anyone considered what type of land is in question here? It is delta which needs to be fed by soil from up river. If it is stopped the result would be the same as what is being described in this OP.

Why isn't the soil being washed into the delta? My answer is the Army Corps of Engineers. They have paved the river banks to prevent corrosion and dykes to keep the annual floods out of low lying areas. These changes have caused the health in the lower delta to decline. The delta is not getting the fertile food rich soils it needs to survive.

I have read that some environmental researchers have advanced the idea of the fresh water table is being mixed with salt water from the rise in sea levels. The researchers have stated that this was just their theory and haven't collected data to substantiate their thoughts. The aquifers depend on the weight of the soil to prevent the cross over of salt and fresh waters. If it is not being replaced there will be less soil and less soil replaced.

I have to conclude that this is not "natural climate change" but the result of human activities namely the Corps of Engineers trying to satisfy the politicians/ commercial interests. Stop the human activities and the health of the delta will return. Nothing magic, no politics and no climate change talking heads.

a reply to: waftist

The water is not rising, the land is disappearing. Not due to climate change at all. It's the #ing nutria and all the chemicals the rest of the country flushes down the MS river. The US has ignored LAs request for help over the last half century while funneling 100's of millions - billions to the Everglades. There are 100x the amount of creatures in Louisiana's swamps than in the Everglades, but we just poor folks down here in the nations sewer. Not much voting power, so we get #.

a reply to: mikell

That's ignorant