KATRINA was NOT the "worst natural disaster in the history of the U.S."

[garthranzz]

because the devastation and death were man-made. I refer not just to the years of negligence, criminal and incompetent, prior to the storm, the abdication of responsibility because New Orleans was Black, poor and Democratic and because Cheney-Bush needed to finance their war profiteering. I refer to the inactions during and after which made a bad situation worse.

Had the levees not been breached, New Orleans would not have drowned. Even after the levees broke, a proper rescue and damming (!) effort would have saved the city.

Let's make sure that the "news" people get their facts straight!

[truedelphi]

1. That pisses me off also.

Some newscasters even point to Katrina as PROOF that we are in the middle of a Global Weather Crisis.

They really seem to enjoy creating a bunch of phony baloney concepts around this event.

This was genocide, and our Administration, with its vacation-loving President cutting Brush on his ranch, while Condoleeza Rice shopped for shoes, and Brownie got his compliments, all of those people deserve a special ticket to Hell.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. As much as those folks deserve a fast ticket to hell

Katrina IS part of the global weather change and IT IS the worst natural disaster in the modern history of the country. The worst? It would have to compete with the Floods of 1927, which were quite horrific, but nobody remembers them anyway.

But Global Weather Change is nobody's imagination.

Quick, how many times have you known of a TROPICAL depression affecting San Diego? Next week... most likely with Jimena...

Wake up and smell the coffee, we DO HAVE a global weather change, and worst, we are the cause of it.

[truedelphi]

11. Thanks for missing my whole point.

I was NOT saying that we DON't have a weather change - I am saying that Katrina was not part of it! At least, not the tail end of Katrina that battered New Orleans. That was a mild hurricane three level storm. Google New Orleans and Katrina and category three and read about it.

Plenty of people rode out the hurricane while it battered the city of New Orleans. A little bit scary, but nothing they had not seen many times in the past. People in NO went to bed late that night as the storm fritered away, relieved to have survived it so well.

Then early early in the morning, the levees burst. The water levels rose and the flooding fromt he levees bruisting caused what ensued. BY five AM the waters were rushing around that town, and a dire catastrophe was in the making.

So it actually was two levels of government failure. One: that the Corps of Engineers didn't get hte funds needed to put up better levees. (OR maybe they had the funds but refused to spend them on levees?)

And Two: That the Bush government allowed the people not only in New Orleans but all over the Gulf to sit and wait and wait and wait. For help that was turned away once privately organized. Deliberately turned away.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. And disasters have many levels

by the way, what hit NOLA was a CAT 4 one... not a CAT 3

You may want to argue all you want, but it was natural...

Now the response is a whole different story. and it has a lot of parallels to 1927. I may add, until Katrina and the Bush administration 1927 (guess who was in charge of that relief effort, Hoover) it was a study on what can and will go wrong.

Perhaps, since I can distinguish between the different layers and disaster response, since I did this for ten years, I will miss your point. And will keep missing your point.

;rollseyes:

[Doremus]

16. Galveston hurricane of 1900 killed 8000+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane

Am in no way, shape or form saying there is no climate change but we need to keep our facts straight. Last I checked, 1900 is still considered "modern history."

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Yes, yes it it

and it did have that effect

Read on the 27 floods, the effects were quite wide spread and followed similar patterns to ahem Katrina

And Galveson, which most folks do not remember either, is considered the worst loss of life in American history.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Chimpy wasn't pretending to cut brush on his ranch

He was eating cake with Grandpa Simpson....

[Louisiana1976]

8. Yes--and why they aren't called to accounting for their

outright genocide is beyond me.

[merh]

3. Though I agree with you about New Orleans

I feel compelled to call to your attention that New Orleans was not the only part of the nation destroyed by Katrina.

The entire Mississippi Gulf Coast was destroyed by the storm and the government's response was slow, the lack of government preparedness pathetic.

Katrina was the worst natural disaster if you remember all that were in her path and not just NOLA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Why the floods of 1927, which also affected a huge slab of the country

would compete with it. I fear that like those floods, Americans are so ignorant, in seventy years nobody will even remember Katrina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927

I knew about them since in Disaster Training they were used as an absolute worst case scenario, by at least my trainers 20 or so years ago... in Mexico of all places.

[Louisiana1976]

9. In Mississippi where the storm hit it was natural--but in NOLA it was manmade. That's why

I call that the federal flood--because of the breaking of poorly constructed and federally maintained levees.

[merh]

12. I agree with you.

That is not, however, what the OP wrote.

Folks forget how much destruction was had in Mississippi and parts of Alabama. Katrina was not just NOLA.

Hell Slidell and other parts of Louisiana were destroyed by the levy failures and some were destroyed by Katrina.

The OP's generalized declaration not based on the facts is what I take issue with.

[Louisiana1976]

37. True dat--

I recall reading that Katrina affected a Great Britain-sized area and 5 states.

[merh]

47. That is the description used.

Had the levies held, parts of Louisiana, the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast and all of the Mississippi counties, plus part of the Alabama and Florida coasts, would still have known the damage.

There were two disasters - the destruction caused by Katrina and the flood caused by the failed levies.

[garthranzz]

40. I didn't mean to minimize the damage to MS and the Gulf Coast

I still remember Camille. But there are two aspects to this:

1) The news reporting that Katrina's destruction OF NEW ORLEANS is the worst natural disaster, which is patently false - had the levees held, New Orleans would have had damage, billions of dollars, but would not have drowned. We've been through it before.

2) The effects of the hurricane itself, a comparison with other natural disasters, and the rebuilding effort. Hugo was massive, Camille, was massive, the SF earthquake at the end of the 80's was massive, etc. And the Gulf Coast got money, proportionately more than N.O., and has been rebuilt faster. The point is that "natural disaster" is used as a cover-up for Cheney-Bush's failure in N.O.

Thanks for the corrective, though.

[merh]

46. Louisiana got money too.

As the states most damaged by the storms, Louisiana received $13.4 billion and Mississippi got $5.5 billion.

But recovery programs were hampered and payments delayed by disputes between federal and state agencies over how to use the federal funding, according to the GAO.

Donovan said HUD plans to give Gulf Coast states $80 million for rental assistance vouchers. In addition, Louisiana will get $26 million and Mississippi will get $14 million in stimulus funding for homeless prevention programs.

http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20090829/NEWS01/908290336

You need to stop with the faulty comparisons since you cannot seem to get the facts correct.

Katrina didn't just do damage to the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, all 82 counties in Mississippi were declared disaster areas for federal assistance, 47 for full assistance. The storm traveled up the entire state.

And when we talk of damage to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, we are talking entire towns, cities, communities neighborhoods were wiped out, not just flooded - destroyed - left with only slabs, skeletal remains of structures and homes. 90% of the structures within half a mile of the coastline were completely destroyed. The surge was 27 foot and every water way, every drainage ditch, small tributary became a roaring river, neighborhoods never before damaged by storm surge saw the surge and knew the damage. I was 10 miles inland, 2 miles from a small drainage canal and the home I was in took 9 feet of water. It was not just slow moving water, it was surging, rushing waters with waves that carried with it the debris from the structures it had destroyed along the way.

Then you need to remember that Mobile Bay and Bayou Labatre were affected by the storm surge and Mobile and Dauphin Island and Bayou Labatre and the neighborhoods, developments along the Alabama Coast knew damage and destruction thanks to Katrina's actual storm surge (and not due to flooding caused by a broken levy system). Of course, you have to remember that Slidell and neighborhoods along Louisiana's coast line were also severely affected by Katrina, the storm, and not the levy collapse. Then of course you have to remember that Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky and other states knew damage because of Katrina.

Mississippi benefited from the fact that the governor is a republican, there is no doubt. Responses were politicized, as has been the news coverage. Not everything has been perfect in Mississippi but the media doesn't focus on the imperfections and break downs, that is not politically beneficial to the governor or the GOP.

The GAO said the Department of Housing and Urban Development should develop guidelines for future disasters to spell out how the community block funds can be used, after Louisiana and Mississippi went different ways with their money.

In Louisiana, the state adopted a plan "that linked federal funds to home reconstruction and controlled the flow of funds to homeowners, while Mississippi paid homeowners for their losses regardless of their intentions to rebuild," the GAO said.

"This helped Mississippi avoid challenges that Louisiana would encounter, but with fewer assurances that people would actually rebuild," the report said.

"Federal guidance was insufficient to address Louisiana's program and funding designs," the GAO said.

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated about $26.2 billion in CDBG funds to help the Gulf Coast recover from four major storms _ Katrina, Rita, Ike and Gustav.

As for health care funds spent in New Orleans, the GAO said that despite the HHS' grant money, primary care providers still found it hard to find and retain staff and refer patients "outside of their organizations."

"And these challenges have grown since Hurricane Katrina," the GAO said.

"From strengthening case management, to untangling housing funds from bureaucratic red tape, to increasing access to mental health and other primary health care services, these GAO reports shed light on several concrete steps our government must take to improve response and recovery," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who chairs the Senate's subcommittee on disaster response.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2009/07/23/102458.htm

The National Guard was not here when they were needed. In 1969 the Mississippi National Guard saved over 200 residents using amphibious vehicles (DUCS) - that guard was not here on the Coast, they were in Iraq. The few hundred still in the state were kept in Jackson MS until the storm passed. They had to make their way to coast, through the destruction and their first concern were the government facilities. There was no presence to prevent the looting or to help recover and/or rescue those in need.

There was not enough National Guard to prevent the hijacking of gasoline tankers or ice and water trucks. Hell, since so much of Mississippi knew damage and was without power, the law enforcement in regions north of the coast were diverting the relief supplies, they were hording them for their communities - many relief organizations were turned away and/or held up because of the disputes as who had the power and where was the most need.

There was a total failure of command and organization and that failure caused more damage and destruction and illness and deaths.

So yes, Katrina was the costliest storm, natural disaster in US history. Had the levies held, it still would have been a very destructive storm, it still would have been deadly. NOLA may have been spared some of her damage (most in NOLA thought they had been spared) but that doesn't mean the rest of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would have been spared. It probably just means we would have received the news coverage we deserved (and still deserve)
.
http://www.history.com/states.do?action=detail&state=Natural%20Disasters&contentType=State_Generic&contentId=60602&parentId=earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina





http://www.throughtheeyeofthestorm.com/KatrinaFacts.htm

[Hannah Bell]

39. not all of the 1927 damage/loss of life was "natural":

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/868/1927.html

In 1927 as the rivers spilled over, black work gangs were rounded up to toil in dangerous and ultimately pointless attempts to stay the water. In Mounds Landing, Mississippi, north of the main Delta town of Greenville, over 2,000 black men were forced at gunpoint to fill and throw sandbags onto the levee. On April 21, the levee was breached, releasing water with a force greater than Niagara Falls. Many in the work gangs who were reinforcing the levee were swept into the torrent. The official account, by a National Guard officer at the site, stated, “No lives were lost among the Guardsmen.”

Richard Wright’s powerful story, “Down by the Riverside,” captures the nightmare of the 1927 flood. The protagonist watches men wearily toiling on the levees and unloading boats while “behind them stood soldiers with rifles.” When the levee breaks, he sees “the long lines of men merged into one whirling black mass.” Wright’s story describes the desperation and powerlessness of a black flood victim trying to save his family in a hostile world where whites are far more ominous than the awful forces of nature.

The deluge swept away everything in its path. To prevent his tenants from fleeing the desolation, one planter locked them in barns and cotton gin houses. Black people who found shelter in public buildings were driven back into the waters at gunpoint. Thousands of flood victims fled to or were forcibly driven to the narrow crowns of the levees, bringing with them nothing but their debts to the planters. The Percy family, the main planters in Greenville, prevented blacks from boarding barges brought to evacuate the homeless masses for fear of losing their cheap labor force. In the Greenville area alone, 5,000 black people were forced to take shelter in warehouses, stores and similar facilities, while up to 13,000 more lived on an eight-mile-long levee.

The federal government didn’t contribute a dime of direct aid to the thousands of flood victims, despite a record budget surplus. The Red Cross established racially segregated camps in the flood zones. Black families lived in floorless tents in the mud without cots, chairs or utensils, eating inferior rationed food. Sometimes forced to work on the levees without pay, black men had to wear tags identifying that they were laborers in order to receive rations, and to show which plantation they “belonged to.” Women with no working husband did not get supplies unless they had a letter from a white man.

Policing the camps, the National Guard supervised the workers, whipping and beating the men. At least one black woman was gang-raped and killed by Guardsmen. Typhoid, measles, mumps, malaria and venereal diseases ran rampant among destitute tenant farmers and mill workers already weakened from illnesses endemic to poverty, such as tuberculosis and pellagra. The Chicago Defender (4 June 1927) even reported that “those who die are cut open, filled with sand then tossed into the Mississippi River.” Such horrors were stark proof that the poisonous legacy of chattel slavery still infected the land some 60 years after the Civil War.

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/868/1927.html


One of the big white planter families involved was the Farishes (though by this time they were mostly lawyers & politicians) - of the same family as the Farishes who managed both Bush I & II's money in blind trust while they were president.

[tosh]

54. Thank you, merh.

[ddeclue]

5. It was certainly made far worse by negligence and incompetence but it WAS a natural disaster.

The 1900 Galveston Hurricane was made far worse ALSO by negligence and incompetence. The weather service forecaster in Galveston wouldn't give an evacuation order and the town fathers thought the place was invulnerable to flooding. The Galveston storm killed between 8 and 10,000 people.

Likewise the same could be said for the great 1928 hurricane that hit Florida and collapsed the Lake Okechobee dike killing 2500 people (1000 more than Katrina).

All natural disasters have a man made component to them and we should all learn from our mistakes, and negligence and incompetence should be investigated and punished where appropriate but to single out Katrina as being special is really to be ignorant of the history of natural disasters in our country.

If you want to read some good books on Katrina, I recommend : Disaster, the Failure of Homeland Security:

http://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Hurricane-Katrina-Homeland-Security/dp/0805081305

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51eBXe%2BdQjL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

and The Great Deluge:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Deluge-Hurricane-Katrina-Mississippi/dp/0061124230

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510YZKF1CJL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Currently I'm also reading two other books, one on Hurricane Camille in 1969: Roar of the Heavens and the Great 1928 Huricane: Killer Cane

I work for a company that develops comm equipment for disaster response and I've been through 4 hurricanes, including 3 in 2004 here in Orlando so I take this subject very seriously.

[lordsummerisle]

21. Thanks for the book recommendations n/t

[subcomhd]

27. read this?

Amazon.com: Isaac's Storm: A Man, a Time, and the Deadliest Hurricane in History (9780375708275): Erik Larson: Books.
www.amazon.com/Isaacs-Storm-Deadliest.../0375708278

[ddeclue]

29. no but I'll look forward to reading it now that I know about it.

There's also a book out there about the 1935 hurricane that wrecked the Keys railroad that I want to read.

[garthranzz]

41. don't forget BREACH OF FAITH - GREAT BOOK!

[MercutioATC]

7. Let's first identify the biggest issue:

A host of issues make the placement of New Orleans absolutely horrid. It sits in a large bowl at the unembayed mouth of a large river with a huge delta.

As valuable as the location may be for commerce, this is absolutely NO place to house a half a million people.

[sandnsea]

10. Neither is California I guess

Nor Florida nor any of the rest of the Gulf Coast nor East Coast that is below sea level. Nor any of the known tornado alleys, any river port, timbered acreage or location with blizzards and below zero temperatures.

Y'all can't come here. Sorry.

[jtrockville]

36. Don't forget Amsterdam.

[Louisiana1976]

13. How about fault lines, areas prone to fires, near volcanoes, in Tornado Alley, etc.?

Those aren't the greatest places for large populations to live--but people live in such places anyway.

[ddeclue]

15. That sounds nice but the reality is that nowhere is safe from natural disasters

and if we used this as the basis to avoid building we'd have stop living on the North American continent altogether:

The entire eastern and gulf coast are vulnerable to hurricanes, NOT just New Orleans - in fact Manhattan is much more at risk to a hurricane than New Orleans, a fact that few people know. Washington D.C. would also be very vulnerable as well.

The deep south and midwest are vulnerable to tornado outbreaks like the super outbreaks of 1974 and 2008 and every spring they are particularly vulnerable to tornado outbreaks. The deep south is also vulnerable to inland flooding from hurricanes hundreds of miles inland such as happened in Camille in 1969 in West Virginia. In fact the first hurricane I personally experienced occurred in ATLANTA Georgia with Hurricane Opal.

The far west is particularly vulnerable to wildfires.

When someone says "earthquake" we all immediately think "California" but there are faults all over the country and the New Madrid Earthquakes in Missouri in 1811 and 1812 were massive earthquakes dwarfing all but the 1964 quake in Alaska. They were estimated to be 8.0 in magnitude and actually changed the course of the Mississippi River. Were one to occur today, it would be devastating to St. Louis, Memphis and probably even Nashville Tennessee.

Flooding can and does occur any and everywhere in the country and we've seen epic flooding in 1927 and 1993 along the Mississippi/Missouri river system.

And few people even think about volcanoes in the U.S. outside of Mt. St. Helen's and Hawaii but they dot the Northwest. Of particular concern is Mt. Rainer. The sleeping giant that people don't even think about is in Yellowstone National Park. Should this supervolcano erupt it would obliterate everthing within 150 miles and would create a catastrophe covering 2/3'ds of the country in deadly ash. If you live west of the Mississippi, you have a good chance of dying from such an eruption.

And both coasts are vulnerable to tsunamis. If there is a severe slide event in the Canary islands it could devastate the east coast as could a west coast earthquake.

Instead of blaming the victims and singling out New Orleans, consider your own back yard and remember "there but for the grace of God go I". Any of us can be the victim of a natural disaster at any time - you really aren't as safe as you think you are.

[MercutioATC]

19. Read a little about the founding and history of New Orleans.

Of course, there are very few truly "safe" places...but even the French knew that there was really no good site at the mouth of the Mississippi. There are a multitude of natural features and problems that make this site the WORST place to build a city.

This is actually a decent primer on the subject:

http://www.madere.com/history.html#002

[ddeclue]

22. Don't lecture me on what to read.. apparently YOU aren't reading MY posts here

FYI: I'm a degreed engineer, and a licensed pilot - I work for a company that develops disaster response communications systems, I've spent time in Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and I've been through hurricanes Opel, Charley, Frances and Jeanne - and I certainly understand NOLA's elevation issue but it is hardly the most vulnerable place in America and I've ALREADY posted TWO books that I've ALREADY read and recommend to others here about Katrina.

You really need to re-read what I've already posted and think about where YOU live and stop pretending that you're so all fired superior because you "chose" to live in a "safe place" and stop trying to lecture me on a subject on which you apparently know very little. Most people don't get to choose where they live and even when they do, they often have no idea what the real risks are in their own area.

[MercutioATC]

25. Ok, let's follow the progression of this discussion...

The OP states that Katrina was not really the "worst" natural disaster in U.S. history because the levy system (manmade) was more of an issue than the hurricane.

I posit that the REAL issue is the fact that New Orleans is built on some of the absolute WORST real estate possible. It's a virtual "perfect storm" of bad.

You respond that NO place is safe from natural disasters.

I respond that this is true, but New Orleans doesn't just have some drawbacks...it's basically ALL bad. had it not been for its commercial value as a shipping port, even the French never would have considered it. ...and I guess I dared to suggest a short synopsis of the history of New Orleans that I thought illustrated the issues.


...and you respond with "I'm a degreed engineer" and "I've ALREADY posted TWO books that I've ALREADY read and recommend to others here about Katrina"...and THEN suggest that I'm "pretending that I'm so all fired superior because I "chose" to live in a "safe place"???


Jesus! Relax. Congratulations on your engineering degree, but you seem to be basing your reaction to my post on some things that I never stated.

[ddeclue]

26. There's no reason why New Orleans can't be perfectly safe.

Holland has been able to withstand Cat 5 storms since the 1950's because of solid engineering work to protect their "underwater" country.

Your "suggestion" was to imply that I knew nothing of the history or the geography of NOLA and that I hadn't read anything on the disaster - none of which was true so I slapped you down because you deserved it, especially since just a few posts up I had posted TWO books that I recommended to people to read that I had ALREADY read on the subject.

[MercutioATC]

30. Well, methinks you're a little sensitive.

Perhaps we just read forums a little differently.

A thread is like a dinner party to me. If somebody responds to I statement I make, I don't read through every response they've made to everybody else...I respond to what they've said to me.

Your response stated that no place was safe from natural disasters of some sort. I believe that NOLA's situation is a bit more involved than the "no place is perfectly safe" argument adequately addresses...so I responded with a link to what I considered a decent synopsis of my assertion(s).


So no, I hadn't read your discussions with other people in which you recommended "TWO books" on the subject...but, even if I had, I'd still have posted the link that I did.


If you feel the need to "slap me down" for this perceived slight to your expertise and it makes you feel better thinking that you have done so, consider me "slapped down".


...but we still disagree on the issue of the site of NOLA's basic suitability as a major city.

[ddeclue]

33. OK then let's abandon Miami, New York City, Tampa, Washington D.C.,

Charleston, Wilmington, Savannah, Jacksonville, the Keys, Mobile, Biloxi, and Boston because guess what? They are all vulnerable to hurricanes.

Manhattan is particularly vulnerable because subways, tunnels and underground utilities will flood, bridges will become impassible hours before the storm arrives and some may collapse and there won't be any way to escape as a fast moving (60mph forward speed) storm slams into the Hudson estuary and pushes a storm surge into lower Manhattan. A CAT 2 in Manhattan will look like a CAT 4 in Miami.

New Orleans is NOT the most vulnerable city to a hurricane, actually Manhattan is considered #2 and Miami is considered #1.

What will make NYC worse is that nobody expects it to get hit by a storm but historically they have had direct hits by major storms every 75 years and the last major storm to directly hit was in 1938. Unlike Florida where we have them frequently enough to remember them and take them seriously, nobody in the tri-state area has any real memory of a storm like the Great Storm of 1938.

Again my point: Every part of the country is vulnerable to something and New Orleans is by no means unique or even "worst case".

Doug D.

[MercutioATC]

34. When did vulnerability to hurricaines become the topic?

I made a statement on suitability of building site.

Hurricanes are only ONE of the myriad of issues that the Mississippi River delta faces.

NYC may have issues with manmade underground constructs, such as subways, but it's built on bedrock. NOLA is build on silt...that's about 70 feet deep. If the issue is suitability as a building site (which was the issue I raised), the Hudson River delta is far superior to the Mississippi River delta.

[ddeclue]

48. sorry to disappoint you but DHS rates NYC as MORE vulnerable to hurricanes than NOLA

and that (hurricane vulnerability) IS the ONLY issue here. New Orleans has wonderful levees against flooding from the Mississippi and did NOT flood from the Mississippi in either 2005 OR 1993.

Parts of New Orleans are built on reclaimed low ground but parts of it (the French Quarter) are actually above sea level. The problem with the Hudson estuary is that it much more than the Mississippi will amplifly the flooding that results from hurricane storm surge and that will spill over into the streets and subways of NYC.

[MercutioATC]

49. Different studies place NYC between 2nd and 8th most vulnerable.

Usually behind Miami and New Orleans. The ranking depends on the criteria.

I agree that any coastal area in the U.S. has the potential for hurricane damage...and that absolutely ANY location has a potential for natural disasters in general. However, I maintain that New Orleans is built on one of the worst sites in the country. It's a city built in a silt bowl, surrounded by water that frequently rises dramatically. As Lake Pontchartrain is technically not a lake, but an estuary connected to the Gulf of Mexico, the site that a great deal NOLA is built on pretty much qualifies as a coastal swamp. It's not built on bedrock, and it has systematically stripped away what few natural protections it once had.

Combine that with its location in terms of its propensity to see conditions that encourage flooding (hurricanes) and it has no business being there...at least not without being artificially raised above sea level.

[ddeclue]

50. Sorry to disagree but there are a lot of places that "shouldn't be there"

including much of Los Angeles county which is subject to wildfires as we are seeing right now.

The DHS study cited in Disaster: Hurricane Katrina and the Failure of Homeland Security placed NYC at #2.

Here from New York City's OWN website:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms.shtml

Coastal storms, including nor'easters, tropical storms and hurricanes, can and do affect New York City. In fact, New York's densely populated and highly developed coastline makes the city among the most vulnerable to hurricane-related damage.

Due to regional geography, hurricanes in New York City — though infrequent — can do far more damage than hurricanes of similar strength in the southern United States. With sustained winds of 74 mph or greater, hurricanes can flatten buildings, topple trees and turn loose objects into deadly projectiles. Along with torrential rains, storm surge is among a hurricane's most hazardous features. A major hurricane could push more than 30 feet of storm surge into some parts of New York City.


There really aren't any levees in Manhattan to protect lower Manhattan from flooding - there are in New Orleans.

This study puts NYC at #3 instead of #2 but consider also the magnitude of the destruction, NYC is 10x the size of New Orleans (more after Katrina) and it will be far harder to evacuate Manhattan's millions of carless inhabitants in the limited time before a fast moving (60 mph forward speed) Cat 2 hurricane shuts down the bridges.

In 6 hours a storm can move from Cape Hatteras to Manhattan in the right conditions. The bridges will shut down before then due to high winds at the height of their decks and after that they will begin to fail and after that the tunnels will flood when the storm surge arrives. It's truly a nightmare scenario that will make unrubbling New Orleans look like a practice drill.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/38hurricane/hurricane_future.html

According to the United States Landfalling Hurricane Probability Project:


16% probability that NY City/Long Island will be hit with a tropical storm or hurricane in 2009. Normal value is 15%.

10% probability that NY City/Long Island will be hit with a hurricane in 2009. Normal value is 9%.

5% probability that NY City/Long Island will be hit with a major hurricane (category 3 or more) in 2009. Normal value is 4%.

>99.9% probability that NY City/Long Island will be hit with a tropical storm or hurricane in the next 50 years.

99.4% probability that NY City/Long Island will be hit with a hurricane in the next 50 years.
90% probability that NY City/Long Island will be hit with a major hurricane (category 3 or more) in the next 50 years.

A major obstacle to overcome is public complacency. Approximately 78.5% of current New York State coastal residents have never experienced a major hurricane (Hughes). One must remember that in 1938, Long Island was mostly undeveloped. The next time a major hurricane hits, it will be impacting a highly-urbanized region. The last two hurricanes were mild in comparison to the Great Hurricane of 1938. August 19, 1991, Hurricane Bob (category 2) brushed the eastern tip of Long Island and moved into southeastern New England. Because most of Long Island was on the western side of the storm, winds were category 1 strength and the storm surge was minimal.

September 27, 1985, Hurricane Gloria (category 2*) moved across the center of Long Island causing much tree damage and beach erosion. In informal surveys, most people believe that this was a "major hurricane" in the category 3 class when in fact it was a moderate category 2 event. Therefore, there is a misguided sense that Long Island can withstand "strong" hurricanes with only minor inconveniences because few have ever experienced a major hurricane.

...

Experts now believe that after Miami and New Orleans, New York City is considered the third most dangerous major city for the next hurricane disaster. According to a 1990 study by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the city has some unique and potentially lethal features. New York's major bridges such as the Verrazano Narrows and the George Washington are so high that they would experience hurricane force winds well before those winds were felt at sea-level locations. Therefore, these escape routes would have to be closed well before ground-level bridges (Time, 1998). The two ferry services across the Long Island Sound would also be shut down 6-12 hours before the storm surge invaded the waters around Long Island, further decreasing the potential for evacuation.

A storm surge prediction program used by forecasters called SLOSH (Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes) has predicted that in a category 4 hurricane, John F. Kennedy International Airport would be under 20 feet of water and sea water would pour through the Holland and Brooklyn-Battery tunnels and into the city's subways throughout lower Manhattan. The report did not estimate casualties, but did state that storms "that would present low to moderate hazards in other regions of the country could result in heavy loss of life" in the New York City area (Time, 1998).




My point is that New Orleans is in NO way more vulnerable than any other place in America to natural disasters and it is simply wrong headed to run around saying so. Any serious review of the history of disasters in this country shows one thing: they can and DO happen anywhere and everywhere.

Where are you by the way that you are so invulnerable to natural disasters and can look down your nose at the rest of us?

Doug D.

[MercutioATC]

51. I'm curious why you exhibit the continuing need to accuse me of "geographical snobbery".

I'm in the west 'burbs of Cleveland. It may be relatively safe ground, but the facts are the facts...regardless of where I live.

This isn't a contest. I'm not screeching "MY city is better than YOUR city".


The facts remain. New Orleans, as defined by its boundaries, is primarily constructed on alluvial plain, much of it below sea level. It's completely surrounded by water and, without the benefit of artificial drainage (in the form of large pumps), a lot of is would be swampland.

Considering its proximity to the Gulf coast, that makes it a horrendous site for a city.



...and did your OWN post above just state "Experts now believe that after Miami and New Orleans, New York City is considered the third most dangerous major city for the next hurricane disaster. (bold mine)? Third? What happened to your assertion that "New Orleans is NOT the most vulnerable city to a hurricane, actually Manhattan is considered #2 and Miami is considered #1."?


Look, I appreciate that you have a differing opinion. If you're intent on "slapping me down", however, I think that you're doing so from unstable ground (kinda like 70 feet of silt). Your stated "facts" are disagreeing with your stated "facts".

[ddeclue]

55. I'm actually in Orlando, NOT New Orleans

and we are supposed to be the place that people in Florida evacuate TO when hurricanes come - yet in 2004 we were hit three times in Orlando inside of 6 weeks. As I said, NOWHERE is safe from natural disaster. Cleveland could easily be hit by a super outbreak of tornadoes such as happened in 1974 or 2008. You're not as safe as you think you are.

As for studies, I said the DHS study put NOLA at #2, that is NOT the same as the website.

Ultimately NYC (Manhattan) is in a far worse position to deal with a hurricane that New Orleans ever was. If you don't want to read the information and acknowledge that fact, I can't help you with your ignorance of the facts.

Doug D.

[MercutioATC]

57. I had no idea where you lived (nor is it germaine to this discussion)

I agree that NYC is in a bad position to deal with a hurricane....much as Omaha is.

Granted that there's a much greater likelihood that NYC will experience the effects of a hurricane than Omaha...but just as Omaha is a lot less likely to experience the effects of a hurricane than New York is, New York is a lot less likely to experience the effects of a hurricane than a lot of places....including New Orleans.

This discussion has nothing to do with where displaced persons are designated to relocate, either.


Under the right circumstances, you may be correct. NYC may be more "vulnerable" to a hurricane than New Orleans. My point is that New York is less likely to experience a hurricane that would overcome its defenses than New Orleans is....much as Omaha is less likely to experience a hurricane that would overcome its "defenses" than NYC is.

So I concede to your "logic". If NYC experienced a hurricane equal in intensity to Katrina, the effects could have been far worse.


:eyes:

[ddeclue]

58. NYC is not as "unlikely" as you think to be subjected to a major hurricane.

and certainly is far less aware and far less prepared for such an event than the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Comparing Omaha to NYC is not a reasonable comparison of relative probabilities as to NYC to New Orleans. At the best case, the odds are perhaps 10x better that New Orleans will be hit than that NYC will be hit - about once every 75 years according to the historical record. It is nearly impossible that Omaha in the center of the country west of the Mississippi will be hit by a hurricane - yet Omaha is vulnerable to tornado outbreaks and within range of the Yellowstone supervolcano should it erupt.

As to where people are to relocate, I am merely pointing out that even so called "safe places" (such as Orlando) which evacuation destinations are supposed to be are not really as safe as people think.

[MercutioATC]

59. If that's your contention, we're in complete agreement.

My sole point was that NOLA is built on a really bad site...and that the site should probably HEAVILY factor into future plans.

[misanthrope]

35. Are you familiar with what has been happening...

...to the Louisiana coastline over the last 150 years? Before the end of this century, New Orleans will be surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico.

[Louisiana1976]

38. Yes--the wetlands are being washed away at the rate of a football field every half-hour--

that's why Louisiana coastal restoration is such an important issue.

[Cresent City Kid]

17. If the levees were built as they said they were

and there were provisions for evacuating those of us who didn't have vehicles, this would have been a property damage story. Even with the stranded people and the flood, they could have air dropped supplies on Tuesday morning when the weather was clear. It wasn't the placement of New Orleans that caused the tragedy.

By the way, a half a million is just Orleans Parish, the city had a million people.

[Louisiana1976]

23. Yes--and don't get me started on what so-called human beings

in high places did which made the disaster far worse than it otherwise would have been....

[garthranzz]

42. RIGHT ON!!!!!!

[jberryhill]

18. The Dutch Are Just Plain Crazy

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_d9q1ZhPUK6s/SeEQbZ2N5uI/AAAAAAAACS0/5liKncfpoXg/s400/Merrill+-+Rotterdam+flood+gates.jpg

[ddeclue]

24. no they are damned fine engineers and their protection systems

would protect them against even a CAT 5 storm - they haven't had a problem since the 50's.

[JackDragna]

32. Talk to the Dutch.

They somehow manage to build cities in extremely flood-prone areas and they're fine. On top of that, New Orleans might not be the perfect spot for a city, but it's also needed - a huge amount of shipping goes through the city, and it's not easily feasible to have a port of its size further upriver. If we spent the cash to secure it, NO would be fine.

[SmileyRose]

20. IMHO Katrena is not even the worst man-made disaster to hit the US

the generational poverty that breeds hunger, homelessness, mental illness, early death, hopelessness and anger has killed many more people than Katrena did.

[Feron]

28. Katrina and Rita were the worst forest disaster in the U.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111501359.html

In addition, Katrina damaged a lot of trees. The next spring, pine beetles finished off what Katrina didn't kill.

[NecklyTyler]

43. The continued burning of coal to produce electricity will prove to be the greatest disaster

Our slow march through irreversible global warming is happening while we watch. The for profit energy companies have payed off all the right people to look the other way while they pollute the atmosphere with substances that will end civilization as we know it.

[dmallind]

44. Well it wasn't anyway to be honest

The Galveston floods I think still have that dubious honor but could be wrong.

It was probably more expensive, especially in nominal terms, but not as bad overall. Still plenty bad of course, but many more people killed in Galveston.

[slackmaster]

45. It wasn't even close to the worst man-made disaster in US history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

[onenote]

52. every significant disaster could have been less disastrous

had something different been done before,during, or after the event. For example, it had been suggested that a seawall be built to protect Galveston, but those suggestions were ignored/rejected. And when the hurricane hit Galveston, it was only after a series of mistaken judgments by the weather service about where the hurricane was heading had delayed evaculations.

Yes, the impact of Katrina on NOLA was far greater than it needed to be. And, yes, some day another big storm or earthquake or other natural event will occur that will cause more damage than it could/should have because of decisions made before, during and after the event.

[Overseas]

53. That's what I was thinking when I read your headline --

NATURAL is the key word. I agree, sadly, that it was man-made. Deliberate neglect. Warnings had been issued about the levies.

But the Bush Gang had prioritized war profiteering over all other activities.

And seemed loyal to the Grover Norquist dictum-- make people dislike government; destroy the departments that work best (like FEMA-- appoint your campaign buddies to head them, and under-fund them) so people will feel again and again on a gut level that government just doesn't work; then you can cut those damn taxes and give money back to those chosen by The Lord to be Rich and Powerful.

[bertman]

56. Natural disasters are going to get worse and worse and not necessarily because they are

more violent than previous ones but because we measure everything in terms of economic and human impact. Now there are more humans and more buildings and more infrastructure packed into more places on this crazy little anthill of a planet. In 1919, the population of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) was nowhere near what it is now. Same thing with Miami or New Orleans or Hong Kong.

The level of natural devastation that is going to be wreaked on our modern, over-populated world is going to be mindbogglingly good teevee. And it's going to be good for the big engineering companies like KBR and Halliburton. You wait and see.

The same groups are going to suffer who always suffer: the poor and the poorer.