and import the gondolas.
Posted on 11/23/2005 3:39:00 PM PST by Ellesu
ST. LOUIS - St. Louis University geologist Timothy Kusky may want to stay put for Mardi Gras.
Interviewed Sunday on the CBS program "60 Minutes," Kusky said New Orleans is sinking and should be rebuilt elsewhere.
The New Orleans Times Picayune on Tuesday put a photo of him on its front page, his eyes baggy and eyebrows furrowed, with the headlines "Not so fast `60 Minutes'" and "Five experts say the report on the demise of New Orleans is way off the water mark."
Kusky has received hundreds of threatening e-mails and phone messages.
"They're saying, `Come down here and we'll kick your butt,' or `You better watch where you walk.' A lot of vulgarity," Kusky said.
In the Sunday program, Kusky was quoted as saying New Orleans in 90 years will be a "fishbowl" surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico "because New Orleans is going to be 15 to 18 feet below sea level, sitting off the coast of North America surrounded by a 50- to 100-foot-tall levee system to protect the city."
Before the program aired, the hurricane recovery chief for Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco asked "60 Minutes" to hold the segment, saying there were many scientists who disagreed with Kusky's comments.
One of those is Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who says that Kusky's comments are "outrageous" exaggerations.
"(Kusky's) advice was to `abandon now,'" Boesch said. "This disaster he's predicting - New Orleans surrounded by the Gulf - could take place but it's certainly not going to take place this century."
Kusky stands by his comments.
"The New Orleans and Louisiana governments are really opposed to hearing this - they think that hearing that the city is still sinking will mean they will get billions less in reconstruction money," Kusky said in an e-mail.
There are many uncertainties to the issue - different sinking rates for different periods of time for different parts of Louisiana. But University of Missouri at Rolla geological engineer J. David Rogers says there's no uncertainty that it's happening:
"It's sinking like crazy. There's nobody in the profession that's unaware of that. There's no debate over that," he said.
New Orleans sinks for several reasons. The main reason is that much of the city is built on swampy, peaty material that compacts as it is drained. The weight of levee systems also adds to the sinking, as does the weight of thousands of years of Mississippi River silt.
Now, levees keep that silt out and send it out the mouth of the Mississippi. There isn't any new stuff to wash over Louisiana and keep pace with the sinking.
Two other factors make New Orleans vulnerable. Fewer coastal wetlands - which act like barrier sponges - make hurricane storm surges more severe. Finally, global sea levels are rising and could accelerate.
Parts of New Orleans are already 10 feet below sea level. Kusky said he based his comments on many studies, including the work of Virginia Burkett of the U.S. Geological Survey, which shows New Orleans sinking five more feet below sea level by 2100 (including a rise in sea level).
Kusky said other studies have shown that every year a Louisiana coastal area about half the size of St. Louis disappears, which explains his "fishbowl" comment.
But Boesch says a paper by Burkett - one of the same sources that Kusky cites - shows that even the parts of New Orleans most vulnerable to sinking dropped only 17 inches from 1951 to 1995. He says that the sinking rates have slowed down as the peaty material has become mostly compacted.
Boesch also criticizes Kusky for weighing in on an area outside of his expertise.
Kusky's specialty is old deep sea rocks found in China. He has not worked in coastal Louisiana. But he has published a book on natural disasters and says he's not the "unqualified geologic fool" that some residents have called him.
"My intent is to help," he said. "They're in a state of denial."
Boesch acknowledges that he has an emotional connection to the city - he grew up in New Orleans and went to Tulane University.
Rogers said it can be dangerous for a scientist to suggest rebuilding New Orleans elsewhere. He himself hedges, saying only that relocation is a "viable option."
This article gives me a sinking feeling.
It was a dumb thing to say but it certainly doesn't excuse threats.
I said pretty much the same thing in a Post here ,on Free Republic, and although I didnt get threatened I was called some pretty bad names. Mostly stupid and that i didnt know what I was talking about.
Anyone with a thinking brain would say its easier to rebuild one time on higher ground than to spend a ton of money on Levees another ton of money on rebuilding and then have to rebuild again after the next Cat. 4 hurricane.
The State Government should give landowners new lots on an acre for acre basis and have them build where its safe.
I learned around 30 years ago to NEVER, FOR ANY REASON, get interviewed FOR ANYTHING by 60 Minutes. Don't even let them on your property.
You've got that right!!!!
Perhaps not surrounded, but NO was most certainly filled with the Gulf just a few weeks ago. Relocation sounds pretty good to this taxpayer.
"This disaster he's predicting - New Orleans surrounded by the Gulf - could take place but it's certainly not going to take place this century."
The problem is that NOLA is already 300 years old. Current planning needs to consider a 300-year view, lest NOLA become an abandoned city like some Mayan ruin.
In addition, those last 50 years before it "takes place" will be horrible expensive and incredibly dangerous.
why was it dumb? if it's sinking, it's sinking, and whether it happens in 20, 50 or 100 years, we're being asked to put hundreds of millions into its rebuilding ... how does it hurt to look into that rebuilding not being such a great idea ?
Water sweeping in over the levees and drowning the city? That could never happen.
Stand tough, New Orleans. If anyone tells you the risk of life-below-sea-level, just deny it.
We aren't China and we don't force people off their property to build cities. It won't cost billions of dollars to relocate a city, it will cost trillions.
Should we relocate California cities as well? There will be major earthquakes in the future. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis so I guess we better relocate all the rest of our coastal cities as well.
In any case it isn't going to happen anyway. It's a fantasy just like the Easter bunny.
LOL - I've visited many of the villages out in the (fast-disappearing) Louisiana marsh where boats are their only means of transportation. Not a way of life I'd choose, but most of these nice people wouldn't even imagine living any other way.
Yeah. Grow gills.
Some people just can't deal with the truth....
"Anybody who wants to rebuild south of I-10 should be on there own,"
I agree, if anything the city will slowly die but even that is debatable due to the fact that it's one of the worlds busiest port cities.
The people of New Orleans just don't want to listen to the truth. I don't mind if they want to continue living below sea leval but don't expect the American people to pay to rebuild a city that we know will be destroyed by another hurricane or flood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.