Posted on 02/05/2006 10:38:58 AM PST by CobaltBlue
However, the levees were designed and built by the feds. The levees failed due to a defect in design. Hence, the breach in the levees is the feds' fault. Ergo, the feds should pay for the damages caused by the breach in the levees. And it should be done correctly, not Dubya's solution of throw money at the problem and then stop discussing it.
Sorry, but that is not correct when it comes to NOLA and the Mississippi coast. Katrina's surge was pushed up into Ponchatrain and then down into NOLA as the storm passed to the east. Mississippi had no coastal marshes - they were built up on the beaches.
I do agree it is important to address subsidence. But most of the problems with subsidence come from levees. But levees are what make most of NOLA possible. So how do you address that contradiction?
Move most of NOLA, IMO.
Dan Juneau, president of the Louisiana Association of Business & Industry
Last week, the governor initiated a new approach to seeking federal funds, but she isn't playing from a position of strength. In a statement pushing for a larger share of oil and gas revenues from offshore drilling beyond Louisiana's coastline, the governor hinted that she might attempt to block future federal offshore lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.
In poker terminology, that was a very strong "reraise" coming from the governor, just short of going "all in."
Blanco isn't the first elected official from Louisiana to push for a larger share of offshore revenues. For decades, our state leaders and congressional delegations have attempted to up Louisiana's share of the Gulf of Mexico petroleum bounty. No one questions the fact they have meritorious arguments. Louisiana isn't treated equally with other states when it comes to dividing the offshore royalty pie.
The problem stems back to the Truman administration when offshore drilling was just beginning in earnest. Truman offered Louisiana control of the first three miles beyond the coast and a percentage of oil and gas royalties coming from beyond that. At the time, Leander Perez was the political boss of Plaquemines Parish, and he wielded considerable influence in state government. Allegedly, Perez got the state to hold out for all or nothing, Truman didn't blink and we got what we now have. (Talk about overplaying a bad hand.)
Decades have passed and the federal government has grown quite dependent on the $6 billion it gets annually from offshore oil and gas activity. Even when Louisiana had more clout in its congressional delegation and greater access to the president, we were unsuccessful in changing the offshore revenue allocation formula.
Blanco has introduced the element of threat into the game and President Bush and Congress will respond to her gambit. Unfortunately, they probably aren't trembling.
It takes an act of Congress to change the offshore oil and gas royalty and severance allocations, which means Blanco and our congressional delegation will need to secure a majority vote in Congress and President Bush's signature on any bill that passes.
Could that happen? Yes.
Is it likely to happen? About as likely as a 2-3 has of beating a pair of aces in an "all in" battle in Texas Hold'em.
Would you mind explaining that? I havent seen anyone on Free Republic begging for money.
Uh, not likely. Wilma actually got stronger over the Everglades, for example.
What marshes provide is an area for surge to be mitigated. But the surge that hit Mississippi and NOLA did not pass over Plaquimens and St. Bernard Parishes - the NOLA surge came from the SE as the storm's circulation pushed the surge into Ponchatrain and then down into NOLA.
The "non-offshores" outnumber the "offshores" 28 to 22. I don't include the big lake states in this equation. The "non-offshore" states are getting plenty of free money from the offshore states as it is. They would not vote to change unless fuel cost went up enough to strangle their economies. That still doesn't mean that Louisiana can't decide that offshore drilling is not in it's best interest and ban it.
c'mon, d.b., 250 billion would probably only be about $500,000 per affected individual! (sarc)
Uh, no, I am not. Surge moves upwards to the right of the eye. Which means it was moving over open water and up to both the Mississippi coast and into Ponchatrain.
But you may be paying Iran $150 for oil we used to provide at $30.
And I have said repeatedly on this thread that I think the problems in Louisiana need to be fixed once and fixed right.
I agree that LA can make some decisions and take some actions... But in the long run they must decide was is best for their long term future especially when and if they need the agreements from several other states, etc for funding or changes in the allocation process. jmo.
People as a whole have no idea of the destruction that was caused by Katrina and Rita. Most have never seen an entire city and surrounding area wiped out, laid waste to and then struggle to try and rebuild.
I'm impacted by Rita and to this day haven't been settled out by the insurance company, thus I'm living in out of town in an apartment that was as close as I could get back to my home area. Motels and apartments are still not available, just like in the impacted areas of LA. In our area look for maybe as high as 40% of the small businesses to never reopen. At some point others will take their place but it will be some time before recovery is anywhere near complete. Louisiana will be even longer, but I've got faith that in the long run they'll come through.
The same way Galveston solved the same problem 100 years ago. You fill in the areas that are below sea level with dirt until they are no longer below sea level, then build on top of the dirt. Simple.
The best way to preserve the wetlands would be to end the channelization of the Mississippi which prevents flooding from replenishing the wetlands with new silt and ceasing the heroic and each year exponentially more expensive actions to keep the Mississippi from seeking it's natural outflow through the Atachafalaya rather than articially down through New Orleans.
It's true that Louisiana can't change the law singlehandedly.
But -- the editorial isn't about changing the law. It's about declaring a moratorium on new leases.
Can Louisiana do it? Maybe -- under the principles of federalism, health, safety and welfare are the provenance of the states, not the federal government.
See, for example, the governor of West Virginia, who just shut down the coal mines for safety reasons.
I don't expect Louisiana oil men to like the idea. They never did like the idea of paying one penny for coastal recovery.
Then remove the levees and the problem is gone. Don't rebuild on below-sea-level land. Let the Mississippi naturally flow into the Atachafalaya basin as it already wants to do and you won't have to worry about New Orleans flooding any more either. Win - win, for everybody.
Galveston is not build upon subsiding deltaic deposits. Once the island was raised twelve feet, it stayed there.
NOLA and the entire delta region are sinking because levees prevent sediment from being deposited. But you cannot keep NOLA dry without levees.
Opening up the Old River locks and letting the Mississippi go through the Atchafalaya would shut down all the oil refineries and petrochemical plants south of New Roads.
Get out your map and take a look. Old River is north of Baton Rouge.
If you think oil prices went up due to Katrina, that's a tiny fraction of what they'd do if every refinery and every petrochemical plant had to shut down because they didn't have running water, and the river silted up so no shipping.
Get real.
Well, the Mississippi will probably re-route itself down the Atchafalaya basin in the next 50 years - it almost did so in the 1973 floods.
So IMO we should build a canal parallelling the Atchafalaya (to the west of the stream) and build a port above the point where the Atchafalaya splits off the main river channel. And take the historic and critical industrial parts of NOLA and protect those - and work on creating an industrial ark between the two locations.
And then we can let the river loose below NOLA and allow critical sedimentation to occur.
And your solution would be to build on land already 10 feet below sea level so that in two decades you are no longer 10 feet below sea level but are now 15 feet below sea level. Subsidence is not stopping.
Galveston solved this very problem 100 years ago. Without federal money either.
See my post #98 - sooner or later that's gonna happen against our will - so we should start preparing for that day now. The debate over NOLA will become absolutely moot the day the Mississippi pushes aside Old River Control. Best we start getting ready for it now.
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.