Replies

I have some friends from Norleans, and I feel sorry for them, and for any other innocent victims of the hurricane. But I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Norleans in general. The place had turned into a currupt gang of layabouts and grafters. And to tell the truth, even my friends are political moonbats, somewhere to the left of Lenin and Mao.

First, know this. New Orleans is not Louisiana anymore than New York City is New York, Los Angles is California or Chicago is Illinois. Second, Louisiana's coast and the New Orleans levees are totally different issues. The Fed's are collecting billions annually at the expense of the coast that also protects (or used to) Mississippi and Texas. The Fed's also designed and constructed the levees that failed but I shall allow Orleanans to take up that topic.

My issue is coastal reconstruction. Louisiana has been asking for Federal help to preserve the wet lands since the 1950 and never got lip service for the effort. Louisiana waters go out only three miles and only gets 3% of the revenue from offshore production beyond those three miles. Other states' waters go as far out as ten miles and they get as much as 50% of the revenue derived from Federal leases.

The canals dug to lay pipelines reaching from platforms in Federal waters passes through the marshes to onshore processing facilities. Those canals allow salt water intrusion that kills vegetation and causes erosion. Tidal actions in those man-made pipeline canals wash the wet lands into the Gulf.

Out argument is: The Fed's are making billions and destroying us in the process. Katrina's damage is what we have feared since the wet lands began to disappear decades ago. It not only made the storm worse for Louisiana but also Mississippi. No mater how strong any storm is in the Gulf it will weaken as it departs the waters. If the marshes had still been there Katrina would have weakened more and and had a lesser effect on Louisiana and Mississippi.

If you can't afford the cost of coastal restoration, thats fine, we understand. No hard feelings here. Do what is in your best interest and work yourselves a deal with the Middle East. We have to do what is in our best interest and move aggressively to preserve the balance of our wet lands for our survivable. Our best interest happens to be precluding further offshore development without protecting our coast.

If the marshes had still been there Katrina would have weakened more and and had a lesser effect on Louisiana and Mississippi.

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.

Louisiana has been asking for Federal help to preserve the wet lands since the 1950 and never got lip service for the effort.

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.