Posted on 09/23/2006 8:22:42 AM PDT by UpTurn
It would be less expensive to move New Orleans north, out of the flood plain, restore the natural course of the Mississippi (get rid if the levees) where it will then rebuild the sandy marshlands (they act as a wind and water break from Hurricane-fed ocean surges); than it would be to continue to try to "protect" New Orleans.
If you additionally consider what may become of the current, and very natural, warming climate trend, the rise of the Gulf waters and the Mississippi delta just might eventually swamp any levee system there.
Maybe it is time for some radical ideas.
I do like the diversion at empire idea. A couple of town would have to be sacrificed but it looks like the best solution. It seems that dredging on a occasional basis whereever the main channel go by nature would solve the Navigation problem
"I do like the diversion at empire idea."
Empire???
What am I missing?
Empire, Louisiana. It's a little town way down there.
Completely at odds with
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706724/posts
Katrina, Rita Actually Helped Wetlands, Study Says
Thanks. My Lousiana geography is not that good and I skipped over alot of little details in the article.
Why not both?
TT
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.