Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MsLady

It would be much more expensive to intentionally flood New Orleans than it would be to intentionally flood some farmland.


17 posted on 05/11/2011 8:24:00 AM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: trumandogz
In the long run, the cheapest option may be to move New Orleans to a new location -- one which is less flood prone.

IMO, it's a troubled city in a bad location.

21 posted on 05/11/2011 8:29:07 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The USSR spent itself into bankruptcy and collapsed -- and aren't we on the same path now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: trumandogz

I suppose but, how hard is it to control something like water? The end results can be good or bad. My guess is there is now good way of predicting that. I feel terrible for the people that are caught in this. What a mess. The thing about building cities in flood areas is, some of those areas don’t flood very often. I would think you could say the same thing about earthquake zones. Unless it’s an area that gets flood pretty often, like maybe ever decade, I’d say just stay put but, be prepared and try to get flood insurance if you can.


36 posted on 05/11/2011 8:41:08 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson