[balch3]

1. Both these areas ARE in Louisiana, so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

2. Letting the area between Baton Rouge and New Orleans flood would be an economic catastrophe for the United States. Not doing anything would cost you, yes you, in more ways than you can imagine.

3. I don’t know why I even bother with these threads. People are going to believe what they want to believe, the facts be damned.

[Rebelbase]

Yep. Some posters would rather see all the refineries and petro chem plants along the Mississippi destroyed if it meant taking New Orleans with it.

[Emperor Palpatine]

"Ten thousand river commissions, with the mines of the world at their back, cannot tame that lawless stream, cannot curb it or confine it, cannot say to it, 'Go here,' or 'Go there,' and make it obey. These West Point engineers cannot succeed in caging the beast. They imagine that they can fetter and handcuff that river and boss him. They might as well bully the comets in their courses and undertake to make them behave, as try to bully the Mississippi into right and reasonable conduct."

-Mark Twain

[subterfuge]

Sorry I annoyed you. Wasn’t necessarily commenting on this particular action being taken. It just seems like the federal government (taxpayer) is going to forever be responsible for protecting a well populated area that just happens to be under sea-level.

I read another article today about the planned flooding where someone said ‘Bush did nothing about NOLA/Katrina’ and that “neither president did,” whatever that meant.

When the place you live floods, one moves, I would think.