Katrina vs. Tsunami - I'm skeptical.

[jmercer]

I was listening to CNN this morning, and there was a debate about the Katrina response going on. A comment during that discussion prompted me to do a little research. Here's what I found:

Tsunami - Dec 26, with little warning, a tsunami hit Asia, destroying and displacing millions of people and destroying homes and property. Relief and aid began to trickle in by December 28, 2 days later; by December 29, the flow of aid, food and water began to increase as efforts ramped up. By Jan 1, relief began to reach the worst-hit areas, primarily due to the arrival a US aircraft carrier that provided airlift support for supplies and equipment.

Here's the timeline of events (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4154791.stm) according to the BBC.

Katrina - On August 27, the National Hurricane Center in Miami announced a hurricane watch for Louisiana; President Bush declared a state of emergency in Louisiana. At 5 PM, the mayor of New Orleans called for a voluntary evacuation of the city.

On August 28, Katrina was classified as a catagory 4 storm, and mandatory evacuation of New Orleans was announced. The city of Chicago offered assistance to the Federal Government (see link below and follow the link for the 28'th), which was apparently refused.

And as we have all witnessed, relief didn't begin to trickle into New Orleans until 5 days after Katrina hit.

Here's the Timeline (http://www.indybay.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=3561&category_id=16) as per Indybay.

So, on the one hand, we have an unanticipated distant event that was also geographically broad in it's impact, and every bit as severe as Katrina. (If not more so.) Even without warning - despite the logistics involved with an area thousands of miles away - aid began to arrive in 2 days, and became substantial in 3 days. Even the worst-hit remote areas began to see significant relief in 5 days.

On the other hand, we have Katrina; an anticipated event with almost 48 hours of notice, affecting a geographically broad area (and one major US city), but one physically within the continential United States.

Yet the first organized trickle of relief and aid didn't show up - as we have all witnessed in the news - until 5 days after the event.

I'm skeptical that our government acted appropriately, especially since it's clear that we can (and did) react in a shorter timeframe to a distant disaster. From my perspective, we should have logically been able to respond even faster to something within our own borders; especially since the President declared a state of disaster in Louisiana two days before the storm struck.

I would like to hear opinions both pro and con on this.

[LTC8K6]

Well, there was basically no local or state response at all in LA. Apparently no local or state preparation, either.

I don't think FEMA is supposed to be a first responder.

[jmercer]

The local response was to evacuate, first voluntarily, then manadatory. Although I haven't heard it specifically said, it's reasonable to assume that the city government notified all their agencies (including law enforcement and rescue/fire response) to prepare to deal with a disaster. I know that the city contacted the state and asked for the National Guard to be called out in advance, which was denied. Other than that, I fail to see what the local government could have done further.

The state government, however, clearly failed. Regarding FEMA, also granted - they're not first responders.

I contend, though, that the federal government also failed; the administrative arm of the government exists to deal with issues of immediacy, such as war, disaster, etc. - items that Congress would simply be too cumbersome to react to quickly.

[Lisa Simpson]

I think FEMA is supposed to be a first responder. From http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

About 2,500 full-time employees in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate are supplemented by more than 5,000 stand-by disaster reservists.

and

On March 1, 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FEMA's continuing mission within the new department is to lead the effort to prepare the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.

I think the fault lies on several fronts.

Not enough pre-disaster planning. This disaster wasn't a matter of if, but when. Here in CA we plan for earthquakes and brush fires.

Second, the mayor didn't use school buses to evacuate people.

Third, half the NO police department abandonded their posts. With half the police missing, local authorities had an even harder time quelling the looting and violence.

Next, the federal government didn't step in quickly enough. How long was it before the National Guard was called in? During the Los Angeles riots, the National Guard was called in that first night. Of course, it was the governor who called up the National Guard during the riots, so perhaps that was the LA governor's fault.

It's amazing to me that this could happen here. Of course, we are well prepared for fires (9/11, Northridge earthquake are all essentially fire-based disasters) but we aren't prepared as well for floods.

[Neutiquam Erro]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Well, there was basically no local or state response at all in LA. Apparently no local or state preparation, either.

I don't think FEMA is supposed to be a first responder.

It is apparent that there was no effective state or local response, and that this was undoubtedly the result of inadequate preparation (destruction of Emergency Services infrastructure should have been taken into account). However, given the overriding national interest in the security of this region, it's difficult for me to understand the rationale behind such a heavy reliance on the local authorities for disaster preparations, especially in an area where, for whatever reasons, the local resources were unlikely to be up to the task.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I think FEMA is supposed to be a first responder. From http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm


Good points, Lisa - and I wasn't aware that FEMA's role had been changed with the advent of Homeland Security. "initiates proactive mitigation activities" has a lot of possible interpretations, but I take it as "Do whatever you can to prepare to respond to a disaster if you can anticipate it happening."

Regarding the city, I now remember hearing that the school buses weren't used, which is clearly a failure on local government's part. Not to mention amazingly stupid. :(

As far as the police abandonment goes... I know there was some abandoment, but I was under the impression that it was after the fact when things got so bad that the police were being overwhelmed by the thugs with guns... and the police were actually looting the gun stores to keep the ammo out of the thug's hands. I'm not disputing it, but I'd like to see a source for saying 50% abandoned their posts - that's a helluva chunk of people. I don't know that the (by then utterly collapsed) local government could have done about it, though...

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by jmercer


As far as the police abandonment goes... I know there was some abandoment, but I was under the impression that it was after the fact when things got so bad that the police were being overwhelmed by the thugs with guns... and the police were actually looting the gun stores to keep the ammo out of the thug's hands. I'm not disputing it, but I'd like to see a source for saying 50% abandoned their posts - that's a helluva chunk of people. I don't know that the (by then utterly collapsed) local government could have done about it, though...

I heard it on CNN yesterday. This is from their website.

Officials said Monday that between 400 to 500 officers were unaccounted for, many tending to their homes or looking for their families, and some dropping out. To lessen the stress, officers were being cycled off duty and given five-day vacations in Las Vegas and Atlanta, where they also would receive counseling.

NO had a police force of 1,600 officers.

[jmercer]

Wow - thanks. That's utterly overwhelming... does the bad news ever end on this?

[LTC8K6]

The police were participating in the looting as well. There is videotape of police looting a store.

Here are the 100's of school buses that could have been of great service before and after the hurricane. Instead they were left to be flooded with their valuable diesel fuel leaking away to contaminate the area further.

http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eidkfa/bus2.jpg

http://home.mchsi.com/%7Eidkfa/bus1.jpg

http://www.algintech.com/DomeBuses.jpg


Corrections of misinfo regarding levee completeness and funding.

http://www.usace.army.mil/PA-09-01.pdf

[TjW]

Did they have the fuel to run the buses? I'm not arguing, because I don't know. Most fuel tanks here in California are underground. I don't know what happens when you put a couple of feet of water over an underground tank. I suspect you might get the fuel contaminated with water. Did they have manual pumps or a generator backup to get even uncontaminated fuel out? I'm pretty sure the electricity was out.
Fueling trucks from the airport would probably be able to fill the buses, since they generally pump from a power takeoff of the engine, but I don't know that they can fill themselves.
You could probably run a diesel bus on Jet-A, but the injector pumps might take a beating.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by TjW
Did they have the fuel to run the buses? I'm not arguing, because I don't know. Most fuel tanks here in California are underground. I don't know what happens when you put a couple of feet of water over an underground tank. I suspect you might get the fuel contaminated with water. Did they have manual pumps or a generator backup to get even uncontaminated fuel out? I'm pretty sure the electricity was out.
Fueling trucks from the airport would probably be able to fill the buses, since they generally pump from a power takeoff of the engine, but I don't know that they can fill themselves.
You could probably run a diesel bus on Jet-A, but the injector pumps might take a beating.

Well... with a little thought, they could have topped off the tanks before the storm hit and they lost electricity. Those buses could have loaded up and moved people far enough out of the storm damaged area to make further fueling possible. Even after that, diesel can be brought in by the barrel and hand-pumped.

Both you and LT make good points; first, that the buses existed for logistical use, but were not, and second, it would be foolish to underestimate the logistics of using the buses regardless.

Good posts, both of you - thanks. :)

[LTC8K6]

Well, the buses should have been taking people out of the area before the hurricane hit. When the hurricane got near, the buses could have been used to take people to the superdome.

Some of the buses could have been parked nearby, but out of the flood bowl. Some could have been taken 100 miles North or West, to be brought into use again as soon as possible after the storm abated.

Before being driven out of the area, the buses could have been loaded with food and water, which would then be used when the buses were driven back into the area after the storm.

Quite a bit of this stuff is in the plan the local and state officials were supposed to follow.

It was really over the top to hear Mayor Nagin hollering that he needed buses.......

I think the coming Katrina commission is going to place most of the blame on the Mayor and the Governor, with some on FEMA's tardiness.

[Blondin]

Just a few questions:

How long was it after the hurricane hit that the levees failed?

What was the delay between the event and the actual flooding?

Is it possible that some of the slowness to respond was due to failure to realize the scope of the damage?

I'm not trying to mitigate onus on anybody's behalf. Just looking for lessons to be learned. I remember reading that in 1975 when cyclone Tracy wiped out the city of Darwin, Australia, three days went by before the rest of the country even realized what had happened. Everybody knew the storm was coming and they knew when it hit but they must have assumed that no news was good news. Nobody reckoned on there being no infrastructure or communications with which to call for help.

I know that aerial surveillance and cellphones make this an entirely different situation but I got the impression that the seriousness of the situation seemed to take a day or two to become apparent for some reason.

[jmercer]

Maybe - but I suspect it will be mostly State and Federal taking the blame for a number of reasons.

First, this was a multi-state disaster; while we have focused on N.O. as the worst situation, it's hardly the only area devastated... a disaster of this size requires the resources of the national government to address.

Second, it's clear from the extent of the destruction that even if 100% of New Orleans had been evacuated, relocation, care and feeding of the displaced would still have been a logistical and tactical nightmare on a scale that - once again - requires the resources of a national government. The actual events that transpired only heighten the need, rather than allieviate it.

Lastly, when local government collapses into anarchy and State government fails to intervene, the Federal government is responsible for imposing order. In my opinion, all three levels of government failed to meet their obligations in a timely manner. Of the three, I hold the one with the fewest resources least accountable.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Blondin
Just a few questions:

How long was it after the hurricane hit that the levees failed?

What was the delay between the event and the actual flooding?

Is it possible that some of the slowness to respond was due to failure to realize the scope of the damage?

I'm not trying to mitigate onus on anybody's behalf. Just looking for lessons to be learned. I remember reading that in 1975 when cyclone Tracy wiped out the city of Darwin, Australia, three days went by before the rest of the country even realized what had happened. Everybody knew the storm was coming and they knew when it hit but they must have assumed that no news was good news. Nobody reckoned on there being no infrastructure or communications with which to call for help.

I know that aerial surveillance and cellphones make this an entirely different situation but I got the impression that the seriousness of the situation seemed to take a day or two to become apparent for some reason.

Most of the disaster was carried live on multiple major networks while it happened. People could not only see examples of how bad things were, but were also provided information about reports of the levee breaking and flooding as they came in. Sadly, the national news networks were better informed than the rule(8) governments were.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Blondin
Just a few questions:

How long was it after the hurricane hit that the levees failed?

According to the timeline in the OP--"Monday 8/29: As the hurricane hit the coast, news reports were sparse. First reports that came in reported that since the storm was downgraded to a category 4 storm damage was expect to be less than was feared. Levees broke in the late morning but much of the city remained unflooded. "

What was the delay between the event and the actual flooding?

"Tuesday 8/30:But overnight one of its protective levees buckled beneath the weight of water from nearby Lake Pontchartrain and broke open in two places." On Tuesday, President Bush delivered a speech on the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and mainly talked about the need to "stay the course" in Iraq. "

Is it possible that some of the slowness to respond was due to failure to realize the scope of the damage?

"Wedneday 8/31:Mayor Ray Nagin said pumps were being overwhelmed and warned that a new deluge would bury the city in up to 15 feet of water. With solid water from the lake to the French Quarter"

By Wednesday they certainly knew it was a major disaster.

[jmercer]

And while I understand that the government can't act on news reports, the stuff I saw on the air the day Katrina hit should have goosed them into action.

It was obvious to me that New Orleans was in serious trouble pretty darned quickly.

[Beady]

(mild derail)

There's something about the question of preparedness (or lack of) that I've been curious about.

One of the problems was that the pumps to be used to dewater the city were (are?) installed under the flood level. My immediate reaction when hearing this was, "So what?" The German navy learned how to operate diesels underwater in WW2; the technology is 60+ years old.

Am I missing something?

[CurtC]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
"Wedneday 8/31:Mayor Ray Nagin said pumps were being overwhelmed and warned that a new deluge would bury the city in up to 15 feet of water. With solid water from the lake to the French Quarter"Solid water? French Quarter?

When hell freezes over!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Thanks for the timeline - I was confused about that as well. I just recall the reports from Monday, that the big news was that there were holes in the roof of the Superdome leaking. At that time, I mentally filed the hurricane under "no big deal." Then the news started coming in about the damage in Mississippi, and it became a bigger deal.

So are there estimates of the numbers killed in Mississippi?

And of the people killed in Louisiana, how many were killed by the violence of the storm itself, and how many by being trapped by rising waters? Yesterday the number 10,000 came out, which seems *way* high for either portion.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by CurtC
Solid water? French Quarter?

When hell freezes over!



If you want to go to hell
You should take a trip
To the Soddom and Gommorah on the Mississipp!
New Orleans!

Sorry, I couldn't resist, either.

[LTC8K6]

Well, Blanco declared a state of emergency on the 26th, yet there apparently was no local mobilization.

Presumably, they had nearly three whole days to get the LA NG moving and to put some of those buses to good use for those who did not have vehicles.

This timeline is more accurate, I think.

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/category/katrina-timeline/

[jmercer]

Pump failure answers... (http://www.rednova.com/news/display?id=229386&source=r_science)

RedNova
Some flood-control pumps were broken, choked by excess water or storm debris. Others were lacking power needed to run. Roofs were reported collapsed on at least two pumping stations. Without the pumps, much of the flood water will have nowhere to drain in this city cradled in a bowl, an average of 6 feet below sea level.

[LTC8K6]

Well, they started pumping earlier today and have already made a bit of progress.

I wonder about the logic of these pumps if they don't have their own reliable power source and more secure buildings. They are critical items, after all.

It just seems like the most basic common sense that you will have mains power failures around the time you need these pumps, so you have to have alternate power for them.

Incidentally, you have to be careful not to pump the water out too fast or you can cause levee failure all over again.

[jmercer]

Well, that's good news, at any rate. Regarding the pumps - I couldn't find any specific details on them, but I believe CNN said they were designed and built many years ago - and by many, I mean over 50.

But like I said, I can't find anything to prove/disprove that.

[LTC8K6]

You have to pump the water out slowly enough to give the saturated levees time to drain. If you go too fast, you will have a very weak saturated levee trying to hold back the water.

I hope that politics does not trump safety.

[jmercer]

Sorry, I wasn't challenging your point about pumping speed - the way I wrote my post, I can see where the confusion came from. :)

I was speaking about my comment concerning the age of the pumping system and how I couldn't find any proof regarding it. The "at any rate" was just a phrase I used thoughtlessly.

Ack! :)

[LW]

Originally posted by Beady
My immediate reaction when hearing this was, "So what?" The German navy learned how to operate diesels underwater in WW2; the technology is 60+ years old.

Am I missing something?

Well, the "combustion" part of an internal combusion engine tends to require oxygen and warm enough temperature, both of which are quite difficult to provide if the engine is sitting underwater.

Those German diesels were inside dry submarines and got their oxygen from above surface via a schnorkel.

[jmercer]

BTW, I was just browsing the NY Times Online to see what was going on in New Orleans, and this quote caught my eye -

"President Bush and Congressional leaders vowed today to find out what went wrong in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina."

Anyone know anything about that? If true, it clearly indicates an awareness that the Feds fell down on the job.

[LTC8K6]

That's okay, I didn't back it up anyway. :D

I read somewhere that the corps recommends 6" per day, I think.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=050906&cat=news&st=newsd8cev6rg0&src=ap

[LTC8K6]

I suspect that the inquiry will actually be an overall inquiry of what went wrong and that the federal line may be a bit of NYT spin.

Of course, it's logical that the federal government would investigate their own response and not the state response, so the title could simply be misleading/incomplete.

[dharlow]

As far as a comparison between the tsunami and Katrina, there are some differences. What happened in the tsunami is similar to what occured on the Mississippi coast....a mass of water quickly submerging an area and then retreating. This unfortunately took a lot of lives. At the same time, especially with the tsunami, it also eases rescue operations when most of those in the disaster area are killed.

In New Orleans, the water rose slowly and has only started to go down now that the pumps are operating again. This is different even from river flooding in that the latter will crest and then subside. The situation gradually improves whereas in New Orleans it did not really begin until there was human intervention. In addition, the water in New Orleans is stagnant and has quickly become polluted whereas river flooding is fluid and on the move and not usually as easily contaminated. This makes even touching the water now a dangerous situation, both for those in need of rescue and for rescuers.

It's striking how different the challenges are in the two states. And the rescue operation in Louisiana is still ongoing since many were able to escape drowning from the slower water rise...however this also slows relief/rescue operations given the sheer number of rescues that are being done. Recovery in the Mississippi coast, while slow, seems to be going better than in Louisiana.

[Beady]

Originally posted by LW
Those German diesels were inside dry submarines and got their oxygen from above surface via a schnorkel.

Precisely. We're talking no more than 20 feet or so of water, so the maximum pressure is going to be negligible. It ought to be possible to build waterproof casings around the engines and fit them with snorkels (schnorkels). For that matter, why can't the pumping stations themselves be made watertight?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Blondin
I remember reading that in 1975 when cyclone Tracy wiped out the city of Darwin, Australia, three days went by before the rest of the country even realized what had happened. Everybody knew the storm was coming and they knew when it hit but they must have assumed that no news was good news. Nobody reckoned on there being no infrastructure or communications with which to call for help. Absolutely not true at all. Cyclone Tracy was well anticipated and Darwin was battoned down for the blow well in advance. It just happened, like Katrina, to be far stronger than the usual tropical storms that regularly come through the area. Further, all of Australia was well aware of the situation before, during and after Tracy. What took some effort was getting external aid into the city afterwards (Darwin is a fairly remote city), and even that was under 24 hours later.

Personally, I experienced a tropical cyclone when I was younger (Althea, 1971 (http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/emergency/disasterguide/storm_surge.asp)), and it's very VERY scary.


[edit:spel]

[Zep]

Incidentally, the OP stole my point I made in a few other threads on this subject!


At the same time, especially with the tsunami, it also eases rescue operations when most of those in the disaster area are killed.That situation didn't happen everywhere, just on the few coastal regions of Sumatra nearest the epicentre. While over 200,000 people died due to the tsunami and its after-effects, the area is one of the most populous on Earth - millions more people are still suffering post-tsunami deprivation.

[kevin]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
You have to pump the water out slowly enough to give the saturated levees time to drain. If you go too fast, you will have a very weak saturated levee trying to hold back the water.

I hope that politics does not trump safety.

This is true for earthen levees. I think most of New Orleans' levees are concrete. Still have to worry about the earth underneath and the weight of the water pushing water under the levees.

Remember these aren't levees like in normal towns that are used only during high water. NO is below sea level and below the lake level and below the river level -- the levees are continually in use just holding back the normal water.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by Zep
Absolutely not true at all. Cyclone Tracy was well anticipated and Darwin was battoned down for the blow well in advance. It just happened, like Katrina, to be far stronger than the usual tropical storms that regularly come through the area. Further, all of Australia was well aware of the situation before, during and after Tracy. What took some effort was getting external aid into the city afterwards (Darwin is a fairly remote city), and even that was under 24 hours later.
Thanks for the clarification, Zep. I guess I was quoting an unreliable source.

[kevin]

Originally posted by dharlow
In addition, the water in New Orleans is stagnant and has quickly become polluted whereas river flooding is fluid and on the move and not usually as easily contaminated.

Depends on your definition of "easily" I guess. In the 1993 floods of the mississippi & missouri rivers the river very quickly became contaminated by ferterlizers from fields it went through and the many sewage treatment plants it overran. During high waters many sewage plants begin dumping raw sewage in the rivers as part of the plan to save the plant.

The water was around for several weeks (I was on levee watch on the Kansas river which feeds in to the Missouri, and the town I lived in across the state line was flooded, although my house wasn't) and once out of the river bed it was stagnant.

http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/floods/papers/oh_2/great.htm

[kevin]

I think in evaluating the response you have to look at not just what the timeline of events were, but at historical precedent as well.

For example, mandatory evacuations was ordered for the 28th. But Americans have a hard time with mandatory anything. Is there a historical precedent for a local (or state, or federal) gov't making transportation available to those that can't come up with their own way of evacuating a city? What about those that still refuse to leave? Can they be arrested and forced to evacuate?

Where can a local gov't take these evacuees? They can't force other locations to take them, the state gov't could help relocate them but would Texas have opened the Astrodome BEFORE the hurricane if asked?

I think where the local government failed was in a) listening to it's own engineers about the dangers of what was coming (the mandatory evacuation order exempts hotel workers and patrons -- that tells me they didn't think this was going to be very bad), b) screaming louder for help in providing a way out of the city for people that wanted to leave but couldn't because of no money, no car, etc....

even if the local gov't had accomplished b I think there would've been LOTS of people in NO. I think the whole city had blinders on to the dangers.

These failures take us up to the hurricane itself and the levees breaking. Once that happened the failures fall on the state and federal gov'ts. and it's pretty damn clear that if these levees had been blown up by terrorist bombs instead of a hurricane -- our federal government would still fail to rise to even the level of accomplishment we saw at 9/11.

[LW]

Originally posted by Beady
Precisely. We're talking no more than 20 feet or so of water, so the maximum pressure is going to be negligible. It ought to be possible to build waterproof casings around the engines and fit them with snorkels (schnorkels).

Your "so what?" reaction makes me suppose that you think that these waterproof casings could be built [i]right now{/i], after the diesel engines got submerged in the water.

The problem here is that you just can't chuck a diesel engine into water, raise it up, and turn it on without exepecting problems. Well, it might work but it is more likely that something has gone wrong.

Whenever the WWII German submariners managed to flood their engine compartment, they had to spend a couple of hours of maintenance before they got the diesels back in working order. [Events like this are frequently mentioned in German submariner memoirs.]

[kevin]

Originally posted by Beady
Precisely. We're talking no more than 20 feet or so of water, so the maximum pressure is going to be negligible. It ought to be possible to build waterproof casings around the engines and fit them with snorkels (schnorkels). For that matter, why can't the pumping stations themselves be made watertight?

If your pump station is behind the levee, and underwater, any water you pump back over the levee will probably just come right back in -- kind of pointless.

The would be better off strengthing the levee walls than making water proof pumps.

From what i've read most of the pumps are located 5 ft above sea level and shouldn't be underwater. From what I'm reading in news reports they've got some of the original pumps running, additional temporary pumps flown or flying in, and the status of the remaining pumps (about 150) is unknown. I'm not seeing any reports of pumps underwater.

[jmercer]

Personally, I think they'd be better off either abandoning the city or rebuilding it in such a way that it's flood-resistant.

In example, there's absolutely no reason that building's have to constructed with the main floor (or basement!) at ground level. Many homes on the ocean on Long Island are built on pilings that elevate the homes 15 to 20 feet above ground level. While this is hardly proof against a catagory 4 hurricane, it does protect them from the occasional catagory 3 and lower - while letting the incoming surf stream harmlessly between the pilings.

Now, New Orleans doesn't get hit directly by surf. (Or if it does, then they should bloody well go with plan A - abandonment!) So flood waters - while powerful - won't be a direct storm surge so much as a powerful spill from the levee.

Constructing an elevated city with buildings designed to permit free-flow of flood water would be an intelligent approach; simply rebuilding the city and counting on bigger, better levee's and pumps is the easy way out. Easy, at least, until a Catagory 5 strikes.

[kevin]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jmercer
Now, New Orleans doesn't get hit directly by surf. (Or if it does, then they should bloody well go with plan A - abandonment!) So flood waters - while powerful - won't be a direct storm surge so much as a powerful spill from the levee.

Might as well tell the Netherlands to abandon their entire country then....

New Orleans does not currently get hit by surf, however because of the channelization of the mississippi no sediments are deposited in the delta area (they are now flushed into the Guf). Because of this Louisana has been losing land to the ocean at a steady rate. This has moved the coastline closer to NO and may have worsened this event. Once a hurricane moves on land it loses power, with less land between the ocean and NO the hurricane retained much of it's power.

By the way, the levees broke on the lake side. The lake dumped into New Orleans. What you are seeing in the city is a "levee spill" not storm surge.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by kevin
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jmercer
Now, New Orleans doesn't get hit directly by surf. (Or if it does, then they should bloody well go with plan A - abandonment!) So flood waters - while powerful - won't be a direct storm surge so much as a powerful spill from the levee.

Might as well tell the Netherlands to abandon their entire country then....


The Netherlands doesn't exist next to a warm-water body that supports and enhances a storm's potency on an annual basis. :)

Originally posted by kevin

New Orleans does not currently get hit by surf, however because of the channelization of the mississippi no sediments are deposited in the delta area (they are now flushed into the Guf). Because of this Louisana has been losing land to the ocean at a steady rate. This has moved the coastline closer to NO and may have worsened this event. Once a hurricane moves on land it loses power, with less land between the ocean and NO the hurricane retained much of it's power.


I know. Which is why I say they should either abandon or rebuild with flooding as a planned occurance.

Originally posted by kevin

By the way, the levees broke on the lake side. The lake dumped into New Orleans. What you are seeing in the city is a "levee spill" not storm surge.

I know, which is why I said "Now, New Orleans doesn't get hit directly by surf. (Or if it does, then they should bloody well go with plan A - abandonment!) So flood waters - while powerful - won't be a direct storm surge so much as a powerful spill from the levee."

I grew up in an area directly subject to storm surge and surf - and one that is occasionally visited by hurricanes - even Catagory 4 storms. Part of my education growing up was seeing pictures and getting lectures on the history of Long Island and hurricanes - in fact, the name of my high school football team was "The Hurricanes". :) Since I grew up on the ocean, weather has always been a fascinating and important topic for me...

Interestingly enough, the Wall Street Journal reported today that there were actually three spills into New Orleans; 2 from levee's and one from a canal who's side had been rammed by a barge. That's the issue with levee's and walls; once breached, you're doomed. That's why they should build the city with the expectation of flooding rather than the hope that it won't happen.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by Blondin
Just a few questions:

How long was it after the hurricane hit that the levees failed?

What was the delay between the event and the actual flooding?
I know Lisa made a response to this question as well, but I was attempting to answer this question in another thread and came up this information:

According to CNN.com's timeline of the hurricane
August 29
• 4 a.m.: Hurricane Katrina is downgraded to a strong Category 4 storm.
• 7 a.m.: Katrina makes landfall on the Louisiana coast between Grand Isle and the mouth of the Mississippi River.
• 11a.m. Katrina makes another landfall near the Louisiana-Mississippi state line with 125 mph winds. The storm's daylong rampage claims lives and ravages property in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, where coastal areas remained under several feet of water.
• Two major flood-control levees are breached, and the National Weather Service reports "total structural failure" in parts of New Orleans. A section of the roof of the Louisiana Superdome, where 10,000 people are taking refuge, opens. Many are feared dead in flooded neighborhoods still under as much as 20 feet of water.
In a different article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/31/katrina.levees/index.html
The National Weather Service reported a breach along the Industrial Canal levee at Tennessee Street, in southeast New Orleans, on Monday. Local reports later said the levee was overtopped, not breached, but the Corps of Engineers reported it Tuesday afternoon as having been breached.
This article in the Star Tribune, timestamped August 29, 10:33 pm, refers to levees being breached.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/5585674.html

So landfall was recorded in the early morning hours of Monday the 29th, and the first levee breaches occured no later than Monday evening, possibly even earlier. At least two of the three breaches occurred the same day the hurricane made landfall.

[Zep]

Given that only a small part of NO has actually been flooded, and that it is going to be rebuilt, I would be recommending that any low-lying area should be built up above the lake/shore level at a minimum. Then there would be no further use for the levees (save ongoing money maintaining them and pumping), and there would be one less future danger (flooding) NO would be likely to face. Raising most types of houses, or moving them aside temporarily, is not particularly difficult nor frightfully expensive.

[davefoc]

I think the coming Katrina commission is going to place most of the blame on the Mayor and the Governor, with some on FEMA's tardiness.
Ah, such a pleasant notion. The government cares about the truth and is interested enough in finding out what went wrong so much that it will establish an independent commission to investigate the problems of the Katrina response in an honest non-partisan way.

I don't know exactly where a government like that exists but it certainly isn't like ours. The Bush administration has dug their heals in. No independent commission. Instead we're going to get the Bush led investigation. Of course we can all trust the Bush administration to investigate themselves fairly and provide an unbiased view of the problems, but if we don't trust the Bush administration surely we can trust the legislature to investigate in a fair and unbiased way the problems with the response. The congressman wouldn't just spit out a bunch of partisan jabs without really investigating the issue would they? Oh wait that's what they just did.

So don't hold your breath waiting for a Katrina commision that cares much about the truth.