Build on a mound, stilt’s, or move !
They have had many signs……..
Even a couple of billboards over the last few years !
Chosen Answer:
New Orleans is not optional. History, architecture, culture, and the fact the city is home to many people are usually mentioned when the topic of the city’s future is discussed. However, those factors (while significant) are NOT why NOLA is important to the rest of the United States.
First, New Orleans is a metro area of almost 1.3 million people – not some small town that could be easily relocated somewhere else.
More than 35% of America’s energy is either produced in Southeast Louisiana or imported through here, and the infrastructure is focused on New Orleans. What may be the largest oil field on earth was discovered offshore of Louisiana in 2006, and it will be exploited via New Orleans.
The Port of New Orleans is one of the top 5 ports in North America each year (tons of cargo) and one of the top ports in the world each year. The Port of New Orleans is not replaceable.
More than 25% of America’s petroleum refining capacity is in the New Orleans area. That percentage will increase due to a new refinery already under construction and the planned expansion of existing refineries.
A large percentage of America’s non-petroleum chemical industry is here.
New Orleans is one of only three principal east-west transportation points for the USA, and the resulting convergence of water, rail, pipeline, electricity, and highway links is not replaceable.
A large percentage of America’s ship building & repair industry is in New Orleans.
NASA built essential parts for the space shuttle in New Orleans, and will build components for the next generation of spacecraft here. Other manufacturers (ex. Bell-Textron) have factories in New Orleans.
A large percentage of America’s seafood comes from SE Louisiana, and the distribution network is focused on New Orleans.
And so on….
It is theoretically possible to move the industry and the population, but only at horrific cost. The Mississippi river, Gulf of Mexico, and the oil fields cannot be moved. To even attempt to replace New Orleans would cost Trillions of Dollars and the attempt would fail.
In contrast, New Orleans can be protected from future hurricanes with the expenditure of about Billion (that should have been spent before Katrina) spread out over a period of a decade.
In case Billion sounds like a lot, the federal government spent that much for a 3-mile tunnel under Boston harbor for commuters.
Note that New Orleans is NOT “prone” to hurricanes or being flooded. The last big one to hit before Katrina was in 1965 and before that was in 1947. Neither of those flooded the city proper like Katrina, which was the strongest storm ever recorded to strike North America (size + surge). Gustav was a near-miss but did test the levee system (which held).
There is a widespread myth that New Orleans is “built below sea level”, but that is not true. Most of the city is above sea level, and the parts below are neighborhoods built on swamps drained in the 20th century (swampland subsides after it is drained).
Realize that nowhere is without risk. NYC and Miami are at more risk from hurricanes than New Orleans. Los Angeles and San Francisco are at risk from earthquakes and fires. Seattle is threatened by volcanoes and Tsunamis. The Midwest is hit by tornadoes every year and floods much more often than New Orleans. However, I don’t hear anyone claiming New York, Florida, California, Kansas/Iowa, or Washington (state) be abandoned, or even not rebuilt after the next disaster.
However, people routinely claim New Orleans should be abandoned, or that we somehow don’t deserve help after Katrina.
Why is that?
by: NOLA guy
on: 8th September 12
