Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (135754)	8/31/2005 1:57:46 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793928

The reality is a bit more complicated than that, though there is much truth in what you say. For example, levees were in fact built to protect communities abutting wetlands, but they were poorly maintained, not very well built, and wholly inadequate to protect against hurricane storm surge. When Hurricane Juan exposed these deficiencies in 1985, a system of true hurricane levees was started, particularly in the exposed areas of the West Bank and Plaquemines and I think St. B. This sysem is not yet fully completed. The river levees, which also contributed to growth, were in place for decades and were and are very effective. Growth of course led to concrete streets, parking lots, etc., and a resulting loss of ground able to absorb water. Flooding is more difficult to control for that reason, too. I do not minimize the loss of wetlands, though I question how much difference an intact set of wetlands would have made in K's case. It's a very complex issue, but in the end IMO it was a choice between a storm surge and what we have now. If the levees had held, the choice would have been a good one. But I really don't know if even the sysem we had was designed to deal with a cat. 4 or 5 storm. Not much that is man made can deal with that kind of power.