Is it time we buldoze the city of New Orleans at it's present location and move it somewhere above sea level?

Question

Is it time we buldoze the city of New Orleans at it's present location and move it somewhere above sea level?

Answer 1

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 1.4 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 the largest or second largest port 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 builds 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 $15 Billion (that should have been spent before Katrina) spread out over a period of a decade.

Note that New Orleans is NOT "prone" to hurricanes or being flooded. The last 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.  

There is a widespread myth that New Orleans is "built below sea level”, but that is not true.

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. However, I don’t hear anyone claiming New York, Florida, California, Kansas, 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?

Answer 2

Are the libs saying BaRack should be down there while its coming in?? To express his concern?

Answer 3

No, it is not a national problem.

The taxpayers have spent billions on New Orleans and it is probably time to let the folks who choose to live there handle it themselves.

ULtimately, New Orleans will be inundated and become uninhabitable.

Let its residents relocate where they choose.

We did our share now let them take responsibility for their own actions.

No other City has ever received the tax dollars N.O. has.

If they choose to stay in a flood plain - more power to them.

Answer 4

Its been there since the beginning of the country.

Maybe we could learn to remove the upriver levees and then the midwest wouldn't have twenty foot floods.

Maybe we won't use landfill for poverty level housing because its cheap and they can't afford to complain.

And maybe pigs will fly, cause greedy business won't turn down a chance to make a dime, even if it endangers people up and down the Mississippi.

As of last March, only $125 million of those billions had gone to NO.

Answer 5

it could go down in History as the City of Atlantis did~!

we could have under the sea Gambling Casinos and Barbecue Rib Joints, i don't know about the Jazz Musicians though, although on Ripley's Believe it or Not i saw under-water Blackjack and a Violinist playing once~!

their are some definite possibilities~!

Answer 6

Yeh, that would be a d**n good idea. Would save everybody a whole lot of money. h**l, there are some places in the world where people should not build anything but houseboats, like the Outer Banks of N.C. and that place in India, Sri Linka, or something.

Like people who build fancy houses in the dry brush country in So. California should not get their insurance pooled in with everybody else. Save d**n things happen every year. Not my responsibility and a real dumb thing to do.

Answer 7

Or, they could fix the levees.

Answer 8

Amen.  Yes, it is time for Political Correctness to take a back seat to Common Sense.

I don't want my tax money bailing out individuals who place themselves in danger.  There is a valid reason why insurance companies refuse to insure people, and the Feds should not step in and offer to pour our tax money into a Black Hole.  Same goes for those in the Mississippi Delta.  Build in a flood plain, you must assume the risk AND the consequence.  I do, and others should also act in a prudent manner.  

Answer 9

If yu bulldoze it toward the area of Bourbon street  yu can rebuild on the rubble