DIYbanter - View Single Post - OT

Han

wrote in
:

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:26:13 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 18:25:05 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:

wrote in message
m...

I suppose if anyone has archived things that far back you could
look but I thought New Orleans was a huge rip off too.
We should have never let them rebuild that city below sea level.
They should have barged in enough dirt to build New Orleans on a
hill.

Or 'they' whomever they are could have done it like the Dutch and
engineered
a system that works.

It's not like the bean counters and politicans didn't have sufficent
advance
notice.

The Dutch have a different situation than what exists in Southern
Louisiana.

They do? I'd be interested in the specifics as friends I went to
engineering school (LSU/Tulane BTW) with spent considerable time over
the pond reviewing what the Dutch did to address their problems.

Basics as I understand both areas: High energy storms, land below sea
level, very similar pumping systems, water has to be pumped up hill.
What have I missed?

The EPA and the Bayou.
We would all be long dead before you ever got permits.
You also are talking about an island, not a shoreline.
Water can come towards NOLA from any direction.
When they had the opportunity (large areas with houses more than 50%
damaged), it would have been a lot cheaper to just fill the bowl.
I am not even sure how FEMA allowed anyone to rebuild below the datum
plane. You sure can't do that in Florida. 50% damage based on the tax
assessment of the building, not including the land, you tear it down,
fill above the datum plan and build or build back on pilings.

The remedy to the 1953 floods was the socalled Deltaplan. Because, like
NOLA, the most affected part of Holland is the delta of the Rhine, Meuse
and Scheldt rivers. Much of Holland's economy depends on activities
below sea level. The defense is to keep improving (and often increasing
the height) of dikes, and generating ways to divert water. Same types of
things could be done around the world, especially NOLA.

The 1953 storm in Holland was very similar to Sandy - extra-ordinary high
tides, and a big storm that pushed up the sea against the funnel formed
by the land: In 1953 the funnel was the North Sea between the southern
parts of the English and Dutch coasts, leading to the English Channel.
With 2012 Sandy, it was the funnel of the coasts of NJ and Long Island.

Building codes were changed in Holland (no more homes built into the
dikes as was customary in some places) and a very much shortened primary
defense was built to replace the hundreds of miles of dikes around
smallish islands. That isn't quite possible in NY/NJ, but is done to
some extent around Lake Pontchartrain.

Around Rotterdam waterways were protected with movable locks/dams, as was
done as well near London. Something like that ought to be done in New
York to protect the infrastructure around Staten Island, in Manhattan and
up the Hudson, etc. But it won't be done, because it is cheaper to react
to disasters than to prevent them, certainly in the short run.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid