New Orleans, Rebuilding and the EPA

[Buccaneer]

Microbiologist finds flood waters in New Orleans' Ninth Ward to be 45,000 times what would be considered safe for swimming in a pond or a lake. Click here.

As some talked about last week, what do you think about what it's going to cost to rebuild and esp. the decontamination? The part that still gets me - and only getting minimal press now - is that N.O. may never, ever be safe to live in unless 80% of the city gets buried. There have been very expensive Superfund sites that started out much cleaner, relatively, than what's going to be imbedded in the structures, soils, water supplies, etc after they pump the water out of the bowl. From what I've heard, they can't call in cropdusters because that violates some Clean Water or Clean Air Act. Will N.O. ever be clean enough to satisfy the EPA?

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

As some talked about last week, what do you think about what it's going to cost to rebuild and esp. the decontamination? The part that still gets me - and only getting minimal press now - is that N.O. may never, ever be safe to live in unless 80% of the city gets buried. There have been very expensive Superfund sites that started out much cleaner, relatively, than what's going to be imbedded in the structures, soils, water supplies, etc after they pump the water out of the bowl. From what I've heard, they can't call in cropdusters because that violates some Clean Water or Clean Air Act. Will N.O. ever be clean enough to satisfy the EPA?

You know they are going to lower the standards to let people return/rebuild in a timely manner.

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

As some talked about last week, what do you think about what it's going to cost to rebuild and esp. the decontamination? The part that still gets me - and only getting minimal press now - is that N.O. may never, ever be safe to live in unless 80% of the city gets buried. There have been very expensive Superfund sites that started out much cleaner, relatively, than what's going to be imbedded in the structures, soils, water supplies, etc after they pump the water out of the bowl. From what I've heard, they can't call in cropdusters because that violates some Clean Water or Clean Air Act. Will N.O. ever be clean enough to satisfy the EPA?

I posted this in another thread (that probably two people read), but I think the infrastructure costs alone (NOT including cleanup, insured losses, coastal / wetland restoration projects, etc) will be at least $25 billion, if they basically choose to rebuild New Orleans with an "improved" protection system. I'm a Civil Engineer ... decontamination is not my bag. However, I'd tend to agree that basically the entire city is now a toxic dump.

[Buccaneer]

You would just build the levees higher and thicker?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I'm having a hard time grasping how the entire city will be able to dry out. Isn't the south generally humid? How will those homes dry out enough to not be a breeding ground for mold?

[Buccaneer]

Isn't the south generally humid?

That's like saying isn't Arizona generally hot.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'm having a hard time grasping how the entire city will be able to dry out. Isn't the south generally humid? How will those homes dry out enough to not be a breeding ground for mold?

In our old apartment (not the one we lived in for the past two years or so,) we had problems keeping Mold out because the air conditioner didn't work very well. Having done some outreach programs into New Orleans East, I believe this will be a significant problem. As has been previously mentioned on some sites, neighborhoods are going to have to be razed and rebuilt I suspect

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

In our old apartment (not the one we lived in for the past two years or so,) we had problems keeping Mold out because the air conditioner didn't work very well. Having done some outreach programs into New Orleans East, I believe this will be a significant problem. As has been previously mentioned on some sites, neighborhoods are going to have to be razed and rebuilt I suspect

That's really too bad. Some of those buildings must be hundreds of years old.

[Buccaneer]

The other dimension will be the colossal tug-of-war on what to do next. You know Congress and all of the pin-headed bureaucrats (at all levels) will want to get involved as much as possible (in part to compensate for last week since the dangerous part has passed). If they bicker like they have been doing when there was only one goal, imagine how long it's going to take to even get going on this.

You thought Boston's Big Dig (and Iraq) was waayyy overbudget and over-schedule, you ain't seen nothing yet. It's going to take $100 billion (my guess) to just take care of the evacuees - housing, food, unemployment/employment, education, reimbursements to states, etc.

[Qwikshot]

Do you think they'll try to build it all above sea level this time?

[CamEdwards]

here's my question: they're pumping the water back into Lake Ponchatrain now, right? Does this mean they're pumping toxic water back into the lake? Doesn't that mean you now have a polluted lake AND a polluted city? I'm assuming that people have thought of this and it's the only option they have.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

here's my question: they're pumping the water back into Lake Ponchatrain now, right? Does this mean they're pumping toxic water back into the lake? Doesn't that mean you now have a polluted lake AND a polluted city? I'm assuming that people have thought of this and it's the only option they have.

My wife and I were just having a debate about this over dinner. Of course, the lake was never THAT clean (people were not allowed to swim in it for at least several years but it had been improving in quality over the recent past few years), but certainly this is bad for the health of the lake

Also, I suspect that the crawfish catch this season and other seafood industries are going to be significantly endangered this upcoming season

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

here's my question: they're pumping the water back into Lake Ponchatrain now, right? Does this mean they're pumping toxic water back into the lake? Doesn't that mean you now have a polluted lake AND a polluted city? I'm assuming that people have thought of this and it's the only option they have.

Cam, isn't that like loosening the restriction on refinery regulations so we can get more gasoline supplies (because everyone is complaining about high gas prices)? Sometimes common sense does prevail.

As far as filling in the bowl, I visualize perhaps large sections of open areas (like perhaps all of the 9th Ward) at the same level as the original Crescent City. Not sure about the 17th Street area though.

But remember that Downtown was relatively unscathed except for water in the lower levels. I don't think we'll see much structural change in the downtown cityscape and skyline. The Superdome will be a question mark, though - depending on insurance, I think.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You thought Boston's Big Dig (and Iraq) was waayyy overbudget and over-schedule, you ain't seen nothing yet. It's going to take $100 billion (my guess) to just take care of the evacuees - housing, food, unemployment/employment, education, reimbursements to states, etc.

I fear you are right .

It's not going to be easy in the slightest, though the downtown and French Quarter seem to be relatively dry. Perhaps New Orleans just ends up being a much, much smaller city and they'll get to the rest "when we get to it". I don't think they can rebuild the entire thing all at once. It'd be too difficult to contemplate.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I fear you are right .

It's not going to be easy in the slightest, though the downtown and French Quarter seem to be relatively dry. Perhaps New Orleans just ends up being a much, much smaller city and they'll get to the rest "when we get to it". I don't think they can rebuild the entire thing all at once. It'd be too difficult to contemplate.

It'll be the classic Chicken and Egg Syndrome. The people won't come back in any significant numbers if there aren't jobs, infrastructure, businesses, etc. there for them. And the investments won't be there unless there is an educated, willing populace in place.

I just thought of something horrible. With the federal govt stepping all over themselves now to help (and politicians willing to make points), could it become a welfare city for the next few years?

[Galaril]

I am sorry if this is an incredibl
y stupid question but what are the main sources of the water,soil etc being contaminated? Oil,corpses,something else? Just was wondering ?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I am sorry if this is an incredibl
y stupid question but what are the main sources of the water,soil etc being contaminated? Oil,corpses,something else? Just was wondering ?

All of the above plus an incredible amount of human and animal bodily wastes. Also if you look around your house or apartment that's on the first level (and cellar if you have one), plus all of the street-level businesses, and see all of the toxic chemicals (cleaners, paint, detergents, etc.) that gets you fined if you dare thrown them out in the trash - a lot of that broke open/leaked into the toxic soup.

[Greyroofoo]

New Orleans, FEMA, and the EPA walk into the bar, the bartender says,"Why the long face?"..........

[JW]

Contamination? If the EPA has done tests on Bourbon Street on any Saturday night, they would have shut down New Orleans years ago. Right, Eaglesfan?

Seriously, all the concerns are legitimate and will have to be addressed, but I suspect it will be politically impossible to keep people out of the city and their homes.

As for the comment about New Orleans becoming a welfare city, well, I don't see how that would be a huge change. I am not trying to joke. The poverty level was tremendous.

Finally, about pumping contaminated water back into the lake, they really had no choice. At the news conference at which the Corps official announced that the levee breach and been sealed and pumping had started, one of the reporters asked -- stupidly imho -- if the water was being treated before being pumped out.

Ya'll also miss other major sources for fraud, waste, and abuse, those being the state government of Louisiana and the city government of New Orleans.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It'll be the classic Chicken and Egg Syndrome. The people won't come back in any significant numbers if there aren't jobs, infrastructure, businesses, etc. there for them. And the investments won't be there unless there is an educated, willing populace in place.

I don't think this will be a huge issue - it's almost inevitable that there will be at least some rebuilding due to the location and its economic importance, as well as the history. With that rebuilding will come jobs, a lot of jobs - cleanup, teardown, rebuild, as well as all of the jobs created from supporting that primary rebuilding effort.

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

You would just build the levees higher and thicker?

No, I wouldn't. I feel that it would be absolutely irresponsible to rebuild anything that is below the normal surface elevation of an immediately adjacent body of water ... and New Orleans is surrounded by them. You can build the levees thicker, higher, and stronger, but that only makes things worse. The coastal wetlands will continue to disappear, as more soil carried in the Mississippi will be dumped into the Gulf instead of repleneshing the delta. You build a taller wall, and allow the surface elevation of the water to go higher ... now the levee fails again and you have even more water in the city. I'm sure some terrorists already knew about the damage a breeched levee could bring, but Katrina just gave everyone a blueprint on how to destroy a large community and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.

We need to face the facts. This area is not suitable for urban inhabitation. We can continue to try and tame Mother Nature, but we will eventually lose. Each time we "rebuild stronger", the next devastation will simply be that much greater. If people want to take that risk, they should carry more of the burden. I'm all for the gov't spending the necessary money to take care of the people who's lives have been destroyed, but we need to learn our lesson. Spend the $25 billion on new communities in a safer location. Restore most of New Orleans to what it should be ... a swamp.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JW

Contamination? If the EPA has done tests on Bourbon Street on any Saturday night, they would have shut down New Orleans years ago. Right, Eaglesfan?

Seriously, all the concerns are legitimate and will have to be addressed, but I suspect it will be politically impossible to keep people out of the city and their homes.

As for the comment about New Orleans becoming a welfare city, well, I don't see how that would be a huge change. I am not trying to joke. The poverty level was tremendous.

Finally, about pumping contaminated water back into the lake, they really had no choice. At the news conference at which the Corps official announced that the levee breach and been sealed and pumping had started, one of the reporters asked -- stupidly imho -- if the water was being treated before being pumped out.

Ya'll also miss other major sources for fraud, waste, and abuse, those being the state government of Louisiana and the city government of New Orleans.

Spot on. Unfortunately.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JW

Finally, about pumping contaminated water back into the lake, they really had no choice. At the news conference at which the Corps official announced that the levee breach and been sealed and pumping had started, one of the reporters asked -- stupidly imho -- if the water was being treated before being pumped out.

If you're not an expert on the methods for treating water, then I don't see this as a stupid question. The answer may well be that not treating the water before pumping it out is the lesser of two evils, but it's a legitimate question.

[JW]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

If you're not an expert on the methods for treating water, then I don't see this as a stupid question. The answer may well be that not treating the water before pumping it out is the lesser of two evils, but it's a legitimate question.

I have to respectfully disagree. Imagine the response if the Corps had announced, "We can't pump the water out of the city until we have set up treatment facilities to ensure Lake Ponchartrain is not contaminated when we begin pumping." I saw it at best as a terribly naive question. It seemed obvious that they were desperately trying to get the breach closed and pumps started, and that treating the water was the last thing on their minds. I would also imagine the lake is already seriously contaminated by all the death and destruction around the lake.

BTW, I have discussed the contaminated shellfish/seafood issue with a couple of Cajuns I know, and the consensus is that consuming large amounts of alcohol (beer or wine doesn't count) with your meal will either keep you safe or at least make you forget any concerns about contamination.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I don't think this will be a huge issue - it's almost inevitable that there will be at least some rebuilding due to the location and its economic importance, as well as the history. With that rebuilding will come jobs, a lot of jobs - cleanup, teardown, rebuild, as well as all of the jobs created from supporting that primary rebuilding effort.

That's true, if they can make it habitable for the workers and their families within the city.

I do also wonder what the political process will be, esp. once people have gotten over the shock and emotions that's going on now. I mean, rebuilding will be a "priority" but for how long? Until the next disaster? Will we (as national taxpayers) have a say how the money should be spent. The various think tanks are already questioning how and what should be rebuilt (echoing the same statement as Hastert's ill-timed quip last week).

[JW]

Coincidentally, Greta interviewing La. Department of Environmental Quality spokesman right now on Fox. He said obviously the water is contaminated and dangerous but the primary contaminant is raw human waste. Asked about the lake, he said that these type organic contaminants can be assimilated by the lake although obviously it is not a good situation. He said they are not seeing large amounts of other dangerous contaminants, either organic or non-organic, in the flood waters in the city at this time.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JW

Coincidentally, Greta interviewing La. Department of Environmental Quality spokesman right now on Fox. He said obviously the water is contaminated and dangerous but the primary contaminant is raw human waste. Asked about the lake, he said that these type organic contaminants can be assimilated by the lake although obviously it is not a good situation. He said they are not seeing large amounts of other dangerous contaminants, either organic or non-organic, in the flood waters in the city at this time.

But it doesn't take large amounts to be considered unsafe? Without hearing the interview, do you think it might be part of the spin not to scare people/businesses/money from returning?

[JW]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But it doesn't take large amounts to be considered unsafe? Without hearing the interview, do you think it might be part of the spin not to scare people/businesses/money from returning?

I don't have a clue on that, lol. I do happen to know a few DEQ people, and they seem pretty straightforward, but I really don't know. Of course in La., spin is truth.

[albionmoonlight]

The older, most historic buildings in the City tended to do OK. They were built in the French Quarter and Uptown--the parts of the city where people lived before the mad genius decided to create the levees and open the bowl for habitation. So, from a preservation point of view, it is not quite as bad as it could be.

And there are areas of town that were not even hit by water. There are places for people to live that make sense. Just not where they were living.

As for the chicken/egg problem that Buc mentions--it has been on my mind. My sister's company has already indicated that it is relocating to Houston and probably not coming back.

What I think that the fed needs to do (assuming that the govt. really wants to rebuild the city) is to provide lots and lots of white collar government jobs to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast for the better part of the next decade. NIH research labs. Military intel. IRS. DOJ. Lots and lots of doctors and lawyers and engineers.

The federal government is the only employer rich enough to pump jobs that matter into the region that also does not have to worry about going broke. With those good govt. jobs will come educated workers and (more importantly) the natural investment by private capital that will get the city up and running again. Add all new infastructure, and you could have a real 21st century city on your hands.

Of course, it is a lot easier for politicians in other areas to cut a check and pay welfare type benefits than to give up these kinds of federal jobs in their areas, so I don't see it happening.

But I do think that it would be the best and cheapest way (in the long run) to rebuild the City.

[Buccaneer]

Eric, your well-written post had so many conflicting thoughts running through my mind but I am too tired to post them.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Eric, your well-written post had so many conflicting thoughts running through my mind but I am too tired to post them.

Reply when you feel up to it. I look forward to reading your response.

[RendeR]

Just as an FYI to anyone who hadn't heard this already, the LT Governor has already stated in an interview that 99.9% of the houses and buildings that were covered to their rooflines will have to be demolished. He said the corps of engineers folks reported that the sustained flooding and flow of water would cause too much foundation damage.

Most everything in the flooded areas will be bulldozed away after the search teams say they are clear of human remains.

[Buzzbee]

IMO, people will *want* to return to New Orleans. Probably not as many as lived there before, but a great many. Natives who have never lived anywhere else. Transplants who fell in love with the way of life. People who will be attracted by the inevitable jobs. Face it. Even though it is below sea level, the levees are there to block incoming water. The pumps are there to pump out the water. Houses (some) are there for people to live in. There is simply too much already there for it to simply be abandoned. There will be too many opportunities available that will prevent people from simply walking away. Will it be as big, as populous, as touristy, as culturally unique? Probably not. However, if you build it, they will come.

In twenty years, barring another disaster, people will have forgotten the devastation. Less that 5 years after 9/11 we still remember the date, we still remember the events. Yet the horror is fading from our minds. How many flags did you see on car antennae in the weeks and months afterward? And now? Yes, the city will be rebuilt. I have no doubt about that, if for no other reason than to overcome the challenge.

[st.cronin]

I am willing to bet my nest egg that New Orleans comes back - in the long run, this will be good for the economic health of the city.

[stkelly52]

The city will be rebuilt, I have little doubt of that... but should it be? I have always thought that it was foolish to have a city built 20 feet below the level of the water around it. Clearly I was right. I think that we should learn from what has happened, tear down the levies and let the water flow as it will.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8CGM1D80.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than half the people in this country say the flooded areas of New Orleans lying below sea level should be abandoned and rebuilt on higher ground.

An AP-Ipsos poll found that 54 percent of Americans want the four-fifths of New Orleans that was flooded by Hurricane Katrina moved to a safer location.

[JW]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8CGM1D80.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than half the people in this country say the flooded areas of New Orleans lying below sea level should be abandoned and rebuilt on higher ground.

An AP-Ipsos poll found that 54 percent of Americans want the four-fifths of New Orleans that was flooded by Hurricane Katrina moved to a safer location.

Do they think we should move Los Angeles now, or after the big one?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JW

Do they think we should move Los Angeles now, or after the big one?

There's at least a couple of jokes I could go with here, but I'll pass, they're just too easy.

Ya'll just carry on, I just happened to see that little blurb & figured it was worth passing along.

[albionmoonlight]

Not that it matters too much, but the 4/5 # is a bit misleading. A lot of the suburban areas of town are above sea level.

It is not suprising to me that there is starting to be some national backlash against New Orleans. The area does not have a Guliani (sp?) figure to inspire the country. The mayor is too busy saving people to get in front of the cameras and posture. And the governor is pathetic.

Add that to the fact that this has become a red state/blue state issue (if you are "for" New Orleans you are for black people and against Bush (who, we are told, apparently hates all black people) and vice versa) and I am not at all suprised that about 50% of the country says why bother rebuilding.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

No, I wouldn't. I feel that it would be absolutely irresponsible to rebuild anything that is below the normal surface elevation of an immediately adjacent body of water ... and New Orleans is surrounded by them. You can build the levees thicker, higher, and stronger, but that only makes things worse. The coastal wetlands will continue to disappear, as more soil carried in the Mississippi will be dumped into the Gulf instead of repleneshing the delta. You build a taller wall, and allow the surface elevation of the water to go higher ... now the levee fails again and you have even more water in the city. I'm sure some terrorists already knew about the damage a breeched levee could bring, but Katrina just gave everyone a blueprint on how to destroy a large community and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.

We need to face the facts. This area is not suitable for urban inhabitation. We can continue to try and tame Mother Nature, but we will eventually lose. Each time we "rebuild stronger", the next devastation will simply be that much greater. If people want to take that risk, they should carry more of the burden. I'm all for the gov't spending the necessary money to take care of the people who's lives have been destroyed, but we need to learn our lesson. Spend the $25 billion on new communities in a safer location. Restore most of New Orleans to what it should be ... a swamp.

Terraforming is our future.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Terraforming is our future.

Be careful with this. You don't want too many mind worms showing up at your door.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

No, I wouldn't. I feel that it would be absolutely irresponsible to rebuild anything that is below the normal surface elevation of an immediately adjacent body of water ... and New Orleans is surrounded by them. You can build the levees thicker, higher, and stronger, but that only makes things worse. The coastal wetlands will continue to disappear, as more soil carried in the Mississippi will be dumped into the Gulf instead of repleneshing the delta. You build a taller wall, and allow the surface elevation of the water to go higher ... now the levee fails again and you have even more water in the city. I'm sure some terrorists already knew about the damage a breeched levee could bring, but Katrina just gave everyone a blueprint on how to destroy a large community and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.

We need to face the facts. This area is not suitable for urban inhabitation. We can continue to try and tame Mother Nature, but we will eventually lose. Each time we "rebuild stronger", the next devastation will simply be that much greater. If people want to take that risk, they should carry more of the burden. I'm all for the gov't spending the necessary money to take care of the people who's lives have been destroyed, but we need to learn our lesson. Spend the $25 billion on new communities in a safer location. Restore most of New Orleans to what it should be ... a swamp.

There is a lot of truth here. Of course, if you just abandon the property that has been flooded and leave it as a swamp, you make useless the pretty substantial amount of suburban and French Quarter/Uptown property that was not damaged and is not in the bowl. Is it really worth destroying hundreds of billions (possibly trillions?) of dollars of property by leaving the region entirely. What needs to be done is rebuilding the City in the same general area, but not in the worst parts of the bowl. Anything else would be throwing away hundreds of billions in pre-existing undamaged property. We can't afford to do that.

Also, when one examines the actual implications of this line of thought (that mass collections of humans should not live in an area dependent on large scale infrastructure for their survival), you realize that most large American cities would have to be abandonded or severely scaled back.

I hope people take a look at this disaster and start thinking of things like "What to do with Vegas not if, but when, the water supply is cut off" And "What to do with Seattle not if, but when, Mount Ranier decides to make Mount St. Helens look like a firecracker." A lot of lives can be saved if people understand that Katrina can happen to their cities, too.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I hope people take a look at this disaster and start thinking of things like "What to do with Vegas not if, but when, the water supply is cut off" And "What to do with Seattle not if, but when, Mount Ranier decides to make Mount St. Helens look like a firecracker." A lot of lives can be saved if people understand that Katrina can happen to their cities, too.

Good points. Though it should be noted that Mt. Rainier isn't the big threat for Seattle - it's too far away for mudflows to really impact the city, and prevailing winds will carry the ash east and away from the city. The big threat for Seattle is the geologically frequent Cascadia subduction quakes that seem to happen every 500 years or so (last one was in 1700) which are usually above 8.0 and can reach 9.0+ territory.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Be careful with this. You don't want too many mind worms showing up at your door.

I love that game. I would kill for a SMAC2.

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

There is a lot of truth here. Of course, if you just abandon the property that has been flooded and leave it as a swamp, you make useless the pretty substantial amount of suburban and French Quarter/Uptown property that was not damaged and is not in the bowl. Is it really worth destroying hundreds of billions (possibly trillions?) of dollars of property by leaving the region entirely. What needs to be done is rebuilding the City in the same general area, but not in the worst parts of the bowl. Anything else would be throwing away hundreds of billions in pre-existing undamaged property. We can't afford to do that.

Also, when one examines the actual implications of this line of thought (that mass collections of humans should not live in an area dependent on large scale infrastructure for their survival), you realize that most large American cities would have to be abandonded or severely scaled back.

I hope people take a look at this disaster and start thinking of things like "What to do with Vegas not if, but when, the water supply is cut off" And "What to do with Seattle not if, but when, Mount Ranier decides to make Mount St. Helens look like a firecracker." A lot of lives can be saved if people understand that Katrina can happen to their cities, too.

I know you posted in the earlier thread where I posted the following, but just to save a little typing ...

"Now, I know it's unrealistic to assume we would or could abandon New Orleans. However, we need to think hard about rebuilding the neighborhoods (in their present places) that have been completely destroyed. I'd rather see us spend $20 billion in new communities in safer areas with world-class transit systems, than to spend that money to allow houses to be built 100 feet from a levee that holds water 10-20 feet higher in elevation. Unfortunately, it took a disaster (that too many experts saw coming) to bring this issue to the forefront. Where do we go from here? I hope the answer is up ... figuratively, and literally."

I have no illusions that the entire city is going to be abandoned. I suspect that the French Quarter and other places with little damage will be "back to normal" in no time. My biggest fear is that even the most vulnerable places will be rebuilt, and when (not if) this happens again, this region and our country will suffer that much more. Those who were quick to jump on Dennis Hastert had a point in that they felt like he was kicking them while they're down. Maybe a week ago was not the time to bring it up, and maybe today still isn't. However, this topic NEEDS to be discussed quickly, and thoroughly.

Just think of how long it's going to take to even BEGIN to set up the infrastructure required to support new housing and businesses in parts of New Orleans. We should already be looking at areas that can support new development, and are still within a reasonable distance of New Orleans, especially if rapid transit is available. The Gulf Coast is already designated as a high-speed rail corridor. Supplement a high-speed connection between Baton Rouge and New Orleans with more affordable (and yes, subsidized) transit options. If the downtown is not physically as close to mass population, it needs to at least be connected to those areas by quality transportation facilities.

[Bubba Wheels]

French Quarter to open in 90 days, with scaled-down Mardi Gras at the end of February 2006 http://drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

French Quarter to open in 90 days, with scaled-down Mardi Gras at the end of February 2006 http://drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

The druge report?

[Buccaneer]

NEW YORK (AP) -- A month after Hurricane Katrina, political leaders are taking their first steps toward rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region.

But they are heading off in different -- and possibly conflicting -- directions.

The mayor of New Orleans is creating one commission to oversee the task. State officials say they are best suited to handle the reconstruction. And some on the Gulf Coast and in Washington want to see a strong federal role to coordinate the huge undertaking and guard against misspending or corruption. (Watch: Where's the relief money going? -- 3:12)

"Right now, it's just like our leaders were dazed during the disaster. I think they're still a bit dazed with just the enormity of the situation," said Rolfe McCollister Jr., publisher of the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report.

"Normally, cities build over time," he added. "Now suddenly they say, 'Where do we start?"'

The disaster's scope has made it difficult even to bring federal, state and local leaders together to discuss the challenges, said U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, a Democrat who represents a huge swath of southeastern Louisiana.

"Until you get the people back into the community, where do you meet with them? Who are they? Are they the same people that used to be, or is it a whole new cadre of people?" he said. "If I said I knew the answer, I'd be lying to you."

Still, some efforts are moving ahead:

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has appointed 18 local leaders to a new Commission for the Future of New Orleans, said prominent developer Joseph Canizaro, who is on the commission. It is racially balanced, with the Hispanic and Vietnamese communities represented.

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco is believed to be exploring her own panel on rebuilding, several business leaders said. Her administration is gathering input from officials in the state and beyond, but no group has been formed yet, said Michael Olivier, the state's economic development director.

The Louisiana congressional delegation has called for $250 billion in federal aid to rebuild flood-ravaged New Orleans and repair hurricane damage elsewhere across the state.

Others have floated the idea of a regional group that ties together the entire Gulf Coast.

President George W. Bush said Tuesday he is also considering how best to coordinate the recovery efforts.

Politicians, business leaders and urban planners all point to different challenges and questions facing the region, many of which are interconnected. Among them: how to keep a below-sea-level city safe from the water that surrounds it, how much of the city's housing to rebuild, and how to address the poverty endemic to the city.

Along with the urgency comes worries of political turf fights, no-bid contracts and Louisiana's legendary corruption. Some of that's happening, said Buddy Roemer, a former Louisiana governor and four-term member of Congress.

"The majority thread I see, unfortunately, from the political forces, are the 'let's-serve-my-interests' thread," he said. "Now they see the cash cow of government and they see the prospect of getting the sweet milk of fulfillment."

Imagine that.

The point I was trying to make earlier about the supposed health hazard is that despite all of the doom and gloom about epidemics and massive health risks seem to be, as usual, overstated. This is nothing new. Many cities around the country were forced to spend billions on cleaning up supposed health hazards (like taking water that's already clean - according to State and Federal EPA standards - and make it slighty more cleaner) because the "potential" risks could be devastating. It would have been ok without having to spend the billions - which would easily have been put to better use (like transportation and utility infrastructures). I think in the Gulf region, we should see such priorities.

[sterlingice]

Remembered this thread and ran across this update that answers some of Bucc's questions at the time.

http://www.wwltv.com/s/dws/spe/2005/toxic/

SI