Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- From: "George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:05:24 GMT
"Jo Schaper" <joschapern4ospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11of0bi3gbdfgd3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> SBC Yahoo wrote:
>
>> I was not analyzing the entire Miss. flood plain, just the New Orleans
>> disaster. I have used the Corps computer modeling programs for
>> hydrology, since this is necessary for getting projects approved by
>> them.
>
> But, as George notes, the entire Mississippi River flood plain, from
> Minnesota and Montana and upstream of Cincinnati (including the Missouri
> and Ohio River valleys, as having first order effects on the stem stream)
> to Louisiana is one system. You poke it here, it belches there. You keep
> dirt in the Dakotas, it doesn't accumulate in Louisiana.
>
> At one time, the ACE had several scale models of the RIVER on which they
> ran real world (water, sand and clay) scenarios. Those have been
> abandoned in favor of computer models, which (while cleaner, and you can
> keep them on a laptop) have their pitfalls.
>
> Since the ACE is charged with the 'control' of the Mississippi they are
> the ones who need to keep screaming until they get their way, and not
> expect all other stakeholders to roll over and play dead. The reality of
> the matter is: many many political agendas control the Army Corps. And in
> that agenda ecosystem (President, Congress, US Fish & Wildlife, State
> governments, Generals, Engineers, civilian and military employees,
> commercial river operators, the general public and yes, even
> environmentalists) have their voices to be heard. The only 'pull' the
> public and environmentalists have are getting the functionaries to obey
> the laws of the US. Otherwise, they may be ignored. Now, it is your right
> not to like environmental law. But it is the law...and not even the
> military has the option to disregard it in civilian venues (like the
> Mississippi River drainage system).
>
>>
>> I was impressed with their knowledge and depth of personnel on hydrology
>> (Denver CO office), flood plains and drainage in general. I'll take the
>> Corps' word any day over some loony environmentalist, lamenting we msut
>> save the - - - - - (fill in the blank).
>
> I wouldn't. Not all environmentalists are loony, and not all engineers
> are ethical. If people on both sides worked toward a reasonable, common
> ground middle, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they will not,
> usually because there is some profit to them.
>
>
>>
>> We are not stuck with what nature left us (wetlands, etc.), we can make
>> it better or change it entirely. Thay is why humans are superior to
>> animals, we can change our environment. We just need to be sure we know
>> the consequences of our actions, and find them acceptable.
>
> Animals change their environments, too. Just ask anyone who lives in a
> high deer population area. Any overpopulated species (including humans)
> changes the environment. Only humans seem to think it is a virtue. You
> know, most enviros would agree with your last statement (except that they
> are skeptical that people know all the consequences of their actions in
> advance, and they disagree that they find them acceptable).
> ______
>
> No one asked me. But a middle ground answer for New Orleans seems the
> most logical--rebuild and maintain the port and oil industrial
> facilities, ban the residential repopulation of the most extremely
> subsided area, mitigate where reasonable, and build new houses on higher
> ground. Use geology and topo maps for some good planning, for lands
> sakes, BEFORE fixing what's broke in the same way, in the same place.
> Work for barrier and wetland restoration through the use of engineering
> solutions (ACE is aces at creating artificial wetlands, you know--the
> 'keep busy' beavers can do excellently whatever they are directed to).
> Provide incentives for the temporarily displaced to stay in their new
> communities, by reuniting families still torn apart. Build Morgan City
> (or some other town) as a 'backup port'. Use re-sedimentation lessons
> being learned in the Grand Canyon to open the gates on locks and dams
> upstream, flush out some of those reservoirs, and put more dirt back on
> Louisiana. Heck, if 9th Ward residents want another ethnic enclave in
> Louisiana (on higher ground) help them build it.
>
> Unfortunately, the US is not in the business of engineering according to
> sustainable principles on a 100 year plus timeframe or socially
> responsible development--the answer here is always and only the short
> term profit motive.
>
> After 1993, the town of Valmeyer, IL, said the hell with this...they
> moved their town 5 miles from the river and up a steep incline. It wasn't
> cheap short term, but is more frugal, long term. If people in New Orleans
> don't have the brains to move out of the water--especially those who've
> been given a jumpstart by having been forcibly moved--it is hard to
> generate much sympathy for them.
I concur. Well said, as usual, Jo.
George
.
- References:
- Geology is a dangerous business
- From: Jo Schaper
- Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- From: jonathan
- Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- From: George
- Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- From: SBC Yahoo
- Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- From: George
- Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- From: SBC Yahoo
- Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- From: Jo Schaper
- Geology is a dangerous business
- Prev by Date: Re: Shrinking Earth
- Next by Date: Re: Shrinking Earth
- Previous by thread: Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- Next by thread: Re: Geology is a dangerous business
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|