Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnW
Exactly, most damage is caused by flooding. Florida is not below sea level. Therefore, if it does flood the water can receed.
|
Yes, but the natural disaster is, just as it is in New Orleans, quite likely to recur. Indeed, there are some areas of Florida which have seen storm damage far more often than New Orleans has see flooding. Why should we subsidize rebuilding in those at-risk areas of California and Florida? Why not, as you suggest, just tell folks to relocate to somewhere where they will be less likely to lose their homes?
Frankly, we can't afford to just walk away from places. Nor can the U.K., which is why they spent such big bucks to protect London from flooding.
Truth is that a lot of the world's most economically productive land is in areas where natural disasters are likely. Simply put, it is a big economic problem if any of these productive areas are abandoned, as you suggest be done with New Orleans. Coastal land carries an inherent risk of repeated flooding, or tsunami damge in many locales, but that is where the world's ports and fisheries are located. The floodplains of rivers are often incredibly productive agricultural land (due in part to both the availability of water and the deposition of silt by floodwaters), but there is a real ongoing risk of flooding. Similarly, volcanic soil is highly productive farmland but the risk is pretty obvious. The geology of the California coast combines to provide some excellent agricultural land, oil reserves, ports and a scenic beauty that ensures a large tourism industry, but it is also subject to an annual brushfire risk during the dry season, mudslides, and major earthquakes. New Orleans is located in one of these areas and is both a major port, with a major fishery adjacent, services a substantial porton U.S. oil production, and with one heck of a tourism industry.
The fact that New Orleans carries a different risk is not, in and of itself, a reasonable justification to abandon. By your logic, the one-third of the Netherlands that is polder land (reclaimed, but below sea level by as much as 30 feet), should also be subject to abandonment - yet this is some of the most productive agricultural land in the world.
Do we need to improve New Orleans flood defenses, if there is to be a future for the city? Yes, of course. Does it make sense to abandon one of the most charming, historical, culturally rich and economically important cities in the USA? I believe that the economics of rebulding the city and improving flood defenses will provide an emphatic "No!"
But then, I have a thing against just giving up and packing it in!