Chris Mooney must be feeling clairvoyant. In May, his article in American Prospect outlined what might happen to New Orleans should it be hit by a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. Despite the increasing risk of a catastrophic event, he calls for technology to bolster the city against nature:
-
Currently, pretty much every long-term trend cuts against the safety of New Orleans. Levees are subsiding; coastal wetlands (which can slow storm surges) are continually disappearing; and sea levels are rising.... Most importantly, the Atlantic Ocean appears to have entered an active hurricane cycle, with the potential to fling storms at the Gulf Coast for years to come. This puts New Orleans on the vanguard among U.S. coastal cities (including New York) that will have to think hard about their growing vulnerabilities in the coming years...
New Orleans already boasts some of the most powerful hurricane defenses in the world, yet the city will have to greatly amplify their strength. That engineering feat will take years ...
[T]he Army Corps of Engineers and others have considered the notion of armoring the I-10 twin span, near the mouth of Lake Pontchartrain, with a miles-long bulwark rising out of the water. If tall and strong enough, the sea wall, dubbed "Operation Block," would knock down any storm surge rising out of the Gulf of Mexico before it hit the lake -- in short, stopping a hurricane with concrete.
And that's just part of the multibillion-dollar program officials with the Corps have envisioned, which would include strengthening huge swaths of the Louisiana gulf coast....
Whatever other natural catastrophes we may be willing to tolerate, the possibility of losing an entire city, and especially the legendary (if also infamous) New Orleans, ought to be out of the question.
But should the city be rebuilt? Should 1.5 million people live and work on the Gulf coast, below sea level, courtesy of the other 295 million (the Army Corps of Engineers is paid with federal taxes, for example)?
Flood Insurance
After a rash of hurricanes (and other disasters) in the 60s, Congress established a national flood insurance program. Local governments restricted new construction in flood plains; in return, the federal program offered reduced-rate flood insurance. The insurance became mandatory in 1973; no insurance, no disaster relief (at least in theory).
According to a 2003 FEMA report to the World Bank:
- Nearly 20,000 communities participate.
- They pay about $750-$850 million in claims annually (money that doesn't have to come out of the Federal budget.
- The program prevents more than $1 billion in property loss annually.
In 1993, during the "Great Mississippi Flood of 1993," the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois Rivers devastated nine states. Congress passed the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993; FEMA then began buying out or relocating flooded properties in high-risk flood hazard areas: 11,888 properties and 356 buildings. FEMA also funded projects to elevate or floodproof flood-damaged buildings: 141 of them.
Because of the buyouts in Missouri after the 1993 flood, when the floods came again in 2000, counties in the southeast part of the State did not need Federal disaster assistance.
Meteorological Similarities
This hurricane season has set record after record, not unlike the summer of 1993: According to Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., "the flood of 1993 was a hydrometeorological event without precedent in modern US history." (pdf)
There were 38 deaths (fewer than Katrina) and damages ranged from $12-16 billion (far less than Katrina is projected to cost, even with inflation-adjusted dollars).
If mitigation worked in 1993 ... can a mitigation program like that work for places on the Gulf?
If we don't mitigate -- but instead subsidze the rebuilding of the city -- are we creating a "moral hazard" (minimizing future risk to the landowner)?
Should we help rebuild flood damaged structures, including levees, when it does not make economic or engineering sense?
Should we bite the bullet and say "this is the last time" - provide money for rebuilding but allow firms and individuals to use that money to relocate?
There are no easy answers, only questions. Be sure to watch as Congress returns after its August recess -- will there be questions or only arguments over how much to dole out for rebuilding?
Join the discussion