Editorial: Does Heart Vie With Brain On Subject Of Katrina?

Recent news stories relating to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina give every indication that in some cases opinions are guided by the heart when a more cautious approach might better fit the situation.

It was announced on January 6 that the city of New Orleans will hold off two weeks on demolishing certain designated areas of the city, while in the meantime a federal court decides whether to hear complaints by activists. Considering that the grading or evaluation of the salvageability of specific homes apparently has some overlap, with homeowners being told different things by different entity representatives, the decision to hold off is sensible.

What would not be sensible, however, would be to follow the advice of the heart in a recovery effort this large and when the vulnerability of the area resulted from improper decisions of the past. Would it be wise to lay out the picnic blanket on an anthill twice in a row?

Those familiar with New Orleans and willing to admit the truth know that the city sits in a bowl—a bowl so situated that it has been a tragedy waiting to happen for upwards of 200 years. Of course, the more that was built in the bowl, the higher the price tag for tragedy became.

The National Urban League announced on January 8 that it would oppose any rebuilding of New Orleans that would do away with neighborhoods most heavily damaged by Katrina. Marc Morial, a former New Orleans mayor, said he is concerned about suggestions that officials focus on rebuilding the least damaged neighborhoods and that some devastated areas could be turned into marshland or open space.

In light of information that has come out during evaluations following Katrina, those suggestions make a lot of sense. Rebuilding least-damaged neighborhoods first would speed up progress.

Perhaps the most important bit of news to come along has been the revelation that Katrina was a Category 3 storm and not a 4 or 5. This tells us that (1) building for Category 4 or 5 storm may not be necessary right away, if at all, and (2) that the existing levee system was inadequate to deal with the storm surge from the Category 3 storm. Related to that is what we have known all along: destruction of marshland and barrier islands along the Gulf Coast would lead eventually to trouble.

We have also been told by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that rebuilding of the levee system could take up to a decade or more. At this point, an accurate estimate of costs is evasive. But if rebuilding the system is to take that long, doesn’t common sense tell us to repair the most vulnerable sections of the system first? Doesn’t common sense tell us that if we have numerous vulnerable sections of levee, we should prioritize and fix first the sections that will protect those important things that have not already been destroyed?

Recovery of New Orleans will be a many--pronged effort. Millions of tons of debris are yet to be removed. Levee repair is a different operation. Detractors fear that turning land into marsh and open space would wipe out neighborhoods where generations of families have lived. Supporters say open space and marsh would help avoid large tracts of blight between rebuilt sections.

New Orleans is not going to pay for its recovery, at least not most of it. The rest of the nation is. And we would expect our governing bodies to apply common sense when it comes to laying the picnic blanket right back on the anthill.

Does it make sense to rebuild in the same devastated areas before the levee system is able to protect them? We think not. This has been a national tragedy, and for individuals to insist that their homes be replaced in harm’s way is not only senseless but also selfish. This is most likely one of those situations where eminent domain could and should be used justifiably for the betterment of the city. On the other hand, open space could be plotted to allow land ownership to continue for a given number of years until recovery is well along in other areas. At the end of that time, perhaps it will be decided that some rebuilding is possible.

In the Midwest, the Corps of Engineers plans spring rises (manmade floods) on different occasions in 2007. The government has just announced that National Flood Insurance will not be available to those whose crops are destroyed by manmade floods. That’s a blow to farmers.

What if the insurance companies (who deal with Gulf Coast customers) rule that in the future, structures knowingly placed in harm’s way will not qualify for flood insurance? How could anyone argue with that decision? It should be that way all over the nation. There is right now an ongoing struggle over payments to genuine flood victims and storm surge victims. If flood insurance is not made available to those who want to rebuild in this vulnerable bowl, why should the federal government allow the Urban League or anyone else to set the rules for recovery?

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)