Holland was set up by the Dutch. New Orleans was set up by the French. Moral of this story: We Americans need to stop taking advice from the French

That got a loud guffaw out of me!

you're insulting the millions of americans of french ancestry. obviously you failed history because anyone who studies american history knows that the french were the ones who financed and helped the american colonists gain independence just wondering, are you a xenophobe from the deep south, lets say..alabama?

you're insulting the millions of americans of french ancestry.

No, he is not.  If you dont know the origin of my name, go look it up.  Dont speak for me.

Come now, schwarzmeecrob! Stereotyping me as a Deep South bigot? Such intolerance does not become you. Also, you're being very narrow-minded.

Yes, we owe the French a debt of gratitude for their support during the Revolutionary War. Lucky for us they hated England even more than we did.

But that doesn't change the fact that the premier Frenchy metropolis of the New World seems to have been a really bad idea. If the French want to fund American wars of liberation, they're welcome to get in on the whole Iraq thing. But when it comes to building cities below sea level? Give me the Dutch any day.

Yes, we owe the French a debt of gratitude for their support during the Revolutionary War. Lucky for us they hated England even more than we did.

A very small debt, commensurate with their actual contribution.  And it was not altruistic, just petulence.

"Back in the 1800s and early 1900s, New Orleans had a very unique system of drainage that the Dutch copied," says Ken McManis, professor at the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of New Orleans.

That was from a December 2000 article, "The Lost City of New Orleans?" which predicted this was going to happen.

I'll wager that the Dutch didn't just copy the NO drainage system, but integrated it into a centuries-old and time-tested system of their own.

And let's be clear: the problem with New Orleans right now isn't the drainage, it's the flooding. It's all the water coming into the city. Clearly, no matter how good the drainage system is, it's not having any luck against the waters of Lake Ponchartrain. I don't think this drainage system from 1801 is the same system of dikes that the Dutch had been using to keep the entire ocean at bay for hundreds of years before they heard about New Orleans's fancy new gutters.

And I bet the Dutch are rethinking their investment in a New Orleans-style drainage system right about now.

And I'd also like to point out that the drainage system of 1901 (and even 1801, probably) was likely more a product of American ingenuity than French urban planning.

Anyway, the moral of the story seems to be that even a drainage system so cool that the Dutch themselves decided to copy it isn't enough to save a city built below sea level by the French.

---

In reality, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

In reality, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Rebuild it! You have the power! They will come!

(Is that enough cliches?)

I am sorry, but I am not for rebiulding it, unless it is done correctly.

Considering the fact that money is really not going to go into the area like that, that the are is surrounded by water (rather than just being below sea level, its below sea level, surrounded by water and within a storm track), and people don't seem to have the forsight to biuld for the extreme, and then biuld for when it does work, I am for NOT rebuilding.

100's of lives, maybe 1000's, billions in damage, and the aftermath of the unknown for thousands of families, workers, and businesses for what?

If California had an earthquake at 10.0, and split the state literally, in 2, it would be worth rebiulding more than New Orleans, because you can design around it far better than a city below sea level surrounded by water.


If they biuld to the area insead of biulding as if you live in upstate NY on a mountian... ok, but they better live up to that. I think they won't because they haven't and knew full well they should have for more than a decade.

Dramatic, yes. But not unlikely, according to Shea Penland, geologist and professor at the University of New Orleans. "When we get the big hurricane and there are 10,000 people dead, the city government's been relocated to the north shore of Lake Ponchartrain, refugee camps have been set up and there $10 billion plus in losses, what then?" he asks.


(And I know someone is going to bring up that guy who said that in the Koran, the US will recieve a flood bigger that what we saw in December 2004)

News from the netherlands

the problem with americans is that they make a risk calculation. They predict that in 30 years a category 3 strom will hit New Orleans and that the dikes should hold that. So when a category 5 storm will hit New Orleans everybody should be evacuated.

The dutch people try to develope a system that should break once in 10.000 years. The risk of flooding is becoming very small then.

But we had some great floodings also. In 1953 there was a big disaster when the southwest of the netherlands was flooded with several meters of water. After that the deltaworks were build and a lot of open seewaters were closed.

www.deltawerken.com/en/10.html?setlanguage=en&PHPSESSID=d7c9d902b5fb53d18450a844be7297b1

Wise words from the netherlands watch, learn, spend money on it and have a safe future.

Oh by the way for the next time choose a real president please