From an ethical standpoint, I see no problem with that, provided we are assured that adequate steps will be taken or have been taken to ensure that the property and buildings are safe.
After all if below sea level was the governing criteria then almost every Dutch engineer would be unethical since a lot of that country is below sea level.
The difference in Holland is that they maintained their dikes and take protection of the population seriously and recognize the threat from the sea.
If anything good comes out of Katrina then it will be the realization in the American people’s consciousness that natural disasters can and will happen to the USA.
You could ask the same question if we should be building in earthquake zones or post 11 Sep 01 if we should be building skyscrapers.
Our ethical obligation is to ensure that these structures are as safe as possible given the political and natural environment in which they are being built.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
Holland has the same storms as US or other part of the world like the typhoons in the Pacific Ring (North Sea is not a particularly nice environment).
For many years Dutch built dykes that were meant to resist the biggest storms ever, but recently they change a bit the strategy and now they realize that with the weather changes that are happening, storms in North Sea are becoming more frequent and violent and there will be a day that the dykes will not resist.
Having this realized, they are approaching the problem by other way that is by preparing preferential flood areas where the impact of the flood will be less destructive. As such, they are making structures to direct the flood in case of a dyke rupture to farm areas or areas with less habitants.
It is interesting that Holland is changing its sea defence strategy.
What I was alluding to is that Northern Europe does not suffer from Hurricanes. While the North Sea may be a grim environment, I understood that it was not big enough or warm enough for Hurricanes to develop. The US is in danger from several Hurricanes every year.
Certainly the oil platforms located in the North sea are designed for severe storm conditions but I don't know how intense the wind force would be compared to Katrina.
There was a TV show on the subject of how the Dutch deal with the flooding issues several months back, on "Modern Marvels" I believe.
It was very interesting and focused on the new computerized gates to protect against flooding of ship channels in the event of major storms. Very interesting program from an engineering view point.
Also addressed that in additon to the sea, Holland faces flooding threats from the various rivers that flow through it and bring in the run-off from other countries. In that show it also talked about mitigation through preferred flood zones.
My Dutch compatriots are not more proactive than the Americans are, Holland have had their flooding disaster (some 20000 died I believe) in 1953, the big projects (gated dams, dyke revamps etc) were started only after that. Plus Holland does not have that violent a climate, hurricanes are extremely rare. The '53 flooding was caused by an unlucky combination of wind speed, direction, high tide and the fact that the Channel acts as a funnel.
The flood areas that MedcineEng mentions are for rivers, not for the North Sea.
By the way Holland has done this intentionally on several occasions since the middle ages, and a plan was developed during the cold war to do the same thing in case of a Russian invasion.
==> The flood areas that MedcineEng mentions are for rivers, not for the North Sea.
And for New Orleans, it wasn't the river that was the problem. The problems came from Lake Ponchartrain, the Industrial Canal, and the Intracoastal Waterway/Gulf Outlet.
This is only conjecture on my part, but the reason I think this is the case is because the River was never taken for granted. Every spring, after the winter thaw, the Mississipppi rises and rarely does a year go by when the river does not reach flood stage. So the River is closely monitored every year, and the flood control mechanisms for the River are well maintained. On the other hand, it's been 40 years since a major hurricane struck New Orleans and taxed the non-river flood control systems.
Good Luck
-------------- As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
epoisses, since 53 the Dutch have put multiply redundant systems in place. I think that shows a tad more foresight than a single bank of earth with some concrete reinforcement.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
My two cents: New Orleans should do what Galveston, Texas did around the turn of the century. After being wiped out in a storm the entire City of Galveston, which was very near sea level, was raised above sea level. It was either 12 or 20 feet, I forget which, but New Orleans should do the same or els face the consequences of a repeat hurricane. They also need to update their water flow system and dikes.
The areas adjacent to the river's banks in its former flood plane are among the highest elevations in the area. That is because a river tends to build itself up right outside its banks as it overflows and deposits silt in the flood plane. That is why the area between Canal St. and the river stayed above water level.
It was the areas away from the river's alluvial flood plane in the low lying areas that subsided even further when they were pumped dry that went under water. They are only going to continue to subside (after they dry out again) as time progresses.
What I think is unethical, (not necessarily limited to engineers ethics) is to put poor people with no ability to flee a natural disaster in such areas.
I hope we never do that again.
Let's rebuild the parts not prone to flooding, and abandon or fill in the parts below sea level. It's not a matter of if, but when.
==> What I think is unethical, (not necessarily limited to engineers ethics) is to put poor people with no ability to flee a natural disaster in such areas.
I absolutely agree with that. However, there are a three questions/comments that arise from that, but may not be applicable for this forum. First, many of the people who lived in flooded areas were not 'put' there, but chose to live there. Second, many of the people who lived in those areas choose not to flee, and finally, many of those in those areas are not poor. Although one person is not sufficient grounds for broad generalizations, Fats Domino is probably the most well-known example of one who lived in the lower ninth ward and lost everything, but doesn't meat any of those three criteria.
Again, I completely agree with your premise, and yes, it is true that many who suffered and died were poor and to varying degrees immobile, I hope that no-one believes that all who suffered or died, were poor, put there, and had no chance to flee. Some had no choice, but many were just plain foolish.
Good Luck
-------------- As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
==> The areas adjacent to the river's banks in its former flood plane are among the highest elevations in the area. That is because a river tends to build itself up right outside its banks as it overflows and deposits silt in the flood plane. That is why the area between Canal St. and the river stayed above water level.
That's true, and the land that you're talking about is above sea level for the very reasons that you stated. But then again, the Mississippi River has not been allowed to flood for decades, and that was the point of my post. There was no failure in the Mississippi River levee system, and none of the flooding came from River.
Good Luck
-------------- As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
"What I think is unethical, (not necessarily limited to engineers ethics) is to put poor people with no ability to flee a natural disaster in such areas"
"put" people?
They put themselves there.
These are human beings. We hope they have some tiny bit of intellegence and self-direction.
They live there because it is cheap, or seems convenient, or because family was there and they were not motivated enough to move.
Just because lots of people do something, or love somewhere, does not make it my fault, or a good idea, or something worth subsidizing with tax dollars!
I think the duck park idea is pretty good...
or do a lot more dredging and filling!
