Wetlands Would Have Reduced The Flooding
September 12th, 2005 | by Tom Harper |We’ve known for a long time now that wetlands are a crucial part of our eco-system. In addition to sustaining plant and animal life, they serve as a protection against flooding.
When George Bush Sr. was running for president in 1988 he promised “no net loss of wetlands.” For every wetland that got drained or flooded, a new one would be created. Technically, he kept his word. He simply redefined the term “wetland” so that anything smaller than Lake Superior was no longer a wetland.
If the swamps and marshes of Southern Louisiana hadn’t been lost to overdevelopment, the recent flooding would have been much less severe in New Orleans and other Gulf communities. When torrential rains fall, wetlands absorb a lot of excess rain. When the wetlands have been replaced with concrete and asphalt — or when marshland has eroded and been washed out to sea — there’s nothing to absorb the water, and you get a flood.
Since the 1930s, erosion and decay have destroyed 1,900 square miles of wetlands in Southern Louisiana. Some of the wetlands have been lost to development in general. And the massive system of levees and canals has washed lots of sediment out to sea. Former marshes are now submerged under the Gulf of Mexico. These marshlands acted as a buffer to slow the force of an oncoming hurricane. New Orleans no longer has this buffer; it’s almost completely exposed to the Gulf of Mexico.
The effects have been noticeable on a day-to-day basis. Some of the coastal highways flood every time the tide comes in. This wasn’t always the case.
The levees prevent minor flooding by bringing the water of the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. But these minor floods are what the wetlands need. The flooding brings fresh water and sediment which sustains and replenishes the wetlands. Without periodic flooding, the wetland “compacts.” A consultant for the America’s Wetland group said “simply put, when the land does not have any nutrients and fresh water it dies.”
Obviously the levees and canals are necessary; nobody’s arguing with that. But their side effect — the disappearance of hundreds of square miles of wetlands — is a serious problem that needs to be solved.
This problem has been known for a long time. Local residents have tried to help in little ways, like placing their old Christmas trees in marsh areas to help retain sediment. Sidney Coffee, the executive assistant to the governor for coastal activities, said “the entire area has to be re-plumbed. You have to build on what you have. It’s a very complex solution.”
A massive effort to divert river water and deposit sediment will cost about $14 billion. Coffee said “this is a very intense effort that would go on to do this. But the costs of not doing it are far greater.”
Aye, there’s the rub. In April 2004, some of America’s top engineers, plus millions of dollars, were diverted from Louisiana to Iraq. The marshes of Iraq became a higher priority than the marshes of Louisiana.
Bush requested $100 million for restoring the Iraqi marshlands (Congress hasn’t yet released the money). At the same time, the amount allotted for restoring the marshes of Louisiana was $8 million. (?!?!)
That’s right! The wetlands of Iraq are twelve times more important than restoring the lifesaving (as we’ve learned the hard way!) wetlands of Louisiana. How many lives could have been saved along the Gulf of Mexico if Iraq wasn’t considered a higher priority than Louisiana?
I don’t know whether this is shocking, or whether it’s just another jaded, numbed reaction of “that figures.”
In an administration already famous for its twisted, sick priorities, this takes the prize.
cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country
20 Responses to “Wetlands Would Have Reduced The Flooding”
By Enviroman on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
Yeah, wetlands would have reduced the flooding. You do know about environmental problems. You would probably agree that the frequency and severerity of hurricanes and typhoons like Katrina may be influenced by global warming. How about surfing over to Enviroman Says and doing your bit for the environment.
By Gun-Toting Liberal on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
Great post.
To the other commenter:
Hey, global warming is a cold, hard, FACT. President Bush admitted so at the last G-8 Summit, PLUS he also admitted that humans have been part of the cause. All the NeoCons ignored his comments and admission, but the fact is; he DID admit it. So, why have we allowed it to be swept under the rug?
By Tom Harper on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
Enviroman: I can’t tell if your site is serious or tongue-in-cheek, but if it’s serious then we’re both on the same side. I think. It’s true we all need to do more about the environment instead of just talking about it, but this is a start.
Gun-Toting Liberal: Thanks. I think by now everyone knows that global warming is at least partially caused by human activity. But we can’t sacrifice corporate profits for a little thing like that.
By jillmalitz on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
But, it’s ok for the feds to put money into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame while cutting money which could have helped solve the problems.
By The Cranky Liberal on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
Hey the Rock Hall of Fame is a great place
But it makes total sense to me fix Iraq, instead of New Orleans. Yep perfect sense. In bizzaro world.
By vmparker on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
Sounds like Bush took a gamble and lost. He plays with the lives of US citizens like pawns on a chess board. The Middle East is a more important focus right now for the end game. And our leaders will sacrifice ANY chess piece to win, even if it means only the KING is the last man standing…
By Tom Harper on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
Jill Malitz: I didn’t know there was any government funding for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I like rock and roll as much as the next person, but rock stars and record companies are rich enough to fund this by themselves.
Cranky: Yep, Bizarro World. That’s where we seem to be. Might as well get used to it.
VM Parker: Oh yeah, Bush loves to gamble with other people’s lives and money. Every time he gambles and loses, Daddy and Uncle Karl bail him out. Hopefully they won’t be able to this time.
By steve on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
God help you people….
By Tom Harper on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
If there’s something specific you disagree with, spit it out. Otherwise crawl back into your little cubbyhole.
By steve on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
Tom:
When liberals run out of ground in their fight against the right, the last resort is to turn to the environment when all other sane arguments have been exhausted. I can appreciate your effort but c’mon. Do you mean to tell us if Bush used said Iraqi wetland money in April of 2004 solely for Louisiana that this whole Katrina disaster would not have happened or happened to this extent? And you fault Bush for not telling the truth. Though you make a good argument you fail to sway even a left of center person that could innocently stumble in here and see this blog because even if the $100 million you speak of was put into play, do you really think that state, who failed miserably in their attempts to use federal money in the past for levee improvements would improve on what ultimately happened? Or does the Bush blame game continue on as the only way the left plan to win the White House in 2008?
By Tom Harper on Sep 12, 2005 | Reply
There now, see, there was something specific that you disagreed with. Why didn’t you just cut to the chase the first time? I’m not gonna respond to some mindless comment like “God help you people.”
My post was referring to the negligence at all levels that led to the wetlands’ decline (I know I focused partly on Bush’s decision to divert wetlands restoration money to Iraq, but it’s everyone’s fault). Other parts of the post mentioned that it’s been a well-known local problem for a long time; obviously everyone — local, state, federal — should have been more proactive.
We have no way of knowing if a proactive response to wetlands erosion would have mitigated the Katrina damage. That’s like analyzing a 40-car pileup and saying “if so-and-so wasn’t speeding this wouldn’t have happened.”
But it’s obvious that environmental problems like vanishing wetlands (and global warming, sorry but it needs to be said) need to be addressed, and soon. Wetlands serve a purpose and they need to be preserved. George Bush Sr.’s promise of 17 years ago (”no net loss of wetlands”) needs to be lived up to.
By CSC5502D on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply
The really funny part is that Clinton threatened to veto a budget that didn’t include wetland preservation money but DID include money for levee improvements in New Orleans. Cool huh?
Even funnier is that the Army Corp of Engineers had to fight the greenies because they wanted to build flood gates in New Orleans that would have stopped a lot of the flooding that happened. Good job greenies.
Now you have all the wetlands you wanted. Why are you blaming Bush?
You should be congratulating yourselves.
http://csc5502dsays.typepad.com/my_weblog/
By Tom Harper on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply
Do you have any sources for this?
BTW, that screen name of yours looks more like a license plate number.
By pia on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply
Tom great post. I kept on beginning to comment but kept on going back to the wetlands of Iraq being twelve times more important than that of Louisiana
Also have to commend you. You somehow managed to get Steve to ask a tangible question or so I thought before I actually read it, when it became obvious that it was just another swipe at our blog, and another the only way the left is going to win in 2008 is to blame Bush
As you more eloquently stated Bush isn’t solely to blame; he certainly doesn’t control the weather or many of the circumstances leading to the hurricane. But he could have done more in advance to control the wetlands.
It’s one more example of Bush ignoring information, and ignoring his responsibliities as commander-in-chief of this country
So yes Steve I will continue to play the blame game. You do every time you come to this site.
And Tom have to say this, I love your last comment
By steve on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply
Pia:
If defending my beliefs has makes a ancillary swipe at Bring It On, so be it. Take it for what it’s worth, some of this stuff posted here is great and some of it is quite out there. Opinions of the world are not FACTS. If a reader pops in and cites some pretty far out opinion based on your version of the facts, by intentionally blaming Bush as the sole “conspiritor” and “cause” of the hurricane and its tragic effects then someone needs to come and point it out before it gets slanderous.
By steve on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply
Tom:
That license plate guy looks like he’d kick the shit out of everybody…
He likes guns as well. Oy vey!!!
By Tom Harper on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply
Pia: Thanks. Lots of people at all levels are to blame for the Katrina disaster, but the way Bush has staffed FEMA (and other federal agencies) is criminal. An inexperienced person is placed in charge, and staffing and funding are cut until the agency is nothing but a hollow shell.
Steve: OK, it’s here in writing. Let the record state that on 9/13/05 Steve said: “some of this stuff posted here is great…” Awwright!! A compliment from Steve. I didn’t realize you had anything good to say about any of the posts here. I do remember when The Bastard did that post about phone numbers and websites to turn to for help after Katrina, you complimented him for that. But that’s all I remember off hand. It’s nice to see we’re not total villains here
And I do agree that incompetence at all levels made the Katrina devastation much worse.
I don’t know what’s up with that license plate guy. I never see him agreeing with anyone at rightwing sites, just making negative comments at leftwing sites. He wasn’t insulting at this post, but some of his comments I’ve seen are really obnoxious.
By steve on Sep 13, 2005 | Reply
Tom…
Rare instances I have come in and agreed so I don’t tar and feather everything I see.
By CSC5502D on Sep 14, 2005 | Reply
Actually the name was an Army unit designation:
Combat Support Company, 5th Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment (101st Airborne Division, detached)
Berlin Brigade
Anyway, I find it funny that you ask for sources from me, but not from the original post or the other comments, both of which are full of numbers and other claims which should be easily citable, yes?
I’m just saying if you’re going to do that, be consistent and don’t just ask for proof from the people you don’t agree with. Seems to be a common tactic on these sites…….
By Tom Harper on Sep 14, 2005 | Reply
My post has links to show where I got my information — check it out.
The other commenters who I agreed with were expressing their opinions, not citing facts and statistics. Being human, I’m probably more picky about “what are your sources” if it’s someone I disagree with. But you can get around that by showing the links where you got your information if you’re going to state facts.