New Orleans, fill it with dirt

[Doug]

Not as crazy as it sounds. Dig a big lake, convey the dirt over. All
the houses worth saving, raise them up on a new foundation. The
skycrapers, just make the bottom floor a basement. Expensive? Yes, but
a permanent solution. Better than it happening again.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "D" == Doug > writes:

D> Not as crazy as it sounds. Dig a big lake, convey the dirt
D> over. All the houses worth saving, raise them up on a new
D> foundation. The skycrapers, just make the bottom floor a
D> basement. Expensive? Yes, but a permanent solution. Better than
D> it happening again.

It's been done before:

"After yet another massive flood in 1862, an ambitious project to
actually raise [Sacramento] above flood level was undertaken. Evidence
of the tens of thousands of cubic yards of earth and miles of masonry
work used to raise the streets can still be seen today in Old
Sacramento." And the downtown if you know where to look.

[Dave S]

Bob Fry wrote:

>
> It's been done before:
>

Galveston underwent a similar transformation after the 1900 storm.

Dave

[George Patterson]

Doug wrote:
>
> Expensive? Yes, but a permanent solution.

Not at all. When New Orleans was settled, it was above sea level. The ground has
subsided and is continuing to do so.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[leslie]

George Patterson ) wrote:
: Doug wrote:
: >
: > Expensive? Yes, but a permanent solution.
:
: Not at all. When New Orleans was settled, it was above sea level. The
: ground has subsided and is continuing to do so.
:

The Mississippi has contributed to the problem by building its own
bed too high...

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1135.htm
No. 1135: Ol' Man River


"...But here the Mississippi has built its own bed too high, and is
ready to leave it. That threat has been mounting steadily. By
WW-II, a third of the Mississippi was overflowing into the Old
River and from there to the Atchafalaya River. The Atchafalaya
meanders down through the Cajun parishes of south central
Louisiana. It was about to become the outlet of the Mississippi.
The Corps of Engineers responded by building dams and locks.

The Mississippi has been jumping about like that for thousands of
years. Most of Louisiana is made of sand and silt dumped by the
River. The Mississippi was shifting its bed during the Trojan Wars.
It was shifting again while the Romans built their aqueducts. The
Battle of Hastings occurred during its last major move.

Today, a striking feature of the Louisiana map is a long arm of
land reaching from New Orleans to the southeast, far into the Gulf
-- the lengthening bed of the Mississippi. That arm of silt was a
mere stump in my 1898 Britannica.

[snip]

We've contained the Mississippi's attempt to move for a while. But
move it will -- sooner or later. One big flood and it will break
through those fragile barricades to reach the low ground it hungers
for. When that happens, two hundred miles of fresh-water ports will
be left dry, unless we cut a salt-water trench across Louisiana.

Many observers look on attempts to hold the Mississippi as pure
hubris. One says, The three most arrogant human projects imaginable
are, in descending order, to steal the sun, to make the rivers run
backward, and to contain the Mississippi.

The longer we hold this tiger by the tail, the more committed we
are to a task that's more difficult every year. The Mississippi
warns us, yet again, that nature's intent is inexorable. Nature
will yield to our will -- but only so far, and only for a while..."


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Montblack]

("Dave S" wrote)
> Galveston underwent a similar transformation after the 1900 storm.


Mexico City and whatever that lake was that they filled in - then built on..


Montblack

[Cub Driver]

On 31 Aug 2005 17:24:09 -0700, "Doug" >
wrote:

>Not as crazy as it sounds. Dig a big lake, convey the dirt over.

Actually, the problem seems to be that there IS a big lake,
Ponchatrain (however spelled). It leaked into New Orleans, causing the
big flood. It wasn't the storm surge that caused the problem, but
Ponchatrain.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Rich Lemert]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2005 17:24:09 -0700, "Doug" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Not as crazy as it sounds. Dig a big lake, convey the dirt over.
>
>
> Actually, the problem seems to be that there IS a big lake,
> Ponchatrain (however spelled). It leaked into New Orleans, causing the
> big flood. It wasn't the storm surge that caused the problem, but
> Ponchatrain.
>

That is one problem. Another is the fact that we've forced the river
there to stay inside a channel that we've defined, so it's no longer
dumping its load of sediment all over the countryside. The Mississippi
is not called "The Big Muddy" for nothing!

[Flyingmonk]

I'm glad to see that we can discuss OT without any one bitching about
it being OT.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

[Dave]

This is true, You should see the basements of some places in Old Town Sac.
Theres a pretty cool brewery down in one of them called The Hogs Head, or
Hogs Breath, something like that. We were really buzzed on Valentines day
when we found it. Stayed on the Delta King that night.
"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> "D" == Doug > writes:
>
> D> Not as crazy as it sounds. Dig a big lake, convey the dirt
> D> over. All the houses worth saving, raise them up on a new
> D> foundation. The skycrapers, just make the bottom floor a
> D> basement. Expensive? Yes, but a permanent solution. Better than
> D> it happening again.
>
> It's been done before:
>
> "After yet another massive flood in 1862, an ambitious project to
> actually raise [Sacramento] above flood level was undertaken. Evidence
> of the tens of thousands of cubic yards of earth and miles of masonry
> work used to raise the streets can still be seen today in Old
> Sacramento." And the downtown if you know where to look.

[Stefan]

Montblack wrote:

> Mexico City and whatever that lake was that they filled in - then built
> on...

At an altitude of 7,349 feet AMSL, the lake was considerably easier to
drain...

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm glad to see that we can discuss OT without any one bitching about
> it being OT.

Larry must be in a meeting...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rod]

Yeah, the raised Galveston about 20 feet with fill as I recall. It's worked
pretty good.

Seem to me we should take all of that delta mud that keeps extending the
Mississippi and use it to fill in the parts of N.O. that can never be saved
and raise it to 20 feet above sea level. That would take care of a lot of
future settling. It would also shorten the Mississippi channel. The
historic and commercial sections of the city could be left in the "bowl" as
a major tourist attraction and would be mush less volume to protect and pump
out. A major major project but better than spending the money on some other
silly government project.

Rod
"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Bob Fry wrote:
>
> >
> > It's been done before:
> >
>
> Galveston underwent a similar transformation after the 1900 storm.
>
> Dave
>

[Doug]

I visited New Orleans a couple of years ago. Flew into Lakefront. One
thing that struck me. When you are in New Orleans, the river and the
lake are "up there". Usually the river and lake are "down there".
Something wrong with that picture I said to myself. Water flows DOWNHILL

[Kyle Boatright]

"Rod" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, the raised Galveston about 20 feet with fill as I recall. It's
> worked
> pretty good.
>
> Seem to me we should take all of that delta mud that keeps extending the
> Mississippi and use it to fill in the parts of N.O. that can never be
> saved
> and raise it to 20 feet above sea level. That would take care of a lot of
> future settling. It would also shorten the Mississippi channel. The
> historic and commercial sections of the city could be left in the "bowl"
> as
> a major tourist attraction and would be mush less volume to protect and
> pump
> out. A major major project but better than spending the money on some
> other
> silly government project.
>
> Rod

Silt doesn't make good structural fill because the particle size is too
small. Small particles don't well, and result in soil that moves once you
think you have it put in place.

Where is the runway in Asia they built on silt? The one where they designed
it to sink a foot or so in the first X years, then more or less stabilize?
Unfortunately, it is sinking faster than expected, and they will have to do
it all over again some day in the future.

KB

[leslie]

Kyle Boatright ) wrote:
:
: Where is the runway in Asia they built on silt? The one where they
: designed it to sink a foot or so in the first X years, then more or
: less stabilize? Unfortunately, it is sinking faster than expected,
: and they will have to do it all over again some day in the future.
:

Kansai International Airport:

http://www.takenaka.co.jp/takenaka_e/airport_e/e_kix/kiindex.htm
Kansai Airport

Here's the page on the differential settlement of buildings:

http://www.takenaka.co.jp/takenaka_e/airport_e/e_kix/e_kix_1.htm
Kansa1

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Morgans]

"Rod" > wrote

> Seem to me we should take all of that delta mud that keeps extending the
> Mississippi and use it to fill in the parts of N.O. that can never be
saved
> and raise it to 20 feet above sea level.

It is being talked about.
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> Silt doesn't make good structural fill because the particle size is too
> small. Small particles don't well, and result in soil that moves once you
> think you have it put in place.

So what is the problem?
You build it 50 feet higher.

[Kyle Boatright]

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> Silt doesn't make good structural fill because the particle size is too
>> small. Small particles don't well, and result in soil that moves once you
>> think you have it put in place.
>
> So what is the problem?
> You build it 50 feet higher.

Moving, placing, and compacting dirt is very expensive. Supply is a bit of a
problem too. Where are you gonna get enough fill to fill several square
miles to any useful depth?

Beyond that, installing footings and foundations in unstable soil ain't the
best idea.

KB