I remember one of my HPD buddies telling me back after Katrina this in regards to Houston crime in 2006-2008, "Houston gangs will run away from cops, New Orleans gangs will shoot cops."

quote:

---

He was motivated to study the issue due to the rhetoric he saw coming from Houston leaders.

---

It's not often that I see authors openly admit their biases before they try to convince you their research is correct.

lol

no doubt Houston lost on the Katrina deal

Dumb

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yep. Between the lock structure and the millions spent on dredging the current channel and lining it with articulated concrete mats to prevent erosion and riverbed creep, it's not going anywhere.

The main reason the marshlands are receding, BTW.

---

My money is on the river. It is eventually going to break loose through some combination of freak flood event, runaway barge, and/or bureaucratic apathy, and when it does, we aren't going to get it back. The Army dropping sand bags into the Katrina levee breaks is going to look like child's play compared to what it will take to redirect the Mississippi when that control structure fails.

---

Maybe eventually, but how many monster floods have run through the channel since we started building lock and dam structures and levees?

Unfortunately, even with a river the size of the Mississippi, we can control it relatively well with the technology and materials we have today at our disposal.

quote:

---

quote:

---

hanging out at 2016 Main post Katrina...you were a stupid soul!

---

FIFY

That area around the bus station and McDonalds was nuts around that time.

---

I lived in the Camden Midtown apartments near the Randalls. There was a marked change in the area after Katrina,

... And the Chronicle flip flops on what it reported 10 years ago.

Houston Pravda: Crime uptick due to relocation of NOLA comrades was MYTH

quote:

---

Myth #3: Katrina evacuees brought a crimewave in Houston

What's the truth: The data doesn't support this. Some violent crime, like homicides and robberies, did see an uptick after Katrina, a 2010 study showed. But most other crimes did not show a significant change. And violent crime in urban areas had already been on the rise since 2003, years before Katrina hit.

"If a bunch of violent New Orleans residents were taking over the streets of Houston, it would be unlikely they'd commit homicide but not other crimes," the Houston Chronicle wrote last week. Also other cities with evacuees didn't see significant bumps in violent crime. So while you could say murder cases in Houston did jump up in the aftermath of Katrina, it feels like race-baiting to blame it on evacuees. Moreover, the trend of a crime wave appears exaggerated.

Source: No, Katrina evacuees didn't cause a Houston crime wave (Houston Chronicle)

---

Un-god-damn-believable. The paper cited it own article as proof, which contained blatant bias in the research. I still get trolled by the Houston Chronicle because I like to think what is printed is objective news.

On the Mississippi River topic... If Mother Nature wants to change the course of the Mississippi River, all the engineering in the world will not be able to put band aids on it.

Yet they've stopped Mother Nature from the course she wants for 50 years

History shows again and again how Nature points out the folly of man. Rock and Roll Godzilla.

i wouldn't be surprised if they are still getting assistance from the government

That's the same article...they just repackaged it.

It's odd that the guy can publish the same article for two different sites and give no credit to the other.

So all agree murder & robberies went up.

But since other crimes didn't go up, that means the new people didn't do it? Hilarious.

quote:

---

So all agree murder & robberies went up.

But since other crimes didn't go up, that means the new people didn't do it? Hilarious.

---

Robberies went up too.

It really is amazing.

The guy is trying to cite a "scientific" study to further his agenda and the numbers don't really support his position so he just ignores the ones he doesn't like.

was the "&" confusing?

quote:

---

was the "&" confusing?

---

Eff you man. It's Monday.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yep. Between the lock structure and the millions spent on dredging the current channel and lining it with articulated concrete mats to prevent erosion and riverbed creep, it's not going anywhere.

The main reason the marshlands are receding, BTW.

---

My money is on the river. It is eventually going to break loose through some combination of freak flood event, runaway barge, and/or bureaucratic apathy, and when it does, we aren't going to get it back. The Army dropping sand bags into the Katrina levee breaks is going to look like child's play compared to what it will take to redirect the Mississippi when that control structure fails.

---

Maybe eventually, but how many monster floods have run through the channel since we started building lock and dam structures and levees?

Unfortunately, even with a river the size of the Mississippi, we can control it relatively well with the technology and materials we have today at our disposal.

---

It's kind of like a terrorist attack. USACE has to get it right every time, the river only has to get lucky once. Every set of levees and locks has a design storm they can handle, and it usually isn't a 500 yr flood. Like I said, eventually some bureaucrat somewhere is going to see a pool of money for maintenance that looks too big and will go raid it for something else, a barge will get loose at an in opportune moment...something like that. It will eventually happen...just a matter of when to me, not if. Read Control of Nature by John McPhee if you want s good background on how many times the river has done something nobody expected and overwhelmed a bigger and better levee system that was supposed to never fail.

All structures have a design point, i am somewhat aware of this.

There are, however, massive economical factors at play with reapect to keeping the Miss on the xurrent channel, and the .gov will continue to spend money ensuring that it does so.

A flood greater than any of the ones so far comes? Locks and divergent structurws will be rebuilt. Levees fail? New ones will be constructed.

You seem to neglect the sheer will and amoint of money that has beene xerted thus far to channelizing the river, and the fact that it will continue to be spent. Katrina is Exhibit A.

quote:

---

All structures have a design point, i am somewhat aware of this.

There are, however, massive economical factors at play with reapect to keeping the Miss on the xurrent channel, and the .gov will continue to spend money ensuring that it does so.

A flood greater than any of the ones so far comes? Locks and divergent structurws will be rebuilt. Levees fail? New ones will be constructed.

You seem to neglect the sheer will and amoint of money that has beene xerted thus far to channelizing the river, and the fact that it will continue to be spent. Katrina is Exhibit A.

---

Your post indicates you are somewhat drunk and ignoring the fact that the Mississippi River desparately wants to change course today. The current control structure dumps 30% flow into the Atchafalaya. Not sure why it is hard to see why this is a ticking timebomb.

Katrina was actually Exhibit It Didn't F cking Matter since it tracked east and didn't overwhelm the river control structure like other floods coming from north of BR and NOLA have done.

There have only been two near disaster floods that almost allowed the river to change course. These floods were not due to hurricanes. Natural floods happen more frequently than hurricanes so tropical weather is a bad measuring stick to use.

I don't want to see this happen, but the tendency of the river to change course over the years and the patchwork controls which have been set up don't inspire confidence.

It is pretty ludicrous to throw blind faith into the government and Army Corps of Engineers.

You completely missed my point.

First, most of the Katrina flooding was not directly from the Mississippi, it was from lake ponchartrain and the various canals (and in at least one case that I know of was directly the result of a USACE screwup in construction). Second, we only gained control of those levee breaches when the water levels got real close to equalizing on both sides of the levee. In the case of the atchafalya diversion structure, there will be no equilibration when the river breaks through there. The atchafalya channel will take the flow, and carry it downstream. You are convinced that government will never let the structure deteriorate to the point that such a thing could happen, but you are vastly underestimating the stupidity of bureaucrats when there is an opportunity for graft. The number of statues, marinas, parks, (hookers), etc paid for with levee maintenance funds in Louisiana is a prime example.

I agree with you that the government is and will be ready to throw massive amounts of money at fixing it when it eventually happens, but fixing any breach to the atchafalya and restoring the course of the river will be measured in weeks or months, not days. And in the meantime, there will be massive damage down the atchafalya basin. Then the cycle will start over again. That is the story told by McPhee in control of nature. We convince ourselves that we have the river tamed, and then Mother Nature gives us a demonstration of who is really in charge. Then we go back and draw up new levees and locks and once again convince ourselves we have it tamed. Wash, rinse, repeat. I am still betting on the river.

The example with Katrina flooding was to point out how much and how fast the feds will come in and rebuild something that should never have been built in the first place - because there are untold billions of economic dollars contingent upon doing so. I also do not recall ever making the statement or implication that any failures would be handled in some magic time frame either, so not exactly sure where that concept came from. I do have some inclination as to what it takes to survey, design and build massive civil structures in areas that are not exactly premier construction zones - I do a bit of something like that for a living.

Which is why untold billions are spent on channelizing the Miss. river and building the lock structures to control and divert flows. I am not certain some of you have a grasp on what the lower Mississippi River basin means economically to the country.

I have little love and even littler faith in the feds, outside of the faith that there is essentially zero spending limit to maintain the lower Mississippi river basin's status quo - and that we have not yet seen a flood sizeable enough to destroy the lock and diversion structures. And, in all likelyhood, we won't, because the topography simply is not conducive to such a flood. The Miss. is not the Colorado and has a completely different type of flood plain (wide and flat versus contained).

BTW, "destruction" is not what I'd categorize a change in course of the river from the current channel to the Atchaflaya channel - I'd call that a great thing for the lower marshlands. Marshlands rely on fresh water to balance the infiltration of saline water to survive, and they rely on annual flooding to deposit silt that they build upon. You take either one away, and you see recession in marsh coastlines like we see in southern Louisiana today.

Here is a great article on the damage done by the way we handle the Mississippi River with the channelizing of it to maintain current flowlines.

Louisiana Loses It's Boot

I work with the corps on an almost daily basis...so we both know their capabilities and limitations. Believe me...I know they will spare no expense to respond. My point is that the river will eventually break free and go down the atchafalya basin. We will eventually bring it back, but not before it causes a lot of problems downstream. I agree with you that having the river go down the atchafalya would be a good thing for the ecosystem and the geomorphology of southern louisiana...so I guess you could say I am not only betting on the river, I am rooting for it. I just don't want to see all the lives and businesses get disrupted when it happens.

Living on the river, in the swamps, or using the best farmland in the world created by natural flooding is not without risks.

Would it suck? Sure, but long term benefits would outweigh the suck factor. And I have a lot of family that would be affected as well.