Isn't Reoccupying New Orleans Premature?

Doesn't it seem to be a bit premature to be reoccupying New Orleans? The talk is that businesses are cleaning up and getting ready to reopen. Word is a couple of hotels are ready to go. Up to 186,000 residents, primarily those in the higher levels of New Orleans both in elevation and income, may be returning as soon as next week. The plans are already in the works for "rebuilding" the city. However, there seems to be some major environmental issues to be at least looked at.

New Orleans, and some surrounding parishes, were inundated with a "toxic soup." Tests of that water shows high levels of bacteria, but also high levels of lead, heavy metals, and oil. It is reported that there were at least 44 oil spills in southern Louisiana. The region from Baton Rouge to New Orleans was already known as "cancer alley" due to the chemical industry.

Here are the issues as I see them.

First, the levees have temporary plugs. They have not been repaired or strengthened. The city is more vulnerable to flooding than it was before hurricane Katrina. Is it a good idea to put at least 200,000 people back into harms way in the middle of hurricane season?

Second - water supply. My understanding is that Lake Ponchartrain and the Mississippi River, are the primary water supplies for the area. Those two water sources are now filled with what has been pumped out of New Orleans. It is certain that they are highly contaminated, and possibly biologically dead. Where will the potable water come from?

Third - contaminated land. Just because the water is going down does not mean that the city is OK. The biohazards of the flood waters are now sitting in the messy sediment remaining. They have sunk into the ground and structures. They will continue to make their way to the underground water in the area. "Dry" does not mean "safe." In fact, it may be more hazardous than before as the contaminants will easily airborne by activity in the area. Being airborne, they are much more easily inhaled.

The contaminated land holds yet another threat. Every rain storm, and every flood is going to bring that hazardous mix back to the water supply to be pumped out once again into the lake and river. This is going to be a problem that keeps on giving.

The marshes and coast line. Numerous folks I have heard talking about this issue clearly state that without rebuilding the coast line the area will be even more at risk. It will have less protection from the ravages of the sea, and it will continue to sink.

While there is all kinds of talk of rebuilding, there is no talk of environmental clean up. That task in and of itself may be impossible. Yet, the move is on to get New Orleans (and other impacted areas) "back in business." There are areas that may quite simply not be safe for habitation - for humans or any other form of life.

Is there medical tracking of those who were trapped and exposed to this deadly mess? Do we even know where they are? There were early reports of five people dead from a "cholera like" infection. Three of those were from the Biloxi area. Since then, I have heard nothing except some short sound bites of infections in wounds. The folks - including rescuers - who have been exposed to these toxins and bacteria in New Orleans and elsewhere - may be facing significant short and long term health issues. The EPA lied about the toxic effects of the burning of the World Trade Centers? How comfortable do we feel about their evaluation of the hurricane area?

In my opinion, there is a lot of work to be done before rebuilding starts and we move roughly 5 million people back into these areas. As with the disaster itself, children and the elderly are going to be most at risk from these hazards, but it is potentially lethal for everyone. Do the economics of the area, and the desire to "make it all history" as soon as possible, outweigh the fact that haste may kill tens of thousands of these people?

People are gasping at a $200 billion dollar rebuilding cost. It may take more than that to start the toxic clean up - if it is possible at all. What we have is the largest superfund site we have ever faced. At least two cities have faced contamination that pales in comparison to the southern Louisiana region - Love Canal and Times Beach. Both of those cities had to be abandoned. It is unconscionable to just pretend that the environmental disaster isn't there. Yet, that "cleanup" does not seem to be part of any of the reconstruction "plans."

Since the corporate media seems to have found a little bit of spine, it is critical that they hold official's feet to the fire on this. Otherwise, we may see the creation of a "dead zone" that is even larger in scope than the immediate disaster itself.

Posted by rowan at September 17, 2005 10:20 AM | [eMail this article!] |