The $50 Billion Plan to Protect the Gulf Coast

Washington Post national reporter Peter Whoriskey was online Tuesday, May 1 at 10 a.m. ET to discuss the $50 billion plan to rebuild Louisiana's coast line to deflect the damage of future hurricanes. It would be the one of the largest capital projects in U.S. history -- dwarfing Boston's "Big Dig" -- and impact the way many coastal businesses operate.

Louisiana Plan to Reclaim Land Would Divert the Mississippi (Post, May 1)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Peter Whoriskey: Good morning. Thanks for joining us.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Has anything like this been attempted elsewhere in the United States or other countries? If so, how successful was it?

Peter Whoriskey: Good question. The answer that I've gotten is no - nothing on this scale has ever been tried. The most similar project is a much much smaller diversion of the Mississippi, just below New Orleans.

I visited it. Basically what they did is they dug a deep channel, about a 1/2 mile long, and using these immense gates they let the water flow out the side of the Mississippi into some wetland areas.

As I understand it, however, this smaller diversion wasn't meant to build land necessarily but to lower the salinity of the water in some eroding wetlands. Scientists say it was working well. The surge of Katrina set that project back however.

_______________________

New Orleans: Do Americans understand the economic consequences of losing coastal Louisiana? Do Americans understand that the oil and gas companies have raped the wetlands without restoration projects? How would lumber companies be viewed if they ripped every tree down in the U.S. without replacement?

Peter Whoriskey: You sound like someone from Louisiana, where I hear that question often. They say: We're critical the nation's energy infrastructure, you've got to help us.

The value of Louisiana's natural resources is exactly the argument that the state delegation is planning to bring to Washington as they ask for these huge sums of money. Roughly 2/3 of the $50 billion project cost - and that is very likely too low - will be requested of U.S. taxpayers.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Doesn't it make more sense not to try to live in a floodplain, and instead use that $50 billion to relocate people to an area that is not another weather catastrophe waiting to happen?

Peter Whoriskey: That seems logical, and I do often wonder whether people in Louisiana are doing enough to save themselves from trouble in the next hurricane.

Most people rebuilding in New Orleans - that I've seen - are not raising their homes. Once again, they're trusting the levees.

On the other hand, people live in floodplain's all over the United States, and it doesn't seem fair to make only people of southern Louisiana get up and leave home. And the reason most people are not raising their homes farther above the ground is that its simply too expensive. There are federal grants to help, but on a typical slab home, the grants don't cover even half the cost.

What New Orleans city planner wants to do is to encourage people to live in the safest areas - generally the highest.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Why $50 billion? Why not $30 billion or $40 billion, or $49.9 billion? How solid are these estimated costs? As we saw in the Big Dig, these approximated estimated costs had little relationship to reality. Who is estimating these costs and how much faith is there that cost overruns will not hit this project?

Peter Whoriskey: I think the Louisiana folks who put this plan together will admit the $50 billion figure is just "ballpark."

They can't be that precise because the plan is still somewhat conceptual. How much water will be diverted from which precise locations has not been determined.

Given the uncertainty I think you're right - the numbers will go up. Cost estimates for public projects rarely seem to go down.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Has the funding been approved for this project? If so, who's paying for it and what guarantees do we have that the project will work as intended?

Peter Whoriskey: The project cost would be split between federal and state sources with the federal government expected to pick up the lion's share.

The plan is just now going through the Legislature, where its sponsors expect it to pass. The real test comes as it goes to Washington.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Thank you for the article. I'd point readers to " Bayou Farewell," a great book written by Mike Tidwell, himself a former Washington Post writer, for more information. Here in Washington, what is the next step? For those of us who recognize the need for a massive restoration plan for the Louisiana coastline, what can we expect of our members of Congress? Also, it seems like the commitment from a variety of industries and interests to solve this problem is like never before. Your article describes shrimpers and fishermen as ready and willing to solve this problem -- that's remarkable, considering the changes it could bring to their industries. Should we expect heavy lobbying from the shipping industry, or will they also likely go along with this type of plan, even if they don't love it?

Peter Whoriskey: Wow - that's a lot of elements in one question.

I think Bayou Farewell gives readers a nice feel for the rural people - many of them Cajuns - who live in the areas most affected by coastal erosion. The land they and their ancestors have been living on is disappearing at an astonishing rate - 24 square miles a year. It's one of those strange things that you can hardly believe is happening until you go visit and meet the people who've seen their backyards go underwater.

_______________________

Peter Whoriskey: As for the other parts of the question, it's hard for me to tell how well this will fare in Washington.

Louisiana will be asking for a lot of money, and Congress and the country are skeptical of what have been known as "megaprojects." Once the project become fully fleshed out in detail - for example, how shipping will be handled - we may see more opposition, too.

Maybe they can break it into digestible pieces, but that might take too long. The dangers for people in the coastal communities are imminent.

_______________________

Clyde, Mo.: Thirty years ago, I lived in those coastal communities of Louisiana. Years of shipping channels and levees have stopped what the river did naturally -- overflow and build up land. If there is not some reversal of the human-caused erosion, more huge chunks will be lost. Question: Will the competing interests (political, environmental and commercial) ever be able to make a coherent decision?

Peter Whoriskey: All those interests been dithering over all these questions for a decade or more. Lawsuits, contrary scientific judgments, etc. - the equivalent in some views of playing the lyre while Rome burns.

The hope of many there is that Katrina and Rita showed the nation how critical the land loss issue can be in saving lives and livelihoods.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Are they planning to open up the Old River control system? That would be major. I would like to see a chart showing where the diversions would be placed. Does the cost of the system include getting shipping to the Port of New Orleans now that it no longer would be on the main stem of the river? This project is huge. I bet the Corps loves it.

Peter Whoriskey: There is a very nice graphic that runs with this piece that shows the location of the river diversions. If you click on the story, it's there.

_______________________

Philadelphia: On a related issue, how many people still are dislocated and what is their living situation like? What is the delay in not assisting displaced people in getting their lives back?

Peter Whoriskey: That is a big, big question. There are well over 100,000 people from New Orleans alone who have not come back.

Some of the folks I've talked to are doing just fine, thank you, living in Houston or Atlanta or Tennessee. Their jobs moved, or they just relocated themselves. Other people are stuck still living with relatives, and complaining of what might be called "too much togetherness." Thousands of others are living in FEMA trailers, either in the yard of their flooded property or in one of the FEMA trailer parks.

_______________________

New Orleans: Good story (but you already knew that).

Peter Whoriskey: Thanks. Who dat?

_______________________

Moss, Tenn.: In my opinion, this $50 billion-$100 billion is well spent ... but make sure the Louisiana thieves do not get control of the project. Excellent plan for the entire Gulf Coast!

Peter Whoriskey: You must also be from Louisiana.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The thing that gets lost in all of this is that when you take the chance of living below sea level, and don't prepare your home or have an emergency plan, than that fault and responsibility lies with you to fix your life. You said, if people aren't rebuilding their houses elevated ... yet who will they come to if this happens again? Us, the taxpayers. I read that the government just extended housing for Katrina evacuees through 2009! How on earth can we expect these people to rebuild their lives if the government keeps paying the bills? Better to relocate them to a less-diverse area of the country to help with race relations and integration, than allow people to rebuild substandard housing below sea level.

Peter Whoriskey: You raise a lot of issues, as questions about New Orleans always seem to.

First, I think you may be presuming that the only people affected here are African American, but they're not. Long stretches of the areas most affected by coastal erosion are predominantly white. Lakeview and other low-lying New Orleans neighborhoods are predominantly white, too.

That said, the issue you raise about whether the lowest, most vulnerable portions of the coast ought to be repopulated is a very interesting one. The people who live in those neighborhoods say that the government built the levees in the first place and that sense of safety brought the people in. The government shouldn't now decide to pull up and go away.

On the other hand, the federal flood insurance program, which provides people affordable flood insurance in these areas, seems to be in a very difficult spot. They're supposed to set regulations for how high rebuilt homes ought to be and in many places they merely said "three feet higher than before." This didn't make much sense in areas that had just seen 10 feet of water. It seems to have been more of a political compromise than a scientific finding.

_______________________

Berkeley, Calif.: The Mississippi Delta is included on maps of heavily populated regions at (immediate) risk from climate change. Any reasonable plan should include actions that decrease subsidence and estimate reasonable sea level rise this century (climatologists are saying it could be 1-2 meters, or more) and increase coastal protection (mangroves, etc.). It's not clear that any investment in the Mississippi Delta makes sense without this. Are the authors of this plan dealing with the real and immediate future?

Peter Whoriskey: Sea rise and global warming are part of the discussion around this plan. It's certainly one of the arguments that the state delegation will make in asking for the money.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What happens to New Orleans in this scenario? I lived in New Orleans for more than four years, including post-Katrina, and this is the first I've heard of a major diversion like this. I read something in the article about a series of locks and canals, but does the diversion mean that we won't be seeing ocean liners sailing under the Crescent City Connection anymore?

Peter Whoriskey: I think its farther down the Mississippi that shipping would be rerouted, if it is rerouted at all.

_______________________

New York:"Louisiana thieves?" The AP has a story today about Bush family cronies bilking the taxpayers with completely defective pumps by rigging the bidding process. I'm shocked (in the "Casablanca" sense) you haven't mentioned this, Peter.

washingtonpost.com: Corps Asked to Explain Pump Contract (AP, April 30)

Peter Whoriskey: There it is.

_______________________

Granger, Iowa: I am just wondering if the kind of flooding from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina could happen further inland than New Orleans, or was the particular topography of the area overdue for such a calamity?

Peter Whoriskey: Well I don't think it would reach Iowa...I think flooding could certainly reach farther inland than New Orleans, especially with Lake Pontchartrain to the north...

_______________________

Peter Whoriskey: Thanks everybody for all those interesting questions. I'm checking out...

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.