From: John Cuccia 

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:22:09 -0400, Richard B.  wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:02:30 -0500, John Cuccia 
>wrote:
>
>>As a former New Orleanian I would agree as long as you're willing to
>>say the same thing about West Coast cities that may be destroyed by
>>earthquake,
>
>Does it make sense to build and rebuild a city on a fault line?
>
>Charleston is earthquake prone, but we don't build skyscapers here.
>Certainly all risks can not be eliminated, but I think mitigating
>those risks is just common sense.
>
>I dunno, it is probably far riskier for me to drive across town and
>avoid death by an SC driver than to live in SF.

The same could be said for New Orleans (not that I'm bragging about New
Orleans drivers), until Monday morning.

Ironically enough much of the work done to protect the city from
"routine" flooding since 1927 is what makes the city vulnerable
in this case.

Mississippi river levees prevent the spring floods from dumping the
sediment that built the marshes that used to absorb some of the shock of
storms.   Those marshes are no just about gone.

The ring levees around the city, while designed to keep water out, work
just as well to keep it in once it's there.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5