High-tech flood control around the world
posted September 7th 2005 3:30AM
Unfortunately, hope and prayer seem to have formed a bit too much of New Orleans' flood control system especially when compared to the high-tech barriers already in place in low-lying cities and countries around this steamy damp orb. To be fair, many of these systems were themselves the result of similar flooding disasters. The New York Times does a good job of presenting several possible case studies for Nawlins and national officials to consider for future flood prevention — the Japanese have their superlevees, Londoners have their five-story tall moveable floodgates along the Thames, and Venetians are erecting 78 "gargantuan" floodgates which rest on the sea floor and will rise to block dangerous tidal surges. But the model the rest of the world looks to is the massive $8 billion system of defenses which has shortened The Netherland's coastline (a country twice the size of New Jersey) by more than 400 miles and took a quarter century to build. Seems there is something still to be learned from "Old Europe" after all.
So you think the Dutch's fancy 400 year old levy can take a Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane? Doubtful.
You guys should keep that in mind, before such a wity quip about "old europe" my good friend.
They're currently in the process of coming up with upgrades for the thames barrier so it can cope with higher sea levels because of global warming
#1: 400 years? 400 YEARS OLD?? He said a quarter century, which is, if you stop and think about it, 25 years..
Even if the dutch stuff wouldn't resist a cat4/5 hurricane (it probably would) we don't get those up here. It's merely a defence against the rising sea, since almost the whole of holland is 4 meters beneath sealevel.
#1, Its not about if "the Dutch's fancy 400 year old levy can take a Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane", its about thinking up ideas based on plans already in use. As the source says, the tallest flood walls in New Orleans were only half the size of the Dutch ones.
And that is a good point. 400 years old? That'd be DAM impressive if that were true
/gets coat
It's 400 miles long and took a quarter of a centuary to build, it spans the whole coast basically. The Netherlands being as flat as it is you can see why you need protection of this type. Weather it would stop a hurricane is to be debated, I suppose it depends on the storm surge, remembering that these defences are not intended for hurricane attacks. I think they would remain in tact but the storm surge would likely go over the top of them.
But due to the designs of some of these structures I can see why they are being considered, obviously they won't use the same design but the concepts of it will be looked at such as how they are anchored, the materials used etc.
The Dutch system is designed for withstanding extreme weather conditions occuring every 10.000 years, the New Orleans system is designed for withstanding extreme weather conditions every 200 years. It was designed and buildt because of a dissaster in 1953.
Thruth be told, the Dutch defense would not resist a hurricane of the magnitude that struck New Orleans, This is simply not required because those types of storms for some reason can only emerge over seas of high temperatures.
I do not know if you've even been in sea in the Netherlands, but it is not exactly how you would like it in your bath...
What can be learned from the dutch is that after 1953, the dutch imagined the worst conceivable storm, with the worst rain and the worst wind direction, and then engineered the coastal defense system to defend holland against the water accordingly.
The defense worked well, but due to global warming and climate changes, we get an increase of the normal sea level, an increase of rain moments and volumes of rain than come down in a short period. Moreover, the big rivers flowing into the coutry from Germany for the same reason also provide holland with an increasing flow of water, especially if the weather all over Europe is bad. Temporary overflowing is something that happens every year in some places, to the frustration of their inhabitants.
The basic idea to counter this problem is not to stop the water, but to 'park' or divert flows of water to certain areas, mostly meadows where normally cows are grazing. As holland becomes fuller of people and buildings every year, is becoms very hard to plan for spaces to diverts water to. Therefore, in newly developed urban areas there are always quite big canals that can hold signifcant amounts of water. Cities, some of the canals are excavated again for the same purpose.
Damage can be contained to material damage only, though.
In the night of 31 January op 1 February 1953 in Holland/the Netherlands there was a very heavy storm who set up a giant flood who break the dikes in Zeeland (a province of the Netherlands).
The Netherlands as the name says in Dutch is "below land" that may say enough. The other name of the Netherlands is Holland which says "hollow-land".
So we have dikes that are MORE than 400 years old, but from time to time updated. This is because the sea level is rising, and we are already below sealevel. To protect the Netherlands against other storms who drive the seawater into the rivers and upon the dikes like before, is the Delta Works.
This are massive dams the can close the rivers to the sea. If you want to read more visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works So i hope the Americans are not so stupid and learn from the Dutch.
I was watching a news report by an environmental disaster planner who was interviewed on the BBC, and the implication was that the Dutch dykes are designed to cope with the 1:10,000 risk of a storm severe enough to breach them while those in New Orleans only made allowances for a 1:200 risk. This is of course making adjustments for the kind of weather in these two areas (I doubt Holland has ever seen a Cat V hurricane), but it seems that the Dutch system has a larger margin of safety.
Ha ,I can't believe this has turned into 'who's got the best sea defence'.
You build for what you're likely to get, New Orleans didn't spend enough for a worse case scenario, I can bet there are hundreds of cities in the same situation.
There was plenty of warning, all the people who were there when it flooded chose not to leave, and don't give me that 'too poor to leave' crap, you could have WALKED to safety in a day, they stayed cos they feared for ther property and thought it might not get that bad.
The defence along the dutch coastline is something built after a huge storm in 1953, where big parts of the country were flooded and thousands of people were struck.
The majority of the netherlands is below sealevel, so this is absolutely necessary.
look here for more:
http://www.deltawerken.com/en/10.html?setlanguage=en
to #1:
>> So you think the Dutch's fancy 400 year old levy
>> can take a Cat 4 or Cat 5 hurricane? Doubtful.
Where does the article say it took 400 years to build the levee? Or was it that it shortens the coastline by 400 *miles*? It took about *25* years to build the levee system... Your comment reflects the obvious arrogance the US is so much loved for in many parts of the world. This is so sad.
>> You guys should keep that in mind, before such a
>> wity quip about "old europe" my good friend.
Sure.
"Old World" refers to France, not Netherlands.
The defences being built in Europe aren't designed to cope with hurricanes because we never get any. They're designed to cope with seas rising because of global warming. You know, that thing that happens because one country in particular keeps burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate and doing nothing about it.
daniel old boy, you my son are an idiot.
wow engadget getting more politcal by the day...and I who thought I could escape the madness here.
Intersting as the NY Times was against building stronger levees because of the enviromental impact.
Settle down folks, this is a technology website, so please keep the discussion around the merits of its uses -- not on whether my country can beat up your country.
"old Europe" relates do nations in Europe who do think invading other nations at will is not the right thing to do. Especially when the only reason is a bunch of big lies. Anyway the global warming does its own to its sources.
What an irony that the politics (foreign and environmental) at the end kill more Americans than Osama could dream of. So are you really sure that Osama is the biggest enemy or is it the guy from Texas ?
Europe is taking care of their problems alone and the US is doing the same with their problems. Then all is fine. Do your stuff, we do ours. If there is need for business so do the deals, except of that lets go seperate ways. A recent survey does just confirm that by the way. The majority of Europeans prefers to have more distance from the US.
I think with the relatively small area of New Orleans (vs. say the whole Netherlands), raising the level of the city would be the more economical option.
Placing floodgates and maybe a pumping system where lake Ponchartrain meets the sea could be an option, but that would only solve one side of the problem, there'd still be the Mississippi on the other side. And from size of the lake, apparent on satel. photos, it could easily take more than 2 days to lower the water level below the city's elevation.
Looks like our fair planet can put the smack-down on anyone it wants to anyway.
The seawall of the Netherlands were designed to protect a whole country. You can't compare this to of the measures of one US city.
It won't matter soon enough because China is going to invade the US and turn New Orleans into a slave port.
hindsight is 20:20
i guess every single structure in the state of california should be modified because there is a slight chance of a gargantuan earthquake in the next billion years
i guess we should all move to mars now as an asteroid will hit earth in the next billion years
I hate it when engadget posts a really cool picture than then doesn't say where it came from. Not only is it really annoying - I want to know which levee/pump system that is - but it's also (usually) illegal.
The Dutch Floods in 1953 also happened on the South Coast of the UK. A lot of people were killed as a result, however its largely forgotten apart from those places it affected.
After this occurred many Dykes (yes that the European term for Levees and nothing rude) were constructed around the UK coast.
Oddly in the last few years the authorities have begun to breach them. Why? Well it turns out that when you have a massive storm or flood, the resulting 'extra' water needs somewhere to go. Breaching the defenses and allowing water to flow into long disused flood plains take the pressure off other sections of the defenses.
I doubt if anything could have been done to prevent the terrible disaster that has occurred in the USA, the fact is this storm was like nothing else encountered before. The only good thing that can come out of it, is that a wake up call will be sent to the US Authorities to try to prevent something like this happening again. Yes there are lessons to be learnt from 'Old World' countries who have suffered thousands of years of flood problems. If you are ever in London or the Netherlands - go take a look at their Flood defenses - they are amazing.
The picture is the Thames Barrage, in London
The picture is the Thames Barrage, in London
With a place like New Orleans, a realatively small place (geographically) compared to something like the Netherlands, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to create intra city levies and walls. That way if the primary barriers break, flooding can be contained/controlled into a much smaller area.
True, it would $UQ to be IN that area, but we have seen the alternative and it wasn't too pleasant either. And not only would the destruction theorhetically be limited, rescue and recovery efforts could then be CONCENTRATED into a much smaller area. More resources/manpower per square miles would mean a faster more effective overall response (again in theory).
Also (not to refuel the politcal ferver in here) I think any of these defenses and designs from around the world is incomplete unless they have very clear and definite plans AND preparations on how to deal with a failure somewhere along the line. Say maybe stockpiles of large sandbags or self contained sandback production facilities around the city or something...huge caches of Jello that can be used to gum up incomming water...I don't know...anything...
Nothing's fool proof, but playing the 'what-if' game after the fact is a lot less effective than playing it before...
GT, destructive meteorites actually do strike the earth quite often. See "Tunguska event" in wikipedia. If this happened to occur in the US, or Europe or Japan, the same problem would present itself. Even though the odds are much less than say a cat 5 hitting somewhere in a 25 mile stretch of coastline, they are still present. Consequently, the potential for disaster whether an impact were to occur in the ocean, or on the land is extremely high. More people now than ever in the world enjoy a high standard of living, and to not devote a small amount of our collective wealth to avoiding such an event is akin to what New Orleans has done with their lack of preparation. They rolled the dice.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4220000/newsid_4224800/bb_wm_4224864.stm
Interesting read!!
First, I'm Dutch.
I do have a few comments to make, even if most misunderstandings have already been cleared.
First, most Dutch scientists and politicians agree that while the population might think they are safe behind what presumably are the world's best sea-defenses, they are not: if the "Big One" is coming here (ie the disastruous worst-case scenario event around which all defenses and planning are organised), our dykes, dams and levees would fail as well as they have in New Orleans.
Even worse is that this information is usually kept silent and only confirmed when specifically asked for, for fear of creating panic and scaring off investors (which sounds exactly like New Orleans). This fact was only exposed today, although I have known about it for a year (and that is because in my home town a dyke failed because of "fatigue", and officials were forced to expose this policy then, as well as in other small, local incidents).
Moreover, for years now, the investments in our sea-defenses have been undercut as well, up to a point of resulting in criticism by the engineering community yearly, although they all agree that they are still "safe".
OTOH, protection against the sea is embedded in our genes. Our defenses are by far superior over those of New Orleans. And that is simply because they have been designed only to fail once every 10000 years, and then because of "freak and unusually strong" weather. By the way, our defenses ARE able to withstand the forces of at least a hurricane 4, and probably a 5 as well. The problem is the fact that those "freak and unusual" events are expected to happen more and more often here as well, because of climate change. Combined with the steadily rising sea-level, this threatens to undermine all of our defenses.
Now, after Katrina, the Dutch government ordered an investigation into a Katrina scenario, because in the last week it has become painfully clear that everybody and -thing is counting that our defenses hold, and there has been no scenario whatsoever about what to do if our dykes fail. To be short, in our overly "red-taped" society, without a real leader, with a lack of expertise and experience (thankfully...) in disasterplanning and -management, I doubt we would fare much better than authorities have in the US. You are right to question ? criticise your governments, but know we wouldn't do much better. Know that one of your finest qualities is power projection (ie the concentration of all available resources into one event), very "handy" in disasters, and something we Europeans seriously lack.
That being said, I do have one more comment.
During the week, I have heard the FEMA-president and secr. Chertoff say that while planning has been done around overflowing levees, the now-happened scenario of collapsing levees could not be foreseen.
To speak with Mr. Nagin's French, that is utter BS! As a Dutchman, I can tell you that when dykes/levees overflow, they simply aren't high enough!! Which automatically reduces all emergency planning to one other problem; the chance that a levee will collapse.
This is what we fear in Holland, not the risk of freakishly high water-conditions. Why? because dykes (but levees too), all have a collapsing point (for levees it mostly is pressure, currents and erosion undermining them, for dykes moist-saturation is at least as important a factor).
If this was not taken into account in planning, that is negligence of the most serious kind, because, as we have seen, it has made all other planning utterly useless.
One more thing, having visited the Big Ease a couple of times, I have always felt intimidated when walking past the Mississippi in the French Quarter. Why? Because the water was running so damned high near the top of the dyke. A dyke I considered to be of very, very small proportions for such a mighty river (the river is much, much larger than anything we have, yet the dyke is smaller than the one that is protecting my home town). And then I didn't even realize that the French Quarter is higher than the rest of the city, and the river didn't flow directly into the city, but only indirectly, because a man-made canal failed...
One more ironic note: since 9-11, serious attention has been added to our sea and flood-defenses. Their protection is boosted as well, after realising that an attack on one of them, even if not creating a disaster, would create panic for sure. This has resulted in actually upping the budget for at least some sites/dykes. So, while the threat of terrorism has resulted in cutbacks for sea-protection in New Orleans, exactly the opposite has happened here. If the results would not have been so cruel, it is almost funny, but certainly an interesting look into the functioning of governments.
::This is simply not required because those types of storms for some reason can only emerge over seas of high temperatures.::
how high sea surface temperatures generate storms and inflate existing storms is not difficult to understand. these storms are energy machines, and rising warm air is what powers and drives them.
the journal SCIENCE has a free special section beginning this week discussing some of these matters. see http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/katrina/.
an article which discusses the connection between high sea surface temperatures and storms is available in the same section at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5741/1656