The NY Times discusses something that has received little attention in the media, but had been discussed here in several threads. In the rush to pump the water out of New Orleans, we are forgetting what is in that water:
While the human and economic toll of Hurricane Katrina continued to mount, New Orleans was beginning to pump back into Lake Pontchartrain the floodwaters that had inundated the city.
But this is not the same water that flooded the city. What started flowing back into the lake on Monday and continued spilling into it Tuesday is laced with raw sewage, bacteria, heavy metals, pesticides and toxic chemicals, Louisiana officials said on Tuesday.
Whether or not the accelerating pumping of this brew from city streets into coastal waters poses a threat to the ecosystems and fisheries in the brackish bay remains to be seen, the officials said.
They added that they could do little more than keep testing and count on the restorative capacity of nature to break down or bury contaminants.
Though the state of the lake was a prime issue, it was just one of a host of problems identified in the storm-ravaged region on Tuesday by Louisiana and federal environmental officials.
For example, the officials said that although two large oil spills, from damaged storage tanks, were under control, thousands of other smaller spills continued to coat floodwaters in New Orleans with a rainbow sheen.
The first samples of the city’s floodwaters were taken on Saturday by the Environmental Protection Agency, and results were expected later in the week, officials said.
“It’s simply unfeasible” to try and hold the pumped water somewhere to filter out pollution, said Michael D. McDaniel, the Louisiana secretary of environmental quality.
“We have to get the water out of the city or the nightmare only gets worse,” said Dr. McDaniel, who is a biologist. “We can’t even get in to save people’s lives. How can you put any filtration in place?”
Just another angle to this never-ending mess.
*** Update ***
Welcome, Guardian readers.
capelza
I do have to say that I have seen quite a bit of discussion about on TV, but anyway..
I think about what this is going to do gulf fishing industry for lord knows how long…okay, so we’re a commercial fishing family, I think like that. Any shellfish, like oysters, will suck that stuff up like there’s no tommorrow. How will it affect the food chain?
You know, years after Exxon Vladez, there were still small residual bits of crude on the beach on Kodiak Island, clear across the Gulf of Alaska. It had turned into these gloppy little balls. That was just crude, not the heady brew that will pour into the Lake for weeks to come, invisible.
It is a no win situation. The water has to go.
jobiuspublius
This should help environmentlist and the safety concious make their case for some time.
Will it spur family fishermen to want to protect their fishing grounds?
capelza
You know, as hyberbolic as it sounds, New Orleans (and the entire region) was the canary in the coalmine. For a whole bunch of years, environmentalists and scientists have been called shrill at the very best for pointing out unpleasant things; reasonable folks have been saying this was going to happen for a very long time. Being dismissed as “wacky” or “alarmist”…
Well, welcome to the reality. Can we now have an intelligent discussion about some of the other things that we have been pointing out. I know, I know..it’s that science thing. Never mind. John Cole, I am not talking at you, but a whole bunch of people.
A good friend from LA once said, Louisiana hasn’t ever met an EPA guy they didn’t like, because they had never met an EPA guy period. And yes, that IS hyperbole.
John Cole
Capelza- I think they have discussed hownasty the water is, but I don’t think they have pointed out how this could cause a great deal of problems when pumped back in to Lake Ponchartrain.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Oh, yeah, I remember all those protest marches against brackish N.O. flood water. Gosh, if we only listened to all those environmentalists and hurt our economy, N.O. would be flooded with Evian with a twist of lime.
Perhaps if the enviro movement took a more sanguine and less partisan/anti-capitalist approach to its concerns, just maybe people will take them more seriously. Or perhaps the enviro movement should simply stop lying to people in order to scare so they can get more donation.
capelza
Oh, Boy, the stupidity. See, right there, you wrap everyone who has expressed concern into some great wacko group. Is that the extent of your knowledge of environmental science?
Sorry to disappoint, but not all envoronmentalists are card carrying memebers of Greenpeace (I’m from Oregon, the home of Tom McCall, the Republican and I’m the daughter of a Republican who is also an environmentalist).
So how’s that economy doing now??? How many industries are wiped out in the area, for the forseeable future. How many billions and billions of dollars is it going to take to rebuild them? Capitalists seem to fall into two camps. Those who plan ahead and those who will wind up spending a dollar because they weren’t willing tp spend a penny before the disaster. It gambling, this time they lost…
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
But the face of the enviro movement is a wacko one. I don’t know anyone, either personally or from public life, who is “against” the environment, who wants to see the environment destroyed, etc.
But when you have a movement that places bugs, worms and uninhabitable oil-rich tundra over humans, the movement loses its popular appeal.
Are you saying a lack of enviro concern caused Katrina and its aftermath? Hmm, the Feds have spent 100 Billion in 30 years to develop alternative fuels. Came up with nothing, yet I’m gonna hear over and over again how the levees were underfunded.
Davebo
Of all the available options, and there are few good options, pumping the water back into the lake is probably the best.
Ponchatrain was a horribly polluted lake, was cleaned up over the years, and will probably end up less polluted after this water is returned than it was prior to the cleanup efforts.
And over time it will be cleaned up again, both through natural processes and human intervention.
As to the question of the fish industry (commercial and recreational) and the environment, fishermen as among the best stewards of the environment we have with very very few exceptions.
demimondian
Which goes to show that it’s one of the science things that the Right has been against.
“But, but, but…no!”, you shriek. “We’ve been in favor of science in the case of physical engineering and even evolution. How can you link us to them?” Werd, d00d — how do you think that they crawled back into the mainstream? Yup — because you “responsible” types gave them cover, by painting solid and responsible science and technological study as politically motivated.
And, yes, you there squirming in your seat…I’m looking at you. You’ve made this bed, but the rest of us are forced to lie in it. Or, perhaps…”Ye have sown the wind, and ye shall reap the whirlwind.” (I read that somewhere, once upon a time.)
capelza
So the “conservative movement” is just folks like Pat Robertson and Focus on the Family” and all the extreme Social Conservatives that want to replace science in the classroom with faith? Yeah, it must be, because that’s all we see.
And don’t be an ass. Katrina was going to come, whatever her/his name would be. Concern for the aftermath, I’d say that is self-evident (that’s sarcasm).
You saying the levees weren’t underfunded? Obviously they were…because they held, right? Or are you one of those who believe that noone could have foreseen a cat 4/5 hitting the Gulf Coast…
But that isn’t what I’m even talking about. It’s ridiculous if the feds have spent 100B in thirty years and they can’t come up with things that are ALREADY out there. Good god, we are talking with a farmer inland to get bio-diesel he is making, for our boats. It costs him .55 a gal to make. It will cost us to completely drain and clean our diesel from the fuel system (see, it is just part of the cost of doing business).
In the meantime, in the name of the economy, can’t have ANY regulation ’cause that might slow down the economy, because you know, that tasty soup is pouring into Lake Pontchartrain is just part of the cost for a robust economy. The economy there is toast, and will be after the floodwaters are gone from N.O.
Also, have YOU ever been to ANWAR? I have, and by golly, there are people that live there. Do you even know how much oil is really under it? According to Bush, right out of his own mouth, there are 11B bbl(the USGS says maybe half that). The U.S consumes over 20M bbl per day. Do the math yourself. It wouldn’t come online right away at all. It’s not the miracle some of think it is.
Though there IS a bright side. With global warming offshore oil fields in the Beaufort Sea might be reachable..what with the ice becoming less of an impediment! This was a serious discussion in Alaska within the business community…:)
Btw, it isn’t just Bush who is responsible, though his actions have set back a lot of headway. Clinton pissed me off as well.
Mikey
So, anyone here have a workable idea on what should be done with the flood water in New Orleans? Any good ideas on how to clean it before it goes back into Lake Ponchartrain?
No, that would be constructive, wouldn’t it? Look, the water is going to have to go somewhere, we all acknowledge it’s going to be a mess. But is there really any other choice?
capelza
Mikey, I think you’ll find that almost everyone agrees that there is no other choice..it’s a no win situation…and a tragedy.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Why don’t we bottle the water and sell it to the Middle East? After all, they did give us Algebra!
demimondian
Lots of them — and, had the lessons of Hurricane Hugo been heeded, they’d be in place in New Orleans right now.
I’m hearing a lot of the “unforeseeable meme” here. Guys, this was not only foreseeable, it has *happened* in the last few years. Hurricane Hugo created an ecological disaster because of the overflow of hog waste lagoons. The Clintonites tried to get regulations in place to forestall a repeat, there or other places.
Trevor
Capelza, can you give me an example of what it is you think needs to happen? You’re pointing a lot of fingers but the only solution I’ve seen so far is bio-diesel.
Since it’s on the table, I will galdly discuss it. First off, why are you quoting the cost of cleaning/draining your tanks? Bio-diesel can easily mix with conventional diesel, and if anything it will clean your tanks/lines on its own. If you happen to catch it, there’s a TV show on Spike called Trucks. They ran a show on producing bio-diesel at home from used vegetable oil reclaimed from resaurants. They used this home kit, if you’re interested:
Freedom Fuel America
Bio-diesel can be a useful cost reduction, but in the long-run I think it will only supplement conventional diesel, not replace it. The current price of bio-diesel only becomes effective if the vegetable oil itself is free or only moderately priced (i.e. less than the price of unused vegetable oil.) It takes a heck of a lot of land to grow enough plant life to make a certain amount of vegetable oil. There’s simply not enough room at current harvest rates to grow enough soybeans (et al.) to make enough bio-diesel to replace conventional diesel. But, it can certainly take help to reduce conventional diesel usage if we continue to reclaim the oil in the manner I described. Hopefully that helps a little and if there’s any advice I can offer, I’d be glad to try.
jobiuspublius
I can agree that the environmental movement has an image problem. But, that doesn’t discredit their ideas. I do think that considering that there is a lot of work to be done on the environment and that success will take a while, there is no reason for the environmentalists to not pick their battles wisely.
The feds spending 100B in 30 years for alternative fuel, that is an isolated fact. It says nothing about spending on non-alternative fuel. It says nothing about helping the alternative fuel industry overcome the cost of entering the market. It say nothing about recent federal spending trends in the fuel industries, alternative or orthodox.
As for the levees, people take it as an indicator of this government’s priorities. Which is justified becuase huricanes happen every year. The trend seems to be to not maintain let alone expand defenses versus hurricane. A hurricane is one of the top 3 threats to this country and it’s not too late to have another one. A government that ignores that can’t claim to uphold the security of it’s people.
jobiuspublius
This will probally be a huge undertaking, maybe even stupid but what the hell. Turn lake ponchartrain into a cesspool. Pump the water out through a treatment plant into the gulf or mississippi, then fill it in above sea level or turn it into a wet land. NO needs more wet lands or higher ground anyway. I’m not aware of any easy solutions. Not my area of expertise.
EZSmirkzz
Link
The above link you can copy and past into your browser. It is a Tulane html, now 404, on the Superfund Sites in New Orleans. Googles crawl picked up on August 16,2005, so it is a recent Tulane deletion.
Anyway 2 Superfund sites are in New Orleans, and probably leeching into the flood waters, if Louisiana gumbo is anything like Texas gumbo.
EZSmirkzz
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:dQlqzCtIO_cJ:www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envirobio/enviroweb/Superfund/Superfund.htm+Superfund+sites+in+New+Orleans&hl=en
My bad.
capelza
Trevor, was I pointing fingers? No, it was a broad sweep at all of us. And that was just an example of a local and personal thing that is an alternative not requiring federal funding to change the energy paradigm. My intial post was also a broad swipe at the way this country does business and the reflexive accusations that anyone who has pointed out that businesses that pollute needed to be held to better standards was an enviro-wacko.
Which OBTS promptly proved. Anyone who wants some regulation on pollutants is automatically an anti-captitalist.
The arguement that environmental regulations retard the economic growth of the country works if one ignores the costs to health, etc. New Orleans is the hammer to the side of the head, not the shouted down voice of folks who have been saying this kind of thing for years and written off as alarmists. Don’t you find what is happening there as alarming?
Like I said, there isn’t a choice at this point. It has to be pumped out, but did it have to be so laden with heavy metals and other pollutants besides the gas and oil seeping from cars and tanks? This last is the least avoidable.
I don’t know what to tell you, but the diesel for our boats will not mix with the bio-diesel we want to use…perhaps it is the injectors or the horsepower (500 to 900 depending on which boat we are talking about), but I am saying this because in our business meeting two days ago it was the issue for not immdeiately switching over. I do trust the boat mechanic. After just talking to my husband, I have to correct that what I have been talking about is NOT bio-diesel, but bio-fuel (methane based), another thing altogether. That is my error, I misused the term.
DougJ
Colie, you’re doing a heck of a job.
Trevor
Capelza, thanks for the clarification. I’m an engineer and I take things literally and look at the details. When I read someone decrying our current regulations, I worry that a large federal reaction to a situation like this is enacted by legislators and lobbyists, not engineers and scientists. I can’t help but think of the federally-mandated gasoline additive, MTBE, the results of which are just now beginning to clear up:
MTBE in drinking water
When decrying current conditions, let’s not necessarily look to legislators to provide answers. Often, their solutions end up doing more harm than good. The best path for change is for individuals such as yourself to work on improving the situation and letting the market develop around you, instead of hoping congress can create a market for you to join.
capelza
Thanks Trevor, I have been very ditzy this week, what’s happening down there has me very upset, so I’m not “on my game” too well.
Believe it or not, I agree with you in large part. Small intelligent incremental legislation is valuable when based on science…and I wold wish to see more of that, as I have for 30 years…:( The big, splashy knee-jerk “sexy” stuff is NOT a good idea, for ANY law. My point was that the environmental disaster was not unforeseen. Maybe I was guilty of a “I told you so” moment, but really, it was foreseen. Did the country have the will to do something about it? Or any of the superfund sites, etc. etc. Any discussion seems to devolve into “environmentalists are anti-business”.
And thank for recognising the individual efforts. So many discussions I hear involve the big grids of energy. When I talk about energy independence, I’m talking about starting from home.
BTW, just an aside…are you familiar with the biogas generators? The county above mine is a huge dairy area. Anaerobic digestion of cow manure generates biogas, even electricity. It also helps solve the water quality issue. I’ve just recently become interested in it.
But back to Lake Ponchartrain…one positive thing, if the discussion goes national or even regional, is how can we fix this..and how can we avoid it the next time. Perhaps, as billions are spent, new paradigms can emerge.
Rick
Why don’t we try to blot up the nasty water with all those KRA’s (Koran’s Ready for Abuse) at Gitmo? I mean, crackpots think we do that stuff anyway, let’s give ’em a real reason for a stiffy.
Cordially…
Trevor
Have you ever seen the movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome? Same concept, except they used pig manure. In many ways it is similar to bio-diesel in that it is a useful alternative to petroleum-derived product, but has similar limitations on overall capacity. There’s only so many cows out there, even if they are as full of shit as a used-car salesmen turned politician. Nonetheless, it’s a great way to hedge your bets so to speak. Let’s just say that we’re more likely to see another petroleum disruption than a mass-extinction of cattle.
capelza
Trevor…no! I never saw that movie (am I the only one?).
Yeah, a lot of the technologies are applicable to larger areas. But the idea that different areas can utilise different energy stratagies on small scales should fostered. Especially when it can do double duty, like the biogas generators do.