Good point about the Columbia, I was looking for an easy and immediate example and should have looked a bit further. I would say that the extensive canal and levee system which encloses the Netherlands is a better example.

Damn, need to get back to work. I’ll address the rest of your comments later.

And speaking of denial, look at where Cairo is located. Is it unthinkable not to have a port at the mouth of the Nile? Or is it eminently thinkable to have a port miles inland, above the delta, where you can count on the ground beneath you? Cairo is built to last.

I’m all for the American spirit of can-do optimism, but never quitting can paint you into some tight corners sometimes. A resilient nation ought to also be sensible.

However, merely being one doesn’t mean I know what to do about the Mississippi Delta, other than urge everyone to read John McPhee’s The Control of Nature. I don’t think acknowledging the limits of human control ought to mean getting oneself labeled an asshole or an environmental extremist. While it may be “unthinkable that it wouldn’t have a port at its mouth,” the Mississippi may have other ideas. It does move around, and likely will defeat the Corps of Engineers one of these days at Old River Control, and it will flow to a new mouth. Then, the real risk for New Orleans will become clear: not destruction by hurricane, which can be rebuilt, but obsolescence. It will no longer be at the mouth.

Perhaps instead of rebuilding the port at the current mouth of the river, we build a major port above the delta and devote our resources not to levee maintenance but to intensive dredging of whatever channel the river is going with at the time.

Or, hell, we’re high tech: how about a huge, floating, moveable port? Let’s reimagine New Orleans as raft. Call it New New Orleans. When hurricanes come we can send it far out to sea, where it will be safe from storm surges.

We gotta think big.

With that being said, allowing the Mississippi (or any other river for that matter) to take its natural course is not an option. The mouth of the river isn’t moving to one spot… its perpetually changing course. Considering that the Mississippi is economically the most important river in America, it’s simply unthinkable that it wouldn’t have a port at its mouth. Think about the Columbia River. If it decided to shift southwards, would Portland be abandoned? Of course not. Engineers would find a way to control the river.

The main problem with building the city elsewhere, however, is that so much of it still stands. Take a look at an aerial view. Should downtown, the french quarter, and most of uptown be simply abandoned? It would be unthinkable to do so.

I do appreciate the comment, though. We need more debate on this blog.