RealCurrents

Congressman John Culberson, from Bill Archer’s (and George H.W. Bush’s) old District 7 in Houston, is getting a bit of a backlash for daring to say something critical of NASA. Here’s the comments page from yesterday’s Houston Chronicle article, Culberson weighing legislation for NASA overhaul.

Now Culberson has gotten a reputation as one of the most tech-savvy Congressmen, which seems well-deserved. In May, he did a live video, using his cell phone and the Qik service, of the Mars Phoenix landing from JPL. Culberson’s enthusiasm for space, science and discovery is obvious there. He’s also very active on the fast-growing Twitter social network (@johnculberson), to the point that last week he became embroiled in a flap with Democrat congressional leaders over proposed rule changes that would severely restrict congressional internet video and blog posts.

Asking a question like “What’s wrong with NASA?” is so complex that a long answer is probably of little practical usefulness. I will say that it was a little disturbing how quickly folks who obviously knew far less about NASA than Culberson, including some politicians, turned on him as if he’d blasphemed or something. It’s also frustrating how many immediately viewed this as some sort of attack on the personal integrity of NASA employees.

As someone who once worked, long ago, both for NASA and a contractor, these sorts of arguments seem pretty much pointless. Let me just repeat what I wrote at the Chronicle page:

This has nothing to do with whether NASA has good employees or not. Of course there are many very motivated and dedicated folks at NASA and among the contractors. The real question is whether they’re being used effectively.

Rep. Culberson is right in certain respects. NASA has made great strides in many areas, but two areas, manned spaceflight and propulsion technology, are greatly lagging. We need a concerted effort in advanced propulsion because this drives everything else, and we desperately need strong leadership for a sustained manned spaceflight program.

As far as NASA taking credit for a “growing commercial space industry”, that’s ridiculous. Maybe the agency is finally seeing the light about commercial space, but it’s visionary entrepreneurs and private investors who have long been the driving force.

As to how we should invest funds to best create a vigorous manned space program, I wrote about the basic technical strategy here on my blog AeroGo. Congressmen, responsible for determining NASA’s budget and priorities, at least need to understand the root problem behind our frustrating lack of progress in manned spaceflight, which I noted in this discussion of SpaceShipOne designer Burt Rutan’s criticisms of NASA:

Because its R&D isn’t properly divided between technology development and operations, NASA remains prone to starving technology development whenever funds are tight (i.e. nearly always), which is much of the root problem. I suspect this is a lot of what is upsetting to Rutan about the program, “that you are not going to learn anything new here that is useful for you to go on to the other moons.”

The reality of NASA budgeting over the last 30 years or more has been that of operational manned space projects - Shuttle and ISS - crowding out most everything else, which leads to a very risk-averse R&D environment where breakthroughs are unlikely to occur

NASA will never be a perfectly efficient organization, but it still could accomplish a lot more if its budgeting were realigned to reflect the strategy needed to make steady progress. Manned flight operations cannot be allowed to crowd out space technology research, especially propulsion, anymore than they can be allowed to displace space probes, space science, or aeronautics research.

Because manned spaceflight is so expensive, however, the reality is that it will end up crowding out the others unless Congress imposes budgetary guidelines to protect these other areas that provide so much technological return on investment. Rep. Culberson is right in calling for an overhaul of NASA, but the budgeting process is key. Even without multi-year appropriations, a lot can be accomplished just by making sure NASA isn’t eating its own seed corn, particularly in the area of space technology R&D.

I was reading Jessica Mah’s post on how a lot of her high-school and college-age friends are really scared about global warming. Here in the U.S., it’s often reported that folks in other countries are more concerned than the average American, but little attention has been given to how the issue is impacting younger Americans.

It occurred to me that they need a little perspective on this. I grew up in the 1970s, and for those of us Americans who went through this period when the U.S. was in a severe technophobic angst, and there were constant pronouncements about all the terrible things that were going to happen, I suppose we’re just not so quick to be convinced the world is coming to an end every time scientists start preaching doom and gloom.

This was a very long list of crises that 1960s-70s experts insisted were soon to befall us, most of which I’ve probably (thankfully) forgotten, but which included such calamities as pollution, endangered species, population, overcrowded skies, the San Andreas and yes, even a looming ice age. I guess being terrified of nuclear armageddon just wasn’t enough anymore. The funny thing was, very few of these scientists were talking about an energy crisis.

Of course, even the “energy crisis” didn’t last long, once investors started pouring hundreds of billions into oil, which was $35 when I got out of high school but less than $10 when I got out of college. Jessica titled her post “Scared of Global Warming? Bring in the entrepreneurs!” and so yes, I think she’s right that entrepreneurs and the free market are a lot of the answer to global warming.

In general, though, I think we ought to stop and notice something. It sure seems to me that scientists can get into a negative funk about stuff, and end up focussing too much on the problems rather than the solutions. In fact, I can’t help wondering if it’s sort of the same dynamic as with investment newsletters - negativity and fear apparently sell a lot more newsletters, and a crisis may, sadly, be the only thing that will finally garner a research project any funding.

Now, this is certainly not all the scientists’ fault, nor is the business world off the hook. Just look at the American car industry, one of the most pitiful examples of research budgeting in modern history. Perhaps GM, Ford and Chrysler may be excused for being caught unprepared on fuel economy in the early 70s, since they were already struggling with new emissions restrictions. On the other hand, here we are again thirty years later and, sadly, it seems that only the recent combination of high oil prices, a dropping dollar, and concerns over carbon emissions was finally enough to get them serious again about improving fuel economy.

Amidst all the prognostications, it’s still not clear how global warming is going to play out. Besides the many questions of specific effects in specific places, there’s at least three basic questions involved. First is the question of how fast temperatures will go up. Second, how much will they rise long-term (or is it a runaway increase with no end in sight)? Third, if temperatures can be stabilized, will (can?) they then head back down?

We hear virtually nothing of potentially beneficial effects, but clearly there’s going to be some winners among the many losers from effects of global warming. Interestingly, so far the Russians seem to be the only ones thinking ahead about any positive outcomes from it. As Jessica suggests, entrepreneurs ought to be also. Again, though, we must keep a proper perspective - a long-term perspective.

While there’s a lot we don’t know, we can say that at least for practical purposes, whatever we can do will take place over decades. Realistically, it’s far too late to do anything about changes that may take place within the next decade or so. In other words, whatever research and changes - technological or political - that are to be made must be done consistently over a decades-long time frame.

This is, for example, why I strongly disagree with the basic Kyoto (Treaty) framework. Already China is producing as much carbon emissions as the U.S., and will likely continue to increase. Kyoto might be effective in reducing the emissions of Western industrialized nations, but given these reductions and the continued growth of China, India and other large industrializing countries, within a few years this extremely costly plan will prove ineffective in reducing the bulk of emissions.

We’ve heard from the scientists on global warming, but have yet to hear from the engineers, who are going to be the folks who have to make reductions in carbon emissions actually happen. We need to think about cost/benefit ratios. We also need to think about sustaining research investments over decades, which as the history of NASA indicates, is awfully difficult to do when you start out with crash-program type overbudgeting.

I think it’s a good bet that a lot of these new technologies are going to come from both big American businesses (such as Boeing with its new 787) and American entrepreneurs. This realization may not play well overseas, but any approach such as Kyoto that hobbles the American economy is going to be counterproductive.

Like it or not, the U.S. is still a (if not the) major innovation engine in the world. Companies in Silicon Valley (1, 2, 3) and elsewhere in the U.S. are working on hundreds of different technologies, everything from emission controls to cheap solar to electric cars to wind power and so on. Here in Texas, it’s become common to see the giant parts of wind turbines rolling down the highway on their way west, where hundreds are being put up.

We must remember that innovation, not political decrees, is the only way to solve the problems from global warming, and while we’re at it, let’s not forget to also think about taking advantage of the benefits.

Raymond’s lament about how CNN has degenerated into the “Celebrity News Network” got me thinking about media and journalism again. I realize how important the media folks are, how much they influence the conversation, and I know it’s essential to keep pushing for improvements in that industry. I, for one, am certainly a fairly dissatisfied customer.

Raymond’s complaint brought up at least two things that particularly annoy me about the media:

1. Journalists seem to be really BAD at ever covering stuff that would actually be useful to know about. We hear about disasters all over the world and, of course, whatever mess (or island resort) Paris Hilton may be in at the moment. Nevertheless, there’s all kinds of practical stuff that we hardly ever hear about. I wrote about one such example, changes in credit card minimum payment rules, back in 2005.

I encountered another example this afternoon, when I was picking up one of my kids from work, and the subject of the minimum wage hike came up. He was wondering when the first increase would go into effect and how much it would be (i.e. whether he’d get a raise). I really don’t know. I think it’s sometime next winter, but I guess information like that is just too practical for the media to bother with.

There’s a lot of examples like that, of missed opportunities to be helpful, across most all the media, and I’ll try to point out more in the future (see the Journalism category).

2. It used to be there were 3 TV networks, only AM radio, etc., but now that we’ve got a zillion channels, they STILL can’t seem to focus on a specific topic. In other words, an awful lot of media channels are all chasing the entire market, rather than specializing.

CNN isn’t the only channel that’s lost its focus, but what’s more frustrating is that with so many more channels available (and so many owned by major media players), they still won’t specialize.

Radio provides perhaps the best test case, at least here in the Houston area, where we still don’t seem to have a dedicated news station, even though ClearChannel has bought several of the top AM stations. In fact, it’s gotten worse, as long-dominant KTRH 740AM lost a lot of its news coverage (and apparently its staff) after the 2004 election, and is just a shell of its former self.

Why can’t a huge media company like ClearChannel have at least one 24 hour news station in a big market like Houston? The obvious answer is they think they can make more money by changing formats all day long, from morning news to Rush Limbaugh to local talk to sports to UFOs, etc. That may work for them, but the longer this goes on, the more I just lose interest.

I wrote recently on All Things about how most of society STILL isn’t taking information overload seriously, and the major media are prime culprits. It’s not just broadcast media, either. It never ceases to amaze me, for example, how many ads I get for print magazines. Don’t they realize I’ve already got a pile of magazines I can never find time to read?

For years Americans have seemed to be relentless consumers of more and more media output, whether TV shows or sporting events or newspapers, books, etc., but I can’t help but think we’re nearing a limit, and that the winners in the media are going to be the ones who help us to find the right information, and package it for us in easy-to-swallow bites.

Google is perhaps the best example of this currently, of a business that helps us to overcome information overload, to cut a swath through the jungle to just what we’re looking for. In other words, Google is actually helpful, and they’ve been richly rewarded for it.

What I’d like to see are broadcast channels that are actually oriented toward my needs, to where my needs are placed first, and advertising comes second. This will seem ridiculous to traditional media types, but in my view, there’s an incredible amount of media out there, and I’ll just go somewhere else. Who knows, maybe I’ll get my weather updates from Twitter before long. After all, I can’t hardly find them on KTRH anymore.

While folks are busy fretting about all the terrible things that might happen in Washington this year with a new Democrat-led Congress, Americans might need to keep a lot closer eye on their state and local politics as well. Is it just me, or does it seem that politicians are busier than usual proposing all kinds of odd-ball laws? I saw a report today that someone in New York was proposing a law banning listening to iPods while crossing the street! If legislators have this much time on their hands, they ought not meet so often.

Here in Texas, where the biennial legislative session is a notoriously short 140 days, this shouldn’t be a problem, yet I’m more concerned than usual this year. I must admit I don’t keep very close tabs on Texas state politics in Austin; the general news coverage is far from adequate and usually focusses on just a few bills. Back before the internet really caught on, there used to be an organization, the Texas Grassroots Coalition, run by Austin attorney/CPA Adrian van Zelfden, that did a great job of putting out information, especially during legislative sessions and before primaries. Perhaps nowadays with the many blogs there is something equivalent, but I have yet to discover it.

Despite the information gap, the maneuverings of the past few weeks have been enough to get the attention of even casual observers, whereas, I guess, even the astute were caught off guard by Governor Rick Perry’s draconian power grab last Friday, when he issued Executive Order RP65 mandating the HPV vaccination of all 11-12 year-old girls in the state.

There are so many things wrong with both the scientific/medical and political aspects of Perry’s action that I will leave this to others, or at least to another post. David Watts, Jr. has started a helpful blog, Overturn RP65, to track developments regarding this issue.

Besides that mess and its threats to our civil liberties, not to mention our constitutional form of government, there’s the general budget situation in Austin, and the huge surplus, which Perry, among others, hopes to spend, but ought to by and large be handed back to the citizens of Texas through tax cuts. This will be a huge fight, I’m sure, because all these billions of taxpayer dollars floating around are just asking for trouble.

In light of the very favorable budget situation, it seems awfully curious to me that Republicans are so busy trying to raise extra cash. Perry’s idea of selling the lottery, unsettling at best even for those of us who oppose state-sponsored gambling, is indefensible with so much surplus already floating around. As ususal there’s various efforts, that I haven’t managed to keep track of, to legalize additional gambling and “use the money for education”, a phrase which some political hack might as well convert to newspeak since we hear it so constantly.

Besides these, there’s the Republicans’ push to privatize new state highway construction. This is one of those ideas that sounds “conservative”, but really is just a different can of worms. Texas has had one of the best highway systems for a long time, especially considering the size of this state, and more public toll roads may well be worthwhile. Private toll roads, on the other hand, would turn the economics of highway construction and repair - and property taxation - on its head. Foreign-owned private toll roads, which have limited exits and which don’t convert to free roads once paid off, are a very bad idea.

In general, it seems state Republicans are increasingly looking for assets to sell, or otherwise mesmerized by big projects to fund, which is making a mockery of the term “conservative”. Since just about every candidate running in Texas these days boasts about how they are a conservative, a little fiscal discipline would sure be refreshing.

With their unbridled willingness to spend money and start new projects, the rush to start war in Iraq, and potentially elsewhere, even while threatening the rest of the world, I can’t help but wonder if many Republican office-holders who call themselves such even understand the meaning of the term “conservative”.

Considering how upset a lot of folks are over RP65, and the disappointments with the free-spending Republican Congress of recent years, I don’t know how much more of this Texas conservatives can take. If our legislators in Austin don’t think real hard before spending Texans’ money, they may well ensure that the 2008 primary gets very interesting.

John Drzal raised some good points in his comments on my last post. He doesn’t think a guest worker program will do much to reduce inflows, and apparently favors hefty fines to those who employ illegals.

Regarding immigration reform, there are at least a couple of key factors here. First, we have to reset the legal clock, so to speak. It’s pointless to try to take severe action against illegals and their U.S.-born children after decades. A fine would be in order, as some have suggested, though I think it would be unwise to make it too severe. In any case, by starting a full-blown regulated guest worker program as part of an overhauled immigration law, the U.S. effectively resets the clock, and conveys clearly that future violations will not be ignored as in the past.

The second factor is this whole nonsense of severe penalties to employers, etc. First of all, a lot of these employers are individuals, mom and pop restaurants, small contractors, etc. To hit them with huge fines while slapping companies like Wal-Mart on the wrist is just plain wrong.

It’s a general sign that government has failed when it resorts to harsh penalties. A lot of the drug laws fall in this category. Celebrities can smoke joints in the White House, joke on TV about using drugs, etc., usually with impunity. It’s the poor kids without a good lawyer who get locked up.

Certainly, there’s a lot of improvement needed in treatment of farm workers, etc., but government can only really get involved in this once these folks are no longer invisible. I do think regulation and taxation, combined with better future enforcement, can drastically reduce the flows. Nothing will be perfect, but hey, there are a LOT of other folks here illegally besides Hispanics!

Regulation and taxation are among government’s core competencies. The employment laws were already made a lot tighter some years ago, with little to no apparent impact. A hundred laws with severe penalties will do no good if they aren’t enforced. We’ve got a better chance of seeing laws actually enforced if they are more limited, with most of the work being done by regulations instead.

The problem with popular opinion among non-Hispanic Americans is this notion that we need to suddenly act harshly because “All these folks are violating the law!” Rather than being reactionary, we really need to come up with a strategy for dealing with this, or else we’re going to get even more illegal immigration, unless our economy tanks or the dollar declines a lot.

As far as Hispanic communities taking in those who might come in outside of a guest worker program, this will be a problem, no doubt. But when these immigrants have some legal status, they will then have something to lose. I’m certainly not going to argue that it will work perfectly, it won’t. But we need to get these folks on the radar screen, and I think the first step is to create a tiered pathway to citizenship. Then the ones who remain invisible can justly be suspected of being undesirable elements rather than just folks trying to feed their family.

As I noted last time, the program is going to have to be large, but at least these people will be paying taxes. They’re not going to go away in the short run, and trying to get businesses to do the government’s job isn’t going to work, either. The reality is that we all benefit a great deal from immigrant labor, whether in lower food costs (the entire country) or lower costs in many areas such as housing, services, etc. (much of the country). I really don’t think we’re prepared to wreck our economy (which it probably would) just to kick these folks out, and I think in this respect Americans need a bit of a reality check, and immigrants deserve a little credit.

Since my first post Monday, more has come out about the Dubai Ports World deal to take over operations of six major eastern U.S. ports, plus some additional Texas terminals, apparently, at Beaumont, Corpus Christi, and the Port of Houston.

The UAE has been wise to back off and wait, rather than press to complete the deal immediately. As more facts emerge, it’s starting to look like the sale might not be as bad as it looked at first, but the U.S. is going to have to work through a whole bunch of thorny political issues. It’s amazing how many hot-button issues have managed to be bundled together in this DP World deal.

The most compelling argument in favor of the deal is that the key area for U.S. port security is actually in the overseas ports, rather than stateside. In other words, cooperation with port operations companies and foreign governments on the loading end is critical. The reality is that most ports are near major metropolitan areas, and inspection upon unloading might be too late to catch certain weapons of mass destruction, such as a nuclear device.

The U.S. has cooperative programs such as the Container Security Initiative that are designed to push the threat away from our shores. Nevertheless, it seems pointless to argue that allowing other countries to operate our ports will incur no security risk. Ownership brings access, and a lot of Americans were justifiably shocked to find out operations had already been outsourced to the extent they have.

Obviously, the outrage this sale has generated shows Americans are paying quite a bit of attention to homeland security issues and that the Bush administration’s attempt, once again, to say “simply trust us” isn’t going to work with such a sensitive domestic area.

If cooperation with foreign port operators and governments - so that manifests can be tracked and containers inspected far from our shores - is really key to port security, then the deal may represent an acceptable trade-off. Nevertheless, despite getting pretty much a free pass (and blank check) on Iraq for three years, President Bush is going to have to really make the case for how this will help security. Selling it on the basis of helping the global economy, as Michael Chertoff was reportedly doing this week, isn’t going to cut it.

In all, this is an amazingly complex political situation. Here are some additional factors deserving consideration:

• It’s still not clear exactly what DP World is “buying” in this transaction; obviously the operations of U.S. ports are not at all well understood by the public. Certainly Congress needs to take a new look at the port laws that are on the books and make sure roles and authorities are clearly and perhaps uniformly defined.
• Jimmy Carter’s quick support of the deal was puzzling. It would be easy to simply say the port deal is analogous to Carter’s giving back the Panama Canal, but consideration of Carter’s mindset about foreign affairs may shed some light on the politics. His assertion midway through his term that foreign policy was complex and beyond the understanding of the average American was what really sunk his presidency, and the current administration seems to have slipped into a similar error.

  Americans instinctively grasp there’s a balance to be struck in our political system between the ideals of republic and democracy. We leave most details to elected officials (republican/representative rule) but still must know enough to judge the performance of these officials (democratic elections). When officials start wanting to leave Americans out of the loop entirely, arguing that the issues are just too complex, the people know better, and there can be a swift political backlash as happened with Carter and again this week.

  Because Americans also understand the need for strong military leadership, there is more latitude given in this area to the President, but sometimes politicians presume too much from this. An example was the 1946 congressional election, when many were voted out because the country was fed up with wartime price controls that the government “experts” insisted must continue.

• The accusation that Americans are being xenophopic or even racist is way out of bounds. As long as Muslims insist on regularly blowing each other (and others) up, they’re going to have a real tough time persuading Americans they’re trustworthy. It’s hard to trust someone who seems to enjoy violence. The U.S. has fought a lot of foreign wars in the past century, but there’s always a lot of political pressure to end them and come home. We’ve got better stuff to do.

  Concerning the UAE, specifically, I’m not sure banking links to terrorists mean much, and Bush’s claim of strong military and intelligence cooperation gives support to the deal. On the other hand, to argue that everyone in the UAE supports the U.S., and so can be trusted, seems quite simplistic. According to AP’s Robert Burns, “the relationship is so politically sensitive in the UAE that the Pentagon does not openly discuss details.” It also has been reported that in 2004, the most recent year’s data available, the UAE sided with the U.S. in United Nations votes only 5 times, and opposed the U.S. 67 times.

• The media deserves some of the blame here for its monolithic coverage of the Middle East. This is very frustrating but unlikely to change, so if Muslim countries want to foster understanding in the U.S. and appreciation for Muslim culture, they will probably need to do the job themselves. The fascinating magazine Saudi Aramco World is a bright spot here, providing a glimpse of these cultures that is virtually unobtainable in the U.S.
• As I noted last time, the administration has gotten worse and worse at communicating its message, at a time when clear communication and articulation of strategy is needed more than ever. Obviously, changes in the White House staff are long overdue.

  Beyond that, the President needs to work a lot harder at sharing his vision of democratization of the Middle East, and be more forthcoming about what strategy, if any, he is following to get there. As I noted before, it is long past time for a real debate about our aims in the Middle East to take place in this country. It may be possible for Muslims to gain a glimpse of Western life and leave behind strife and unrest, but I suspect most, at first encounter with our culture, don’t understand its fundamentals any better than we understand theirs.

• Obviously, the failure by the Bush administration to recognize the volatile mix of terror, frustration over Iraq, outsourcing, unions, the $726 billion trade deficit, disgust with Mideast violence, and out-of-control borders, along with the casual approach it took to the deal were major political miscalculations. Bush quickly found Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, from the landlocked state of Tennessee, opposing him on the port deal.

  Republicans now find themselves in the odd position of needing to avoid appearing outflanked by Democrats on the security issue, and the lax approach taken by the Treasury Dept. in approving deals may well have to go. Most of all, as I emphasized last time, Bush needs to avoid the tendency, or at least appearance, of only half-heartedly fighting a war that is still much too poorly defined.

I’ve noted a number of observations about Hurricane Rita and the problems with the evacuations, particularly with the difficulty much of the public has in assessing risk and responding appropriately, and how public officials need to consider that in issuing warnings.

An additional problem is the lack of reserves near the end user, brought about by our just-in-time economy. If we want to leverage the just-in-time technique, then we need to compensate for it by having a more effective emergency delivery system.

Capitalism works great until it doesn’t, and I’m wondering if in the energy sector we’re somehow reaching one of those economic eddies where things don’t just work themselves out. I’m not convinced yet that this is the case, but I’m really beginning to wonder how high oil has to go before we see some serious investment by the energy industry.

Okay, the term “serious investment” really isn’t fair, because that’s something they do as a matter of course. But here in Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the world, you’d think companies would be hiring like crazy. Oil is up about seven times (unadjusted for inflation) since the lows of the late 1980s.

Apparently I’m not the only one wondering about that. Reuters is reporting that European Union finance ministers meeting in England “issued a statement saying they … wanted oil companies to increase investment in oil exploration, production and refining capacity as well as alternative energy services.”

Back in the late 80s, when oil was really down, there was a bumper sticker in Houston that went “Dear God, Please give us $28/barrel oil again. We promise not to waste it this time.” For a long time, I assumed this more prudent mindset explained the oil industry’s rather non-aggressive stance (the economic devastation in the oil business was a lot worse than most people realize). Now I suspect oil exploration may well be restrained by the realities (?) of the global Hubbert curve, if indeed worldwide production is presently peaking.

In any event, it seems clear that worldwide energy demand is by no means peaking, mainly because of China and India, so oil companies may have to once again get aggressive about alternative energy sources (maybe it’s a good time to buy real estate in Parachute, Colorado - I wonder what happened to all those empty houses).

It may not be wise to press the oil companies too much to increase oil production through conventional drilling, but in a capitalist economy, when the price goes up steadily, consumers are sending a clear signal to producers to increase supply, and increased investment by producers is part of what justifies the premium profits they get in such situations.

I really don’t see how the energy companies can seriously be thinking we are presently in danger of seeing excessive investment in their sector. Oil would have to drop by nearly two-thirds just to get down to $28. I hope the oil companies will re-invent themselves as diversified energy companies or at least pay out the profits in dividends quickly so someone else can invest them in our energy future.

Although Houston is very different from New Orleans culturally, we share an understanding of the problem of subsidence and flooding.

Perhaps unlike New Orleans, however (I guess we will learn much more about their system soon), as Houston grew so rapidly in the 1970s and 80s, it quickly was realized that flooding was worsening, and a lot of money was spent in the past 25 years to improve drainage. Those taxes were ones I was always happy to pay! The combination of paving the ground and subsidence (the gradual lowering of the groud level) meant that drainage was steadily worsening, unless something was constantly being done to counter that.

New Orleans is different because it is at or below sea level, and I guess they are going to have to get a lot more aggressive about their drainage problems, which obviously are far worse. Unfortunately, they haven’t had the kind of economic growth that helps to fund big infrastructure work like Houston did.

Here we are in the process of moving water supplies from ground (wells) to surface (lakes) in order to stop subsidence. I don’t see how New Orleans could really do much to raise its elevation, or do what Galveston did, a century ago, raising the entire city by 10-15 feet (houses weren’t built on slabs back then, as they are here now). Maybe what they need is a redundant levee system, with a second berm (wall of dirt) in critical areas to act as a backup.

Though we have spent so much money on drainage improvements here, flooding is still a regular occurence, but usually just in a localized area. Even in some of the nicer parts of town, such as west of the Galleria, street flooding during major downpours is a common occurrence.

I’m not sure if there’s any way to really keep an area from flooding when it’s as flat as Houston or New Orleans, and gets as much rain as we do along the Gulf Coast. Nevertheless, in this part of the country, drainage is something that must be taken very seriously, and I hope that’s one lesson learned from this tragedy.