dams, walls, and dikes to control water: is there a better solution to prevent disasters from re-occurring?

Question

new orleans deserved better. other parts of the world are suffering now due to flooding. part of the problem is man's insistence on trying to control the natural flow of water. it's all downhill from there...

there have to be better solutions than channeling channels. lake winnipeg in canada, affected by american 'tampering' with the red river of the north... cities in california on the brink of going underwater if a major earthquake hits near fresno... the mississippi river floods of 1993 in the US midwest...

dams, walls, and dikes: what could we be doing differently? is this the best way to provide for water, transportation, ecology, and safety?

Answer 1

this is opening a Pandora's box.

how about skyscrapers over a major fault.
power dams on rivers
railroads over mountains
men in space

It is all about conquest and humans haven't figured out how to live in harmony with each other let alone Mother Nature.

I guess if u like standing in front of a speeding train......

everything is a "short" term solution so it doesn't matter.
in 100 years who will know the difference?

everything is done in the best way known - at the time - until experience proves differently.

Look at the twin towers - great work of engineering UNTIL
now there will be a greater work.

Everything built today has great engineering and maybe a lot of cost cutting generated flaws. - OH did I mention the almighty dollar?

The engineering may change tomorrow, but costs will still be cut. now "best" takes on a whole new meaning.

Answer 2

The answer *seems* obvious - don't live in places that you *know* will one day be subject to disaster. Why rebuild New Orleans when we can predict with a *great deal* of certainty that at some time in the next 50 years a hurricane of greater or equal force will strike? Why not rebuild on higher ground safe from flooding?

On the coast of India, every 11 years or so (during high solar activity), monsoons wipe out hundreds or even thousands of people. Within one year, all that land is repopulated. In a densely-populated country like India where fisherman rely on close proximity to the coast and arable land is at a premium, this is understandable. In the U.S., only those whose livelihood depend on a particular location should be returning to a known death trap. New Orleans is not the only culprit, of course. It is political nature to wait for a hole to appear in the dike and then to put your finger in it to stop it. If our government took the "long" view, and if our politicians *sold* people on the "long" view, we would remove endangered metropolitan areas from known hazardous locations rather than patching the problem with stop-gap measures like the ones being implemented in New Orleans right now.

The best way? Move.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 3

Adding to dikes, dams and wall:

- pumping stations, water gates, tunnels and sewers, improvement of drainage canals by constructing dikes and dredging of canals
- improvement of ponds and wells to be temporary retention basins
- developing flood-way channels

Most of the other information I found was helping to prevent flooding in basements etc.
It seems that most areas are working on upgrading and building dikes more than anything.

Answer 4

Yes.
Don't be where you can clearly see a disaster will happen.
Case in point: Rebuilding New Orleans, below sea level, on ground that is sinking, in a flood prone location, on an artificially long, maintanence expensive, river channel.

Answer 5

We could build floating human settlements - but that would cost much more.