National Geographic article about New Orleans
I have not yet seen the Time article, but apparently the slant is totally different.
I just read the Time Magazine article. There is no question of "if?" or "should?" in it. The article is a scathing indictment of the Army Corps of Engineers and its inability to pretty much do anything right.
Couple of high points :
--Points out that New Orleans was not always a city below sea level, as is national perception. The French didn't build hurricane levees......because they didn't HAVE to. We had wetlands back then.
--Says 30% of Louisiana's wetlands have slipped into the sea. If Mexico had seized all that land, we'd be at war. Nice!
--Doesn't place all blame on the Corps. Points out that LA's congressional delegation steered funds to channelize the Red River for barges that never materialized; Also, mentions that local officials fought to NOT have pumps and floodgates built by Lake Pontchartrain...that are now being built.
--Points out briefly the coastal town of Dulac (substitute any coastal town/city including New Orleans) and says that it's worth noting that these people didn't move into harm's way, but harm moved into our way when the coast started slipping away.
--Mentions over and over that the Corps STILL doesn't get it. It seems all they do is build huge obstructions and walls, more in the name of CONTROLLING nature, rather than PRESERVING it.
No mention of the Saints.