The value of the port is clear but much of its importance comes from the investment in infrastructure rather than its location. Deep draft ships can easily sail upriver as far as Baton Rouge and barges can easily get to St. Louis. Oil is delivered by ULCC's far offshore at LOOP.  The infrastructure is highly automated and employs only a tiny fraction of the city's population. The port resumed operations almost after the flood water receded. It pays high wages and hasn't reported a severe labor problem. The port doesn't need the city.

Will the oil industry survive a decaying coast? Port Fouchon is connected to the mainland by a slim causeway (Louisiana Highway 1). The land under 40,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines continues to settle but the oil industry is not alarmed. They've been working with these and worse conditions for years. Will continued coastal erosion materially affect the oil industry? This industry is used to having to transport its worker to the jobsite. The oil industry doesn't need the city.

So what about the rest. Does it have to stay here or would it be better off if it was located on solid ground. Can a mixed population of about 1 million people can be resettled away from their traditional homes. Will the relatively unscathed populations of Metairie and the Westbank perceive the threat and be willing to act? What would it cost? How could it happen?

Given that the nation has committed just over $100 billion to restoring the region we ought to consider what that actually composes:

1. $10.5 billion for hotels, apartments, trailers
• Around $5 billion just for trailers
  
2. $35 billion for flood insurance and CDBG grants and permanent housing
• $18.5 billion is for the flood insurance program
• $15.5 billion has been allocated to LA and MS CDBG grants
  
3. $20.8 billion for levees and highways and other infrastructure
• $10.1 billion for levee repairs
  
4. $35 billion for assistance to individuals incl FEMA, healthcare and education (so this also includes debris removal, blue roof, rescue
• $2 billion went out in the initial wave of direct cash payments

So should we spend another $40 billion to restore wetlands and build flood control structures that will protect the area against more severe storms. If we don't, will the $100 billion have been wasted? Is the slow pace of spending indicative of indecision as to whether the population should be encouraged to relocate?

If the leadership is unsure they could consider the following alternatives:

1. Actively encourage resettlement elsewhere. Rebuild just enough infrastructure to protect vital industry. Let market prices and building codes drive costs of living out of sight so only those who really need to be here will stay. This choice though the rational choice is politically difficult. Many will complain. People hate changes that affect their sense of home. The adventurous have already left New Orleans.
   
   
2. Encourage local reconstruction and support everyone's right to return, but let utility, insurance, taxes, fees and other costs of living skyrocket while infrastructure and services deteriorate. People will leave on their own. This half measure is not difficult politically as governments can disclaim responsibility for private industry pricing decisions. This is the cruelest way to depopulate the area.
   
   
3. Encourage everyone to return. Bring the poor and infirm back to subsidized housing and provide lots of support for welfare, unemployment, disability, food stamps and other social services. Increase rental voucher amounts so the poor aren't priced out of the market.  Subsidize utilities, insurance, and governments to keep costs reasonable, but fail to restore the wetlands and don't build sufficient flood control structures. Let nature take its course and within a few decades the rebuilt city will flood again. Protecting from a 100 year storm mathematically predicts the city has a 50% probability of experiencing catastrophic flooding within 68 years (doesn't that seem like a sucker bet?).
   
   This is the easiest political strategy. It is also totally irresponsible and as of December 31, 2006 it appears to be the official policy of the local, state and federal governments.
   
   
4. Choice 4 is the one that actually restores the city by encouraging everyone to return and subsidize utilities, insurance, and governments to keep costs reasonable during reconstruction while building sufficient flood control structures to keep the city safe. The real  pricetag for choice 4 is a staggering $200 billion and that's a lot of money for people anywhere (to paraphrase President Bush).