Can US afford to NOT have a major city at mouth of the Miss?

We talk about rebuilding New Orleans in terms of, well, New Orleans. We ask, is it insane to rebuild a city below sea level that is a threat to flood like it did during Katrina again? We look at a city that was by-passed by the growth and progess of other southern cities and wonder if NO was on the way out even before Katrina. And we rightfully question what type of city could be built on the very toxic site that NO has become.

We ask a lot of questions about New Orleans, but few about the United States.

Maybe the most important question is this: CAN THE UNITED STATES AFFORD TO NOT HAVE A MAJOR PORT CITY AT THE MOUTH OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER?

Of course that question is the same as "Can the US afford to not have New Orleans?" Despite being below sea level in many places, there is no option for another site for the harbor. Upstream will not provide the depth needed for gulf and ocean traveling ships, downstream is a marshy imposibility. New Orleans marks the spot....the X....and it is the only viable place for the port.

The incredible bounty of the interior of the US, the vast interior of the US, that huge Mississippi River basin, stretching from Pennsylvania to Montana with so many places inbetween is totally dependent on large scale shipping that heads for the port of New Orleans. No amount of trucks or trains could handle this commerce.

And like it was vritually throughout US history, our nation is totally dependent on New Orleans for its commerce to survive. The US and France cared little about the lands of the Lousiiana Purchase; it was the city of New Orelans that was the desired prize. Still is.

And I cannot imagine a port facility like NO being rebuilt as a small city, far shrunken in size. A major city is needed.

So maybe those levees that wouldn't be fixed to prtoect a failed venture like New Orleans will have to be fixed to protect the US far more than NO itself.>