…restoration, in a New York Times op-ed today (emphasis mine):

First, many people – scientists and otherwise – have insinuated that if we had begun wetlands restoration in the Mississippi Delta years ago, it would have reduced the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans and the coast. This is highly unlikely. Storm surge waters approached the coast from the east, pushed into Lake Pontchartrain by the counterclockwise flow of the hurricane’s winds; the natural wetlands that used to exist downriver from the city would have done little to mitigate the damage.
Second, some have suggested that rebuilding the Louisiana barrier islands would protect the delta region in future storms. But just look what happened elsewhere: Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge quickly inundated the barrier islands of the Gulf Islands National Seashore off Mississippi, which are far more robust and vegetated than the Louisiana islands ever were, on its way to devastating the state’s shoreline. Let’s face it, even if reconstructed, the Louisiana islands would be little more than a speed bump to a storm the size of Hurricane Katrina.
In addition, none of the restoration plans address the root causes of wetland loss: man-made alterations to the Mississippi River that reduce the amount of sediment flowing into the marshes, the saltwater allowed in by navigation canals cut through the delta, and a lowering of ground levels throughout the region brought on by natural and industrial activities. We are being sold a giant engineering project intended to fix problems caused by engineering projects elsewhere on the river and in the delta. We find it paradoxical that many of the people calling for wetland restoration are also calling for higher levees to protect populated areas, since the levees, which prevent flooding and thus the natural addition of sediment to the marshes, are a big reason the wetlands are disappearing.