The problem with the repair was that many even within the department disagreed with the project entirely. Rebulking the current sitting levees (not a redesign, a reset & repair) was something that even those within the USMS had some oppossition to.. the current weight and buttressing of the sitting levees was creating infrastructure problems (or at least they contended) and the continual enhancement of them was causing the nearby land area to "sink" even more then doing nothing; so, the Army Corp of Engineers proposed that such projects were "fools errands" and they argued that they were not the solution, they were the problem.. they contended that spillways and secondary runoffs were the most viable solution.
Now, this doesn't mean that there assessment was right. But a lot of people on both sides did by into it, and -some- of the secondary spillway money was approved (though it won't see any impact until about 2007) so the largest amount spent in almost 30 years went to reconstructing secondary spillways. At the same time, efforts to rebuttress the current levees did diminish - in proposal, with the cuts taking direct impact in the FY 2006 budget. Note that here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20050606/ai_n14657367 Now, the reality is, New Orleans was hit with basically a Category THREE hurricane. Not a FIVE. While some of Mississippi, etc. was hit with a higher storm, the current estimated storm values for New Orleans is around 122 MPH, or a Category 3. In an area where the entire city is constructing itself closer and closer to the levees, and where they have enacted continual excavation projects, they have lowered their relative land-level in comparison to surrounding land area as well as to the ocean. The entire city sits below the ocean, below the river, and below the lake. Was the ACE proposal the right one? Who knows. But the patchwork proposals, which were investigated several times for trouble with graft (millions of dollars up and dissappeared, according to CBO audits) and with the proposals moving the other way, the upkeep proposals were diminished. Was this the right strategy? I would agree with you that it was not. However, would even the basic upkeep strategies made any difference? I would argue no, they would make no difference at all. And I would argue if Katrina had not turned eastward, and full brunt had hit New Orleans, it wouldn't have mattered at all. In 1980, there were big complaints about how USGS funding went down in 78 & 79 before Mt. St. Helens erupted. Well, I know it's cruel, but if you built your house on a Volcano and thought the government could save you, you were a fool. People in Pompei learned that one. Nothing any administration could do would raise the relative sea level of New Orleans. And New Orleans and the State of Louisiana had used their federal block grants for a few hundred million extra to redo the Super Dome. So, did both the feds & the state make a mistake? Yes. Did that mistake make any substantial difference in the outcome? I don't think so.... nothing anyone was going to do would change the layout of the city, where it was built, how it was built, nor the nature of the system in place. Now we'll see. Last night, when we last heard from my brother, he had told us that they project a 10 month cleanup from pumping. Even if none of the Levees broke (which, BTW, the break in the Ponchatrain levee is less then they had anticipated by a great deal) the pumping from the waves of water in would have still been a multi-month project, regardless of any fresh water intake or not. -----Original message----- From: "Analyst" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:56:08 -0500 To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] It's bad, really bad - Katrina > > Chris, > > > > I think if you read through the ACE report to the senate in 1997, they > > argued (and several argued against) that without a complete > > reconstructure of upstream levees and a redesign of spillways, there > > was very little with the ground given.. outside of massive imminent > > domain claims as city projects were built too close to current levees. > > > > Many argued this was the wrong way to look at it, but four times this > > was proposed. > > > > I do agree with those who say "hey, just because people protested" > > that's right, occassionally the government has to do what is > > politically unpopular. But let's be honest, with so many groups > > protesting, and so many in office in the senate / house on both sides > > living and dying off of the goodwill of the people who support those > > causes, no one had the testicular fortitude to do the right thing. > > But you're still referencing the future plans to REDESIGN the entire > infrastructure, and I assume there was plenty to argue about on that count. >
