Chris,
> 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. You're still off some tangent. Several areas of the levees had been down to FOUR FEET in height, and the repairs were in progress. I'd like to see the opposition to THAT, and I don't mean by anti-tax groups that don't want to spend money on anything besides a national defense. > 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. Nope: "Federal flood control spending for Southeastern Louisiana has been chopped from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in 2005, according to budget documents. Federal hurricane protection for the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity in the Army Corps of Engineers' budget dropped from $14.25 million in 2002 to $5.7 million this year." "Both the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper and a local business magazine reported that the effects of the budget cuts at the Army Corps of Engineers were severe." Vince
