Chris,
> Vince, I really don't think we are arguing bitterly with each other Gee, I would hope not. > and I think we have a lot of grounds of agreement. I want to state > that right off. OK. > The concept of coming up with $50M/yearly, as you point out, fails to > put into perspective that the number will go up, considerably, with > inflation and difficulty. The more weight applied to the levees, the > less stable, level and manageable they are.. the heavier the levee is, > the faster it sinks as the soil doesn't have enough base rock value.. > this is something that everyone knows, it's something that nature > cannot deny.. the more tributaries bring in water and the undercurrent > (like the Mississippi) the more you get a shift. > > Other issues also play into it which make it more difficult as well... > anyway, I will agree with you that $50M a year is not only every year, > but it is a figure that will go up drastically every year, even with > the best upkeep imaginable because of the nature of the problem. Keep in mind that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested $27 million for this fiscal year (2005) to pay for hurricane-protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration countered with $3.9 million, and the Republican controlled Congress eventually provided $5.7 million. Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from October 2001 until March 2002, told the 'Chicago Tribune' today: "I'm not saying it wouldn't still be flooded, but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have". > So, I tend to go along with a very unpopular recommendation.. in 1993, > it was proposed that we consider "moving" the city, basically, by > slowly planning for it to go away by just the design of nature. Even > several environmental groups lobbied that the demolition of the levees > would create a giant boom in natural wildlife and restore the original > marshlands much closer to their intended state. > > I have no problem with that. Move people to more solid ground, make > where New Orleans a nice, gigantic national wildlife preserve, and you > save all the money.. and you do something nice for mother nature.. and > you immediately increase a big area of wetlands which provide for a > nice buffer later when you need it ;) I think that argument has gained some additional weight given what has happened. Vince
