i provided you with the facts from people who were and are there . and you ignore them in favor of trying to cover up for bush . there are none so blind as those who will not see! and i have no more time to waste with you on this topic !
On Jan 23, 11:11 am, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > I provide you a technical report by; > > Peter Nicholson, Ph.D., P.E. > Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and > Graduate Program Chair > University of Hawaii > On behalf of the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS > > I provide you with; > > Reflections on the Draft Final U.S. Army Corps of Engineers > Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET) report titled > Performance Evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana > Hurricane Protection System > Dr. R. G. Bea > Professor > Member Independent Levee Investigation Team (ILIT) > Co-Director Center for Catastrophic Risk Management (CCRM) > > Which opens with the following observation; > > Overarching Findings > Yes, the hurricane flood defense 'system' for the greater New Orleans > area (NOFDS) was "a system in name only". Even though there had been > only one agency in charge of concept development, design, and > construction - the Corps of Engineers - it is clear that the NOFDS was > not a coherent defense system. It was and continues to be an assembly > of disjointed and defective components. > > And then goes on, in great depth, to explain the various faults in the > current system’s design that led to the failures. > > I give you professional reports by experts in their field who did > extensive analysis of the levee system and you give me Bill Ryan and > Will Bunch? These people are not ‘the Bush Administration’ but are > professionals who had but one mission; to analyze the failure and > determine why it happened. Are Ryan and Bunch engineers? -No. Were > they on the ground in New Orleans doing first hand examination of the > levee system? –No. > > Ryan’s piece is immediately dismissible because he couldn’t even > identify where the greatest storm surge in New Orleans struck, which > was the river, not Lake Pontchartrain. The storm surge in the lake was > actually quite mild. > > Bunch’s piece isn’t much better. Citing the frustrations of Maestri a > year before Katrina hit is misleading. Yes, people were frustrated > that funding had been cut. Yes, the levees had sunk (and btw, the same > reason why the levees were sinking is behind the eventual failure – > soil collapse – something that was not being addressed by the repairs > that were impacted by funding… but you knew this already because > you’re an expert on the subject). Bunch captures the story a year > before Katrina and is focused on the projects designed to restore the > system to the original design specifications, not the reengineering > project, which was not targeted to be completed until 2015 at the > earliest. It’s not an inaccurate report, but it is misleading. > > I can’t explain this any better for you. Apparently trying to blame > Bush is more important to you than understanding the true cause of the > failure so it isn't repeated. There are none so blind as those who > will not see. > > On Jan 23, 9:43 am, "liberal mike532 !" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > THE PEOPLES' TRAGEDY AND THE ERA OF 'PRIVATISATION' > > The following comments are from American social crediter 'Bill Ryan' > > "The lesson that should be learned (from the horrible aftermath of > > Hurricane Katrina) is that we ignore the necessity for continuous > > improvement to infrastructure at our peril. The damage came from wind, > > wind driven water or "storm surge," and flooding. New Orleans missed > > most of the storm surge from the gulf because the eye of the storm > > passed to the City's east, but did have some surge in reverse off Lake > > Pontchartrain due to the counter-clockwise rotation of the storm, > > hence the broken segments to the I-10 causeway. > > Most of the damage to New Orleans is from flooding due to the broken > > levees, which should have been strengthened years ago. If they had > > been strengthened, New Orleans would now be mostly intact today. The > > city is now submerged in Lake Pontchartrain. A decision will have to > > be made to recover the city or abandon it forever, like Pompeii. Most > > of the damage to the east of New Orleans is from storm surge. We have > > had the technology to mitigate the effects of storm surge for more > > than a century. After the 1900 storm that devastated Galveston, the > > Corps of Engineers built a magnificent seawall to protect the > > developed area of the island, which was extended in the 60s. > > The era of "privatization" has ended such projects. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > "IT'S MORE THAN THAT," EXPLAINS WILL BUNCH > > Will Bunch is a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily > > News.http://www.alternet.org/story/24871/1September2005. > > "Washington knew exactly what needed to be done to protect the > > citizens of New Orleans from disasters like Katrina. Yet federal > > funding for Louisiana flood control projects was diverted to pay for > > the war in Iraq." > > On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for > > Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, told the Times-Picayune: > > "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to > > handle homeland security (furthering the USA police state…ed) and the > > war in Iraq, (furthering their new world order agenda…ed) and I > > suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the > > levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make > > the case that this is a security issue for us." > > > Levees are sinking: That June, with the 2004 hurricane seasion > > starting, the Corps' Naomi went before a local agency, the East > > Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for > > urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. > > > From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune: "The system is in great shape, > > but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get > > the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the > > settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee > > is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't > > raise them." > > The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony > > up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in > > Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work > > with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that > > the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project > > to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain. > > > Federal Government funds reduced: > > The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, > > the federal government came back this spring with the steepest > > reduction in hurricane- and flood-control funding for New Orleans in > > history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed > > a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA > > project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to > > start any new jobs. According to New Orleans CityBusiness this June 5: > > The district has identified $35 million in projects to build and > > improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, > > Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects are > > included in a Corps line item called Lake Pontchartrain, where funding > > is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in > > 2006. Naomi said it's enough to pay salaries but little else. "We'll > > do some design work. We'll design the contracts and get them ready to > > go if we get the money. But we don't have the money to put the work in > > the field, and that's the problem," Naomi said. > > There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research > > was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a > > Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. > > (Please note there was no mention of lack of resources to do the job - > > just 'no money'…ed) > > > As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22: > > That second study would take about four years to complete and would > > cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al > > Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 > > fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But > > the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the > > New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 > > budget no longer includes the needed money, he said. The Senate was > > seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now > > it's too late. One project that a contractor had been racing to finish > > this summer was a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, > > site of the main breach on Monday. > > > The levee failure appears to be causing a human tragedy of epic > > proportions: > > "We probably have 80 percent of our city under water; with some > > sections of our city the water is as deep as 20 feet. Both airports > > are underwater," Mayor Ray Nagin told a radio interviewer. > > The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed: > > "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this > > year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only > > to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush > > administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for > > southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush > > proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they > > need." > > Washington knew that this day could come at any time, and it knew the > > things that needed to be done to protect the citizens of New Orleans. > > But in the tradition of the riverboat gambler, the Bush administration > > decided to roll the dice on its fool's errand in Iraq, and on a tax > > cut that mainly benefitted the rich. Now Bush has lost that gamble, > > big time. > > The president told us that we needed to fight in Iraq to save lives > > here at home. Yet > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
