FEMA Chief Relieved in Katrina efforts, now resigns

[bountyhunter]

Congress has long refused to provide the Corps of Engineers with the funding needed to shore up the levee system in spite of constant requests to do so for decades now.

The Bush admin took away most of the federal funds that had been allocated for exactly that project.

Amazing how hard it is to get people to work on a project with no money to pay them.........



Why the Levee Broke

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to this Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness:


The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes.


The Lake Pontchartrain project is slated to receive $3.9 million in the president's 2005 budget. Naomi said about $20 million is needed.


"The longer we wait without funding, the more we sink," he said. "I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about $5 million. And we're going to have to pay them interest."

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 and the war in Iraq, 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."

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.

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. 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 -- after moving billions of domestic dollars to the Persian Gulf -- there are bodies floating through the streets of Louisiana. What does George W. Bush have to say for himself now?

http://www.alternet.org/story/24871/

 

[RealGun]

The Bush admin took away most of the federal funds that had been allocated for exactly that project.

Then why did Louisiana's senior Senator since appeal to Congress to finally address the problem? She has appealed repeatedly for flood control funding. They got $1.6 billion last go 'round but decided to spend it on dredging shipping lanes, a business and tax base interest.

I just have to question whether every little hiccup is rightfully an indictment of Bush and friends. I believe the problem is systemic, usually inherited, and not as partisan as some propose.

 

[bountyhunter]

I just have to question whether every little hiccup is rightfully an indictment of Bush and friends.

Nope, not every little hiccup, just two absolutely catastrophic blunders:

1) The USS Comfort (Hospital ship) should have weighed anchor and sailed on 8/27 the day Bush declared an emergency. It would have been in position to accept critically ill patients the day after the hurricane blew through. Instead, it sailed on the wednesday (three days) after the event, add the four days travel time, and it arrives a week too late to do any good. People died in hospitals from simple dehydration, not to mention the more critically ill who died. Help came too late for them and it could easily have been avoided.

2) The head of FEMA should have been front and center the day those horrific images showed up on TV with a public statement saying what they were going to do to help, and then did it. Instead, we got four days of deadly silence from them as people begged for help. Then we got idiots making absolutely unbelievable statement s claiming everything went well and Bush saying: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"..... to the head of FEMA who had done NOTHING to that point.

Bush will NEVER live that down. It doesn't matter who did what to whom, the fact is there was three days of suffering worse than a third world nation, armed thugs took over most of the city, and the Fed did and said: NOTHING.

 

[RealGun]

Case in point, bountyhunter. Those are both elements of a system that the current administration didn't invent, yet you want to immediately tie any failures or questionable circumstances to Bush by name. Oh sure, he is ultimately responsible, but that's not what you mean. It appears that you fundamentally despise GW, so everything is bad and it is his fault personally.

If there needs to be some lessons learned here, the subsequent initiative to make changes doesn't need to be based upon hatred and opportunistic finding of fault. It seems that many are trying to make Katrina an opportunity for their existing agenda. There are a lot of crocodile tears being shed here, I think.

 

[Waitone]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Waste of time and energy if there isn't a demand to hold the entire governmental apparatus accountable for their actions or lack there of. Your points about what the feds coulda done is valid.

Now I anxiously await your assessment of state and local officials couldas.

 

[Control Group]

I've seen lots of questions about how justified the fed.gov and/or Bush personally were in spending money in Iraq when the money could have been spent shoring up the levees in NOLA.

What I haven't seen is an explanation of why the fed.gov and/or Bush personally should be the caretakers of NOLA's levee system. Is every local public works project really a line item in the federal budget, or is NOLA a special case? If so, why?

Is it because otherwise they couldn't afford it? Shouldn't the people who want to live in a city eleven feet below sea level bear the costs of living eleven feet below sea level?

Is it because the port is of such strategic importance to the country that the fed.gov is responsible for it? If so, why does local government have any say whatsoever in how things are run and planning for disaster recovery?

Is it because NOLA is a historical city, and it is therefore incumbent on the fed.gov to maintain it's "personality?" What other historical cities are the direct responsibility of the fed.gov?

Or is it just because the fed.gov has been providing money that they should be providing money?

 

[Cosmoline]

The levee problems are the tip of the iceberg. NOLA has been sinking, along with the levees, because of post-war efforts to tame the mighty Miss. What we're seeing now, in the big picture, is what happens when you try to turn a huge floodplane into a series of industrial shipping canals. The state loses more and more of its coastline every year, and every year the sea gets closer to NOLA. It's not rocket science.

 

[bountyhunter]

Those are both elements of a system that the current administration didn't invent, yet you want to immediately tie any failures or questionable circumstances to Bush by name. Oh sure, he is ultimately responsible, but that's not what you mean.

Please save the mind reading act for Vegas, I don't need you to tell me what I mean. I hold Brown responsible for the blunders and Bush responsible for putting an inexperienced idiot in a critical position. I also hold Bush accountable for taking away the federal funding which would have shored up the levees and prevented the break which flooded the city.

Those are both elements of a system that the current administration didn't invent,

Got news for you, Bush appointed the head of FEMA and his admin put it under homeland security. His admin did INDEED "invent" that giant chain of command and took FEMA away from a direct cabinet reporting position... not that it would have mattered with the idiot who was in charge of it.

yet you want to immediately tie any failures or questionable circumstances to Bush by name

I think he and his appointees should be held accountable for their actions.... a concept so abstract in today's climate it almost sounds ludicrous when I read it, but I hold to that antiquated notion.

It appears that you fundamentally despise GW, so everything is bad and it is his fault personally.

So, your side job is psychiatrist? Well, it appears you could not shoot any holes in my contention the CIC could have and should have taken action the day he declared a national emergency and you have resorted to tap dancing.

If there needs to be some lessons learned here, the subsequent initiative to make changes doesn't need to be based upon hatred and opportunistic finding of fault.

Well, since the GOP controls both houses there will not be any lessons learned. They will block any attempt at an independent investigation, and set up a committee run by republicans to "find the problem"..... and we can be sure they would never take advantage of "opportunistic finding of fault" just because they chair the committee and control congress.

It seems that many are trying to make Katrina an opportunity for their existing agenda.

And there are some who just think some of those hundreds of billions might be better spent at home saving Americans.... and point out the admin's response was typical of the past where anything that distracted from the war was an annoyance of no consequence.

As I posted the text before, the Bush admin cut the money for the building up of the levee systems and their failure was what put NO under 15 feet of water.

This disaster was NOT unforseen, it was known for decades. The hurricane telegraphed the killer punch as it swept across south Florida and started up the Gulf. EVERY news cast said the models showed it making landfall near New Orleans.... and what we got was the old "wait and see" reactive crap from the government and even then, nothing but foot dragging.

The bottom line is that FEMA blew it and Bush blew it. He (Bush) should have been on the TV that day saying that they were activating resources and detailing exactly what the plan would be to get aid in. He did nothing, FEMA did nothing, and the rest is history.

 

[bountyhunter]

What I haven't seen is an explanation of why the fed.gov and/or Bush personally should be the caretakers of NOLA's levee system.

Let's see.... I can just pull a couple out of my rear end..... because NO is a critical seaport and integral to the nation's commerce? Because the oil and gas production facilities are critical to our nation's economy?

Because ensuring the prosperity, safety, and well being of our nation used to be something the government would occasionally do?

And for the record, the project to improve the levees started long before Bush took office. It was his admin that cut back the funding necessary to do it.

 

[R.H. Lee]

AFAIK, the Bush Administration has never held anyone accountable for anything. No heads rolled after 9/11. Instead we got bigger more intrusive government. That said™, the NO mess is attributable to the failure of Democrat/liberal/welfare/dependence-class policies as instituted by local government. All FEMA does is hand out money, correct?

 

[Control Group]

Let's see.... I can just pull a couple out of my rear end..... because NO is a critical seaport and integral to the nation's commerce? Because the oil and gas production facilities are critical to our nation's economy?

...

And for the record, the project to improve the levees started long before Bush took office. It was his admin that cut back the funding necessary to do it.

So you're answering "yes" to my 2nd and 4th proposed reasons, then. That it's of such importance that the feds are responsible, and that because they've spent the money before, they have to keep spending it.

You didn't answer the attendant question for the "strategic importance" point, though: if it's so ciritical that it's the federal government's responsibility to pay for its upkeep, why are local officials in charge of it at all? Why are people only accountable to local constituents in charge of something that is so important to me I have to pay for it? Why hasn't the fed.gov taken the whole kit and kaboodle over already?

As for the other reason, I question the logic that just because they've spent the money before, they have to keep spending it. I don't think doing something wrong makes doing it again right...but that could just be me.

Because ensuring the prosperity, safety, and well being of our nation used to be something the government would occasionally do?

Does that mean city, county, and state police departments should be federally funded, in order to ensure the safety of our nation?

Does that mean that private businesses should be federally funded, in order to ensure the prosperity of our nation?

Does that mean citizens' health care should be federally funded, in order to ensure the well being of our nation?

 

[GEM]

For those old enough - remember:

"McGovern initially claimed that he would back Eagleton "1000 percent", but changed his mind 3 days later."

"Brownie - you're doing a heck of a job"

Gotta love it when a politician supports you when you are in trouble.

They are all idiots. The city, state and Feds. Only party zealots locked into the tribal lunancy of their particular ideological fantasy will try to blame only one source.

 

[bountyhunter]

You didn't answer the attendant question for the "strategic importance" point, though: if it's so ciritical that it's the federal government's responsibility to pay for its upkeep, why are local officials in charge of it at all?

No offense, but you should recognize when your point has degenrated to absurdity.

Why do the Feds kick in money for roads?

Why did they build Hoover dam or the TVA?

And since you also misquoted me I will point out: It is not nor was ever the feds responsibility to pay for it's "upkeep", the project in question was to upgrade protection from what would survive about CAT2 to make about CAT4. This was just common sense, because the increasing severity of the hurricanes as a result of global warming made the disaster more likely and the cost to do it would be less than 1% of the cost of NOT doing it.... as we now see. The state would be responsible for upkeep, but it is sheer idiocy or Bush thinking to believe any state could or should absorb such massive costs for initial outlay because they don't have the money.

If you ever lived in La, you'd know it is one of the poorest states in the union and the parishes around NO are the bottom of the pile.

 

[bountyhunter]

Does that mean city, county, and state police departments should be federally funded, in order to ensure the safety of our nation?

Again, a reality check would be good before you hit "post". The feds have given money to such groups many times for various reasons from drug enforcement to civil rights enforcement. They don't HAVE to, but they do. They also give money to other places which promote general welfare like school systems.

The fact that the feds "kick in" on or for specific projects or programs which may be state-specific or nationwide does not mean they are "federally funded" nor ar they federally controlled which that would entail.

It simply means that on rare occasion, and with sufficient palm greasing, the congress may by accident allocate money to programs which are both necessary and beneficial. The program to upgrade NO levees was such a program which is why it got strangled so quickly.

 

[bountyhunter]

Does that mean citizens' health care should be federally funded, in order to ensure the well being of our nation?

No, only congressional retirees. The rest of us are not important to the well being of the nation... at least, not important enough to deserve health care.

 

[bountyhunter]

Presented Without Comment

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169169,00.html

FEMA Chief Brown Resigns
Monday, September 12, 2005


WASHINGTON — After considerable criticism for his agency's response to Hurricane Katrina, Mike Brown (search) has resigned as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (search).

/////

The announcement seemingly came as a surprise to President Bush, who was touring hurricane-ravaged Louisiana and Mississippi.

"Maybe you know something I don't know. I've been working," Bush said when asked by reporters about the news.

 

[RealGun]

You seem to have kind of lost it in subsequent posts, but let me try to undo any righteous indignation I may have unintentionally promoted through careless wording.

You're right. I can't tell you what you think. I can only describe what I infer from what you wrote. It will be up to you to confirm or clarify your intent.

Next, I would like to respond point by point, because I have a different understanding or recollection of the facts, partly because I have the luxury of listening to the news and to CSPAN all day while I work. Yeah, I know. Get a life.

I hold Brown responsible for the blunders and Bush responsible for putting an inexperienced idiot in a critical position.

That's much more appropriate as something for which Bush can rightfully be held directly accountable.

I also hold Bush accountable for taking away the federal funding which would have shored up the levees and prevented the break which flooded the city.

Subsequent to Katrina, Mary Landreau appealed to the Senate, not the President. The budget comes from the WH, and the Executive branch actually releases funding, but Congress passes appropriations and can override any veto. They are ultimately responsible. Show me funding earmarked for flood control. $1.6 billion was received, and the decision was to spend it on commercial shipping lanes (dredging). I believe there was some State discretion in how the money was spent. I won't disagree that levee work was needed. Hindsight is pretty easy at this point, isn't it.

Those are both elements of a system that the current administration didn't invent,

Got news for you, Bush appointed the head of FEMA and his admin put it under homeland security. His admin did INDEED "invent" that giant chain of command and took FEMA away from a direct cabinet reporting position... not that it would have mattered with the idiot who was in charge of it.

The facts are that moving FEMA under Homeland Security was either directly recommended by the 9/11 Commission or was a result of the difficult reshuffling of fiefdoms (politics) that Congress had to do in order to implement the recommendations. The biggest controlling factor was that Congressional committees did not want to give up oversight by moving a department to oversight by a different committee. It's the same problem of breaking up kingdoms or power bases. The White House didn't design it (independent commission) but I would certainly expect that they were involved at least for comment at some point before presentation of the recommendations.

yet you want to immediately tie any failures or questionable circumstances to Bush by name

I think he and his appointees should be held accountable for their actions.... a concept so abstract in today's climate it almost sounds ludicrous when I read it, but I hold to that antiquated notion.

Do you want to hang them or expect them to take corrective action?

It appears that you fundamentally despise GW, so everything is bad and it is his fault personally.

So, your side job is psychiatrist? Well, it appears you could not shoot any holes in my contention the CIC could have and should have taken action the day he declared a national emergency and you have resorted to tap dancing.

Nice try, but the Gulf States were approached three days in advance, and a state of emergency (funding release) was declared a whole day before the storm even hit, unprecedented as far as I know. I think what will be addressed is the inertia of a massive aid capability. However, I think it is very much like an army not moving beyond its supply line or not attacking without a plan.

If there needs to be some lessons learned here, the subsequent initiative to make changes doesn't need to be based upon hatred and opportunistic finding of fault.

Well, since the GOP controls both houses there will not be any lessons learned. They will block any attempt at an independent investigation, and set up a committee run by republicans to "find the problem"..... and we can be sure they would never take advantage of "opportunistic finding of fault" just because they chair the committee and control congress.

So it's really about Republicans versus Democrats or both versus libertarians, or whatever. I am sure there will be plenty of mudslinging regardless. You don't seriously think anything will be hidden, do you?

It seems that many are trying to make Katrina an opportunity for their existing agenda.

And there are some who just think some of those hundreds of billions might be better spent at home saving Americans.... and point out the admin's response was typical of the past where anything that distracted from the war was an annoyance of no consequence.

Excuse me, but that's a typical Democrat point of view, certainly of an isolationist. The reason many are so jealous of the money being spent in Iraq is because it takes away from what can be afforded for socialist programs or anything that benefits domestic programs. The admin has never responded that domestic issues were an annoyance. After all, the admin takes some major flak for deficit spending.

As I posted the text before, the Bush admin cut the money for the building up of the levee systems and their failure was what put NO under 15 feet of water.

Louisiana has representatives and Senators in Congress. What if they are appealing to Congress rather than the White House? If you find who really has to make the money available to fix the problem, you may get closer to who should be blamed, if that blame is so important.

This disaster was NOT unforseen, it was known for decades. The hurricane telegraphed the killer punch as it swept across south Florida and started up the Gulf. EVERY news cast said the models showed it making landfall near New Orleans.... and what we got was the old "wait and see" reactive crap from the government and even then, nothing but foot dragging.

Yes, dang it! Shoulda known. Who can we hang?

The bottom line is that FEMA blew it and Bush blew it. He (Bush) should have been on the TV that day saying that they were activating resources and detailing exactly what the plan would be to get aid in. He did nothing, FEMA did nothing, and the rest is history.

What if federal power being boundless was never the law and never the plan. You will probably see some changes, but it's not Bush's fault that he had limited or conditional responsibility.

 

[Art Eatman]

bountyhunter: The Ponchartrain levee is part of the entire package as authorized in 1965. An anticipated total expenditure of some $715 million. After about a year of final planning the USCE began work, now labelled as "Category Three" protection. Fast forward to 2003: The rate of construction was at about $45 million per year. Based on what I read of previous rates of expenditures, even with full funding the present work would not have been completed until 2007 or 2008, which means that the Ninth Ward would still have been vulnerable. After completion, there would still be protection to Category Three, and Katrina was a Four.

Next: The Ponchartrain Levee is owned and (I guess they do it) maintained by Levee Districts. This info is available from Google by typing in "Ponchartrain Levee"; it's down the first page a bit. And settlement, or more properly, "subsidence" should have been remedied by the local entities responsible for maintenance.

With the eye passing to the east of the city, the winds across Ponchartrain came from the north. This piled the water up against the levee, and the wave action eroded the top at the base of the steel curtain wall. With the loss of support to the curtain wall, it collapsed. The rest is history.

I worked for a bit with Herb Saffir and Bob Simpson, back around 1976 during my Coastal Zone Managment Study years. Sharp, sharp guys. Here's a URL of an interview with Bob.

http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/bo...ttp://www.novalynx.com/simpson-interview.html

Art

 

[fallingblock]

And so he has....

"Maybe you know something I don't know. I've been working."


Unlike the local Democrats, who simply fumbled and cried.

 

[AZRickD]

Several Louisiana-based officials need to resign as well.

Rick

 

[iiibdsiil]

I can think of two that need to be put in jail AZRick.

 

[Control Group]

OK, this time I'll make sure to keep all your paragraphs in order, rather than putting them in the order I intend to respond, lest I be accused again of "misquoting." For the sake of convenience, I'll even respond in order. Hopefully, you will not consider me to be misquoting you if I quote three separate posts in one reply - I'll be sure to maintain the correct order, however, since that caused you such distress last time.

No offense, but you should recognize when your point has degenrated to absurdity.

Why do the Feds kick in money for roads?

Why did they build Hoover dam or the TVA?

And since you also misquoted me I will point out: It is not nor was ever the feds responsibility to pay for it's "upkeep", the project in question was to upgrade protection from what would survive about CAT2 to make about CAT4. This was just common sense, because the increasing severity of the hurricanes as a result of global warming made the disaster more likely and the cost to do it would be less than 1% of the cost of NOT doing it.... as we now see. The state would be responsible for upkeep, but it is sheer idiocy or Bush thinking to believe any state could or should absorb such massive costs for initial outlay because they don't have the money.

If you ever lived in La, you'd know it is one of the poorest states in the union and the parishes around NO are the bottom of the pile.

In response to the "why" questions: as a way to exert political control over states (the roads), and as a way to be seen to be "doing something" (the social welfare projects intended to address the Great Depression).

So it's the feds responsibility to build the levees, but not their responsibility to maintain them? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Either they're important enough that the feds need to be involved, in which case they're important enough to keep working, or they're not important enough to keep working, in which case they're not important enough for the feds to be involved. I also find it interesting that you state as though it is incontrovertible fact that global warming is a material cause for increased hurricane risk. Reports I have heard from the National Hurricane Center and NOAA have been fairly unequivocal in stating that global warming, though a problem, is not a significant factor in hurricane propagation in the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, why shouldn't the state absorb the massive costs? After all, the state will be more than happy to reap the benefits of a more active economy and greater tax revenue.

Louisiana may be one of the poorest states in the union - or even the poorest, for all I know. I haven't lived there. I didn't realize being poor was justification for federal handouts.

Again, a reality check would be good before you hit "post". The feds have given money to such groups many times for various reasons from drug enforcement to civil rights enforcement. They don't HAVE to, but they do. They also give money to other places which promote general welfare like school systems.

The fact that the feds "kick in" on or for specific projects or programs which may be state-specific or nationwide does not mean they are "federally funded" nor ar they federally controlled which that would entail.

It simply means that on rare occasion, and with sufficient palm greasing, the congress may by accident allocate money to programs which are both necessary and beneficial. The program to upgrade NO levees was such a program which is why it got strangled so quickly.

Paragraph 1: Your statement is that the government has given money to various groups in the past to promote general welfare. I don't disagree with this. I still maintain that just because they have done it doesn't mean they should do it. You still haven't provided any reason why they should.

Paragraph 2: You say that just because the fed.gov contributes money doesn't mean that the fed.gov is funding things. I'm not sure how to respond, since I thought the definition of funding was providing money to pay for something. If you want to argue that it's not federal funding because funding implies control, I refer you to the de facto national drinking age, No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, and Medicare, all of which are under fed.gov authority because the fed.gov threatens states with removing funding if the state doesn't toe the line.

Paragraph 3: You state again that in the past, the fed.gov has been convinced to donate money to local causes. I still await your explanation of why this should happen, aside from that it has happened.

The argument you are relying on is "because they have done so, they should continue to do so." I don't buy this argument. Actions do not become right just because the government does them.

No, only congressional retirees. The rest of us are not important to the well being of the nation... at least, not important enough to deserve health care.

To channel cuchulainn for a moment: appeal to emotion and strawman. The question isn't whether people are important enough to deserve health care, the question is whether the federal government should be the ones to pay for it.

You are resorting to classic liberal/leftist/statist rhetoric: children can be killed by guns, so if you want people to have guns, you must hate children. People deserve health care, so if you don't want to pay for it for them, you must hate people. It fails the most basic test of logic. Perhaps you should engage in some kind of "rationality check" before you hit "post."

 

[bountyhunter]

Louisiana may be one of the poorest states in the union - or even the poorest, for all I know. I haven't lived there. I didn't realize being poor was justification for federal handouts.

I see exactly why this discussion is pointless. You are mindset on the brainlock that ANYTHING the federal government does is evil, anytime they take action to help a state it is evil, the states should always be left alone to thrive or suffer as the fates may decree...

and I don't agree.

I think that federal spending to promote improvements in the quality of life here are not necessarily "handouts"... sometimes they are even simple common sense.

To wit: which is smarter: to invest $500 million in a levee system to prevent catastrophic damage from a CAT4 hurricane or simply ignore it and say "it's a state problem" and then have $200 BILLION in damage occur as well as thousands of lives lost?

I say it is right for the FED to spend tax money on such projects, if not only for monetary common sense but simple human decency as well.

But, I clearly see that in your world all intervention by FED is evil socialism and must be avoided at all cost.

OK, that's your opinion. We have a real clear picture of where it gets us on the nightly news.

The argument you are relying on is "because they have done so, they should continue to do so." I don't buy this argument.

Actually, the argument I am presenting is that if our government has the power to prevent a forseeable catastrophe (which the state on it's own, does not) they should do so.

It has nothing to do with what they "have done" in the past, or what other things they may do in the future. It is not complicated at all, unless you have to construct a whole false system of values to excuse the fact that we have hundreds of billions to pour into a foreign country why our own people are treated like third world beggars.

It isn't any more complicated than that.

Of course, the government helping OUR people is filthy socialism and we must avoid that at all costs.... and the cost was pretty high in NO.

 

[bountyhunter]

bountyhunter: The Ponchartrain levee is part of the entire package as authorized in 1965. An anticipated total expenditure of some $715 million. After about a year of final planning the USCE began work, now labelled as "Category Three" protection. Fast forward to 2003: The rate of construction was at about $45 million per year. Based on what I read of previous rates of expenditures, even with full funding the present work would not have been completed until 2007 or 2008, which means that the Ninth Ward would still have been vulnerable. After completion, there would still be protection to Category Three, and Katrina was a Four.

Next: The Ponchartrain Levee is owned and (I guess they do it) maintained by Levee Districts. This info is available from Google by typing in "Ponchartrain Levee"; it's down the first page a bit. And settlement, or more properly, "subsidence" should have been remedied by the local entities responsible for maintenance.

With the eye passing to the east of the city, the winds across Ponchartrain came from the north. This piled the water up against the levee, and the wave action eroded the top at the base of the steel curtain wall. With the loss of support to the curtain wall, it collapsed. The rest is history.

.

Thanks for the intelligent response. Regarding your statement:

After completion, there would still be protection to Category Three, and Katrina was a Four.

I have to point out: NO got some flooding from the direct effect of Katrina, but not so much and the pumps could have handled it except for the fact that a couple of specific levees failed between NO and Lake Ponchetrain. Then the city filled with water just like a bathtub.

The "whole project" would not have to have been completed to shore up levees so that they would not fail catastrophically.... they may have been insufficient to prevent any flooding from a CAT4 storm surge (so there would have been flooding as happened last week) but the entire city would not have been submerged as it was when the levee failed completely.

The bottom line is we have VERY GOOD technology which can "sound" into a levee and determine it's density (saw it repeated on the news last night). That system could have been shored up and maintained at a level where it would not FAIL for a reasonable cost while the overall upgrade project went on.

The rate of construction was at about $45 million per year. Based on what I read of previous rates of expenditures, even with full funding the present work would not have been completed until 2007 or 2008,//After completion, there would still be protection to Category Three, and Katrina was a Four.,

The info I saw said the CURRENT project was going to make it CAT 4 "worthy", that may mean there would be flooding but no levee failure, and your spec could mean a CAT 3 would cause no flooding. I recall they did say the current project goal was CAT4.

I suspect that as the Gulf storms steadily increased in severity and frequency, the target specs for the job were adjusted upwards (probably more than once). You could be right that even if the "upcrank" in urgency that it was given under Clinton was followed through on, it might not have been finished in time..... but the Ponchetrain levees could have maintained integrity and we would have had a $100M cleanup instead of a $100B disaster.

That is admittedly speculative, but the point I was making(which I quote from my post) is this:

The Bush admin took away most of the federal funds that had been allocated for exactly that project.

And I posted the proof of that. My gripe with that is it shows priorities which I can't live with: I think our people are MORE important than fighting the Iraq war..... if he can borrow a couple of hundred Billion for that war, a billion more borrowed to give our own people safety is a good investment. And it really is an investment, when you consider what the monetary cost of this mess will end up being.

 

[KMKeller]

A Barrier That Could Have Been

I believe this puts the blame for the flooding squarely where it belongs... It's kinda hard to build up levees when environmental groups, bull???? lawsuits and liberal judges stop efforts dead in it's tracks.

www.latimes.com/news/nati...&cset=true

A Barrier That Could Have Been
Congress OKd a project to protect New Orleans 40 years ago, but an environmentalist suit halted it. Some say it could have worked.

By Ralph Vartabedian and Peter Pae, Times Staff Writer

In the wake of Hurricane Betsy 40 years ago, Congress approved a massive hurricane barrier to protect New Orleans from storm surges that could inundate the city.

But the project, signed into law by President Johnson, was derailed in 1977 by an environmental lawsuit. Now the question is: Could that barrier have protected New Orleans from the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina?

"If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded," said Joseph Towers, the retired chief counsel for the Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans district.

Tower's view is endorsed by a former key senator, along with academic experts, who say a hurricane barrier is the only way to control the powerful storm surges that enter Lake Pontchartrain and threaten the city. Other experts are less sure, saying the barrier would have been no match for Katrina.

The project was stopped in its tracks when an environmental lawsuit won a federal injunction on the grounds that the Army's environmental impact statement was flawed. By the mid-1980s, the Corps of Engineers abandoned the project.

The project faced formidable opposition not only from environmentalists but from regional government officials outside of New Orleans who argued that the barriers would choke commerce and harm marine life in ecologically sensitive Lake Pontchartrain.

The barrier would have protected New Orleans from storm surges barreling into the lake through two narrow passages — the Rigolets and the Chef Menteur Pass.

During Hurricane Katrina, the lake — swollen 12 feet — was slammed by 135 mph winds against the city's storm walls and levees. The barriers failed in five places and the city was flooded. On the city's eastern flank, the surge approached the city through a network of canals from Lake Borgne, which was also swollen and raging.

After the damage caused by Betsy, a Category 2 hurricane when it hit the Louisiana coast in 1965, the Army Corps of Engineers designed and began clearing sites for the so-called Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Barrier Project. It required miles of levees and two massive storm gates that could close off the Rigolets and Chef Menteur Pass if a hurricane was approaching.

Although the largely forgotten project has been moribund for more than two decades, it has attracted renewed interest and regained credibility since Katrina left about 80% of New Orleans underwater.

J. Bennett Johnston, a former powerful Democratic senator from Louisiana and now a lobbyist in Washington, is working on Capitol Hill to resurrect the barrier.

"It ought to be part of the deal," he said. "It would have prevented the huge storm tide that came into Lake Pontchartrain."

The barrier would have run from a point near the Mississippi state line, known as Apple Pie Ridge, southwest across the marshlands all the way to the main levees of the Mississippi River, roughly 25 miles. Most of the barrier would have consisted of levees, roughly 9 feet to 14 feet high. In addition, two massive control structures were to be placed on the inlets to Lake Pontchartrain.

The Rigolets, the larger of the two inlets, would have required an 800-foot-long structure with floodgates and a massive locks that could close if a hurricane or other storm surge were approaching the coast.

Similar floodgates protect the Netherlands from North Sea surges.

Towers, the corps' former chief counsel, said the project was estimated to cost $85 million in 1965, or just over $500 million, adjusted for inflation. Estimates of the costs of Katrina's damage and reconstruction exceed $100 billion.

The project was stopped on Dec. 30, 1977, by U.S. District Judge Charles Schwartz Jr., who said the corps' environmental impact statement had failed to satisfy federal environmental laws.

Schwartz ruled that the region "would be irreparably harmed" if the barrier project was allowed to continue. He chastised the Army for its inadequate environmental impact statement, which was based in part on a single biologist who never submitted a written report.

Towers conceded that the plan was inadequate by today's standards, but noted that the battle began not long after the National Environmental Policy Act was signed in 1970 and before much of the case law involving the act was set.

The project faced strong opposition from the environmental group Save Our Wetlands, fishermen and the St. Tammany Parish, just north of Lake Pontchartrain, which had hoped to see a large shipyard built on a bayou. The shipyard was never built; today the area is underwater.