Blame the tree-huggers!

[SuperScout]

The Lawsuit That Sank New Orleans

By DAVID SCHOENBROD
September 26, 2005

After Hurricane Betsy swamped New Orleans in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson stroked its citizens ("this nation grieves for its neighbors") and pledged federal protection. The Army Corps of Engineers designed a Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Barrier to shield the city with flood gates like those that protect the Netherlands from the North Sea. Congress provided funding and construction began. But work stopped in 1977 when a federal judge ruled, in a suit brought by Save Our Wetlands, that the Corps' environmental impact statement was deficient. Joannes Westerink, a professor of civil engineering at Notre Dame, believes the barrier would have been an "effective barrier" against Katrina's fury.

All this was reported in the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 9. The reactions of environmental advocates and federal agencies show why we would be a lot safer if the federal government did a lot less.

Speaking for environmentalists, the Center for Progressive Reform called the charges in the Los Angeles Times "pure fiction" because the judge stopped construction only until the Corps prepared a satisfactory environmental analysis. The Corps instead dropped the barrier in favor of levees that were less controversial, but which failed. So, the Center argues, fault lies with the Corps' bumbling rather than with the environmentalist lawsuit.

That's not fair. The Corps cannot stop a project, conduct a lengthy study, go back to court, and then be sure it can pick up where it left off. Large federal projects ordinarily cannot proceed unless executives and legislatures at several levels of government agree on the same course of action at the same time. That's why litigation delay can kill necessary projects. However responsibility is apportioned, but for the lawsuit, New Orleans would have had the hurricane barrier.

The federal government's reaction was equally unsophisticated. The Corps denied that the originally planned barrier would have saved the city from Katrina, but nonetheless affirmed that it was starting design of a similar barrier to protect against future hurricanes. The Department of Justice emailed field offices asking for evidence of "claims brought by environmental groups" against other Corps projects to protect New Orleans. A Sierra Club attorney complained, "Why are they trying to smear us like this?" The answer: because some federal officials think that the Corps can act more rationally if freed from interference by environmentalists.

Yet the Corps hardly has a record of rationality. It claims that Katrina produced surges higher than the levees that Congress funded it to build. But Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center found that "the flooding of most of New Orleans" came from breaches of floodwalls on canals adjoining Lake Pontchartrain; Katrina's surges did not pour over the levees but breached them because the Corps' floodwalls were shoddy. The barrier stopped by the lawsuit was designed to keep storm surges out of the lake, so it would have reduced the pressure on these floodwalls. And now, as we have seen, Hurricane Rita drove new surges into the lake.

The Corps actually contributed to increased pressure from the surges on Lake Pontchartrain by building the little-used Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a 76-mile long canal that destroyed 20,000 acres of wetlands. The Corps causes floods across the country by destroying wetlands and channeling rivers. Meanwhile, the federal government encourages construction in flood plains by providing flood insurance.

National environmentalist groups and federal agencies share the belief that federal power is a force for good. Their disagreement is merely over who should wield that power -- activists or bureaucrats?

But federal power is often a force for bad. State governments are no paragons, but federal intervention often makes things worse by erasing lines of responsibility. No member of Congress, except those from areas actually flooded, is apt to pay a political price for fiscal joy rides such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, which crowd out essential flood-control projects. Legislators in the state capital know more about what Louisiana needs and are more apt to be voted out for their mistakes. When Washington decides which projects to fund, state officials can take credit for bringing in federal bucks and blame the feds for the mistakes in priorities.

Congress marinates its pork by ordering federal agencies to engage in elaborate planning in pursuit of environment quality and other worthy objectives. That has benefits -- the Corps, for example, is less apt to destroy wetlands -- but also has key detriments. Objectives worthy in the abstract clash in the real world, and so trade-offs are necessary. But with the feds in control, local officials cannot make the trade-offs in the context of the real project in their backyard. Instead, federal officials start with abstractions laid down in Washington. Decisions always come slowly -- and are vulnerable to litigation.

There are some things only the federal government can do, but it tends to do much more than the strictly necessary. Alice Rivlin, President Clinton's director of Office of Management and Budget, argued that Congress should return many programs, including some environmental ones, to the states in order to "focus the energies of the federal government on the parts of the task for which it has a distinct advantage, and rely on the states for activities they are more likely to carry out successfully."

A good place to start downsizing the federal government is with aid to Katrina's victims. Having set them up for disaster, the feds can't, now, deny them aid. They should not tell them how or where to spend it. A federal government that maimed a great city ought not to have the conceit to think that it can micromanage its future.

[David]

Let's not forget another major contributing factor, the 10's of millions of dollars that have simply "vanished" from the federal funds provided to maintain the levees over the years.

The leaks started not so much because the levee walls were themselves shoddy but rather the material used to join them together failed. This material no doubt had a shorter lifespan then the levee walls and would probably have been replaced had the money to do so not been stolen. New Orleans and Louisiana governments knew about this missing money and investigations into its disappearance had already started well before the hurricane was on it's way.

However you slice the pie, the local government stole money that directly caused the deaths of hundreds of people in New Orleans. Despite all of this Negan still pontificates from his sodden soap box calling the battered masses back to his butcher table. Disgusting........

[39mto39g]

First I think N.O. should be rebuilt.
But the insurence companies that wrote policies should be the first to shell out. Then there should be a line drawn in the mud and no building permitts issued for building on the wrong side of the line. Don't rebuild N.O. where it is now, If the people of N.O. want to build 12 feet below sea level and the city issues a building permit, Than the city should be responcible if it floods.
The citizens of The United States shouldn't have to shell out billions to rebuild a city that should never been built there in the first place.
If the people of LA want NO than by all means build it. Just don't ask me to help or demand it of me. I think rebuilding NO in the same place is just dumb.
Leves have been proven a bad idea for a very long time, just ask anyone that lives along the Mississippi river. You build a 15 foot leve and mother nature says HUU! heres 20 feet of water for ya. How do you like that?
And you know what, If you build your house at the bottom of a valcano don't ask me for help when it burns down.


Ron

[MarineAO]

Well by your logic 39mto39g we should have not help rebuild L.A. or San Fransisco after there most recent earthquakes? I think after one looks at the bills for those rebuilds (and upgrades there after) and then adjust for todays cost it's may be the same. So next time some burg in the mid west gets wacked by a tornado we should not help rebuild it either? Right I mean they built there home in a tornado prone area correct? Or when a winter storm dumps 6 ft of snow that then melts and floods a river and buries a town ? Same thing no help from us RIGHT! Hope it never happens to you cause by YOUR standard cause you built there and that area is prone to some natural desaster or another IT'S YOUR FAULT! RIGHT!?

[Keith_Hixson]

It was the French that founded New Orleans.
They built a city below sea level. Sue the French I say, Sue the French.

New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. Someone stole the money or misused it. Lots of blame to go around. In most cases its the local government who is to blame, but no body wants to step up and say its our fault.

George W. is close to God and God and George W. conspired together to bring hurricanes down upon the Gulf Coast, its all George W.'s fault.

They'll probably built good levies this time and do it right, after billions of dollars and damage and tremendous loss of life. That's the way humanity works. And, refusing to take the blame is another way the human race works.

Keith

[39mto39g]

You are correct.
There are a lot of places in this country that have a greater than average chance at being devistated. I would say If you want to build there go right ahead but when the desaster happens don't expect the rest of the country to bail you out. And NO I wouldn't have helped SF or Florida with there desasters. The people that don't chose to live in a disaster area get handed the bill because someone wants a pretty sunset. The insurence companys should pay, or if no insurence, then you get nothing.
I worked all my life and have never taken anything from our govenment, I want a house built for me and food and supplies brought to me and free medical and an college education for my kid and a couple thousand dallor check from the red cross. Oh wait, Im not stupid enough to live 12 feet below sea level, So because Im not stupid I don't get this stuff and I also get to pay for it for those that are stupid, Whos the stupid one?
And first of all, this is my opinion. The bleeding hearts in this country will always spend my money to bail out dumb ass people that live by a river or an ocean or a valcano or on a fault line. It wouldn't be my choise and I don't agree with helping them but they will get helped. At some point the help will have to stop though. People have to take responcibility for there actions and not rely on the kind heart of the US citizens.

Ron

[Seascamp]

I can think of a hundred reasons why hizhonorthemayor wants all to come on home and none of them good. Whatever the deals at arms length, infrastructure skullduggery, political back scratching deals and whatever else was going on is toast now and should remain toast, for good.

Empirical thought tells me that the entire levy system took one hell of a pounding and is probably weakened across the board. Putting more band aids on the band aid ball is probably a bad answer and I think we would be well advised to make a complete and objective engineering examination; unfettered by political hollering and screaming, and just get a solid grip on what?s going on with the entire levy system before repopulation is an option. To do otherwise is a real crapshoot and most likely at much greater risk than before Katrina came a callin.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

About three weeks ago I contemplated starting a "ReBuild New Orleans?" thread on here, not as a question of whether or not to do so, but HOW it could or should (not would!) be done in practical/engineering terms.

I've had extensive personal/professional experience in mitigating the effects of immense human-made environmental disasters waiting to happen... mainly in the area of forest thinning, but neverthless quite massive undertakings. In addition, I worked for quite a long time on restoration and repair of domestic structures. I have seen and tried to remedy the habitual negligence or ignorance of home owners.

My armchair opinion of New Orleans (starting with the concept of getting people to STAY off the back of the Army Corps of Engineers), would include:

1. Yes, the levee system surrounding the city does need to be brought up to a level of strength equivalent, more or less, with what the Dutch have done in Holland. Either that, or just shit can the whole darn place... except for Algiers Parish and the French Quarter.

2. The modest homes and businesses in those Ward 9 and similar parishes/areas are probably total losses, not even worth saving anything more than the foundation pads, if that. A month of unfettered water intrusion in that climate and conditions is simply a structural calamity that nothing else can fix. If it were my city, I would do everything possible to return those sections of town back into what they started out being... marshlands and flood plains, and maybe let them be city parks or nature preserves at most. No amount of land fill in those areas is gonna do one thing to prevent future disasters, even WITH strong levees, and even if they back fill the land to a height above sea level or code the area so that nothing can be built unless it is on 20' piles. The place is a lot like Mexico City, it keeps right on sinking into the ground and there is not a power on earth that can prevent it. Yes, it would mean several thousand people having to relocate elsewhere, but if it were my own home that was involved, nobody would need to suggest such a move to me for my family.

3. If some lunatic gets it in their head to locate the inevitable FEMA temporary housing units back on those parts of New Orleans after dozing off the remains, then they should be shot.

4. As far as the Mississippi River tidal basin is concerned, the Corps of Engineers did what they were commanded to do, and they did it well... probably knowing full well what a disaster was being created all the while. That entire mess should be returned back to what it was before the project got started, or as near as can be, and let the damn river do its thing from now on. Yes, people will have to change their lifestyles. Duh... There ARE a few things on this earth and in this life that are more powerful than humans, and one of those is the Mississippi River.

I feel fairly strongly about this thread. For years and years many many of us in New Mexico warned and warned everyone that areas such as Los Alamos and Taos were fire bombs waiting to happen, due to enormously overcrowded forest fuels and the no-burn policy (and to humans intentionally building their structures right smack in the middle of the kindling pile). But, try to tell a throng of sandal-wearing perfumed tree-huggers the scientific facts about forest fire or forest health, and you get loud voices raving about how nobody is allowed to build "roads" in the "natural wilderness."

Hence, the "wilderness" rose up and bit off their entire arses a few years back... and guess what they did. They blamed the government for failing to exercise due care.

Same type of situation as in New Orleans.

Here endeth the rant.

[39mto39g]

Who ever issues building permitts should be held accountable.
N.O. should be rebuilt, Just not 12 feet below sea level. I would even be in favor of spending money to rase N.O. 15 feet, at least this would be a step in the right direction, but to just pour money into the area at the taxpayers expence is not a very good idea. Levee systems don't work. Hell just rase part of it and start rebuilding there. Putting a stamp of approval on someone moving back into a shack that is 12 feet below sea level is not a plan I would get behind.

Ron

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by 39mto39g Who ever issues building permitts should be held accountable.
N.O. should be rebuilt, Just not 12 feet below sea level. I would even be in favor of spending money to rase N.O. 15 feet, at least this would be a step in the right direction, but to just pour money into the area at the taxpayers expence is not a very good idea. Levee systems don't work. Hell just rase part of it and start rebuilding there. Putting a stamp of approval on someone moving back into a shack that is 12 feet below sea level is not a plan I would get behind.

Ron

Ron

I have to agree with you here. I am in favor of rebuilding Nawlins but they have to do something about this, this is a recurrig problem that shold have been dealt with years ago
I could see it coming when I lived there in the 70s--it was a bathtub waiting to happen. why can't they raise and strenthn the walls, not neccessarily the whole city?? Ive seen those leveees and if they were a 1/4 mile wide they wouldn't break
There's a lot of places in this country that keep getting hit with recurring disasters and get rebuilt--how many time has Florida been rebuilt? In all the earthquakes I went though in CA, all of the damage there put together wouldn't be equal to the damage of any one of several bad hurricanes there. And FL gets rebuilt time and again, no problem--it must be nice to be a red state whose governors brother is the President. No shortages there, especially in an election year.

Its interesting to see the headline of this post: Blame the tree huggers. Amazingly there's nothing about the destruction of the barrier islands that would have stopped the surge--the "treehuggers" opposed that but the Bush administration went right on OKing development (read: oil) that destroyed most of the barrier islands. There's alos nothing said about the budget for levee repairs being slashed by over 50% by the Bush administration
"Blame the treehuggers?" Whats the matter, Brice?Didn't you get the word? Your Dear Leader doesn't want to play the Blame Game and here you are doing it again. Or is that just for when people blame HIM?
Some leader!! His country's awash, people crying for help and your Dear Leader is off in San Diego just starting the FIFTH week of his vacation (he takes TEN weeks vacation per year) and faking playing the guitar.
You know I love to post pictures of Republicans and I'm not letting you down here--here's a picture of Bush faking--thats F-A-K-I-N-G--playing the guitar. BUsh doesn't know how to play the guitar, does he? So your dear leader stayed in San Diego, on his FIFTH week of vacationpretending to play the guitar while LA went under water.
Lets place blame where blame is due. What part of "We're supposed to be in WWIII, its hurricane season and your Dear Leader takes 10 weeks of vacation a year" don't you understand?
Stay good
James