PocoLoco wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 09:56:30 -0700, wrote:
PocoLoco wrote:
From where do you get the idea that the Corps was responsible for the
levees
that failed? The ones that failed were not on intracoastal waterways.
--
John H
Doesn't matter, the Army Corp of Engineers builds more levees than just
what's on the ICW. They build and maintain almost all the levees around
N.O. on a federal-local cost-sharing basis.
Building a levee and being responsible for a levee are two different things.
I take it you didn't see or comprhend the "maintain" part, huh?
Show me that the Corps built the canal walls that failed, or that they were
responsible for any levees that failed.
Maybe this, from the someone with the EPA:
Have you seen
all that data about the levee projects' funding being cut over the past
three years by the Prez, and the funding transferred to Iraq? The levee, as
designed, might not have held back the surge from a direct Class 5 hit, but
it certainly would not have crumbled on Monday night from saturation and
scour erosion following a glancing blow from a Class 3. The failure was in a
spot that had just been rebuilt, not yet compacted, not planted, and not
armed (hardened with rock/concrete). The project should have been done two
years ago, but the federal gov't diverted 80% of the funding to Iraq. Other
areas had settled by a few feet from their design specs, and the money to
repair them was diverted to Iraq.
The NO paper raised hell about this time and again, to no avail. And who
will take the blame for it? The Army Corps, because they're good soldiers
and will never contradict the C in C. But Corps has had
massive budget cuts across all departments (including wetland regulatory)
since Bush took office, and now we've reaped what was sown. It really ****es
me off to see the Corps get used by the Administration to shield Bush --
they do great work when they're funded. This was senseless, useless death
caused not by nature but by budget decisions.
--
John H