Tim wrote:
Guess thats what you call it when what ever the subject, from 9/11 to
New Orleans, and anything in between, "It's ALL Bush's fault"

Actually, I haven't heard very much of that, except from Bush-Cheney
apologists trying to score a point by pretending.


Now THAT'S "partisan blaming!"


And you think it's a good thing?

DSK

Now THAT'S "partisan blaming!"

And you think it's a good thing?

Ok, which IS good and which is bad??


Partisanship? or bi-partisanship?

I've heard 'em both.

... Uncle Sam's credit cards are maxed out,

heck, it's been overdrawn since FDR..

so, whats new?

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.

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.
Show me that the Corps built the canal walls that failed, or that they were
responsible for any levees that failed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

While the Corps does not build levees it often lets the contracts for levee
construction and generally supplies the specs. Flood control levees are
often Corps levees. If the Corps lets the contract Corps inspectors have
the job of ensuring the specs are followed.

However, there is an important piece of information to consider. The Corps
is seldom responsible for maintenance of levees except for ICW levees.

In a prvious life I drafted all the letters to communities regarding the
outcome of levee maintenance inspections conducted by Corps personnel.
Almost without exception communities failed to maintain levees in good
operating condition. But, at least they were duely informed that the levees
were subject to failure and/or leakage at water levels below design due to
poor to nonexistant maintenance.

A lot of folks don't realise that the US Army Corps of Engineers are good
guys who provide a lot of help to communities and who help fight floods when
they come.

Butch
"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
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.
Show me that the Corps built the canal walls that failed, or that they
were
responsible for any levees that failed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:04:06 GMT, "Butch Davis" wrote:

While the Corps does not build levees it often lets the contracts for levee
construction and generally supplies the specs. Flood control levees are
often Corps levees. If the Corps lets the contract Corps inspectors have
the job of ensuring the specs are followed.

However, there is an important piece of information to consider. The Corps
is seldom responsible for maintenance of levees except for ICW levees.

In a prvious life I drafted all the letters to communities regarding the
outcome of levee maintenance inspections conducted by Corps personnel.
Almost without exception communities failed to maintain levees in good
operating condition. But, at least they were duely informed that the levees
were subject to failure and/or leakage at water levels below design due to
poor to nonexistant maintenance.

A lot of folks don't realise that the US Army Corps of Engineers are good
guys who provide a lot of help to communities and who help fight floods when
they come.

Butch
"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
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.
Show me that the Corps built the canal walls that failed, or that they
were
responsible for any levees that failed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


I think most of the breaks were in the canal walls, not the levees. In any case,
if the levees were designed for a Cat 3 hurricane, then the Corps should not be
blamed for their lack of ability to withstand Cat 4 or 5 hurricanes.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Butch Davis wrote:
While the Corps does not build levees it often lets the contracts for levee
construction and generally supplies the specs. Flood control levees are
often Corps levees. If the Corps lets the contract Corps inspectors have
the job of ensuring the specs are followed.


I had the impression that the Corps pretty much owned all the specs for
that kind of thing, and did the QA for Fed controlled projects on these
lines.

However, there is an important piece of information to consider. The Corps
is seldom responsible for maintenance of levees except for ICW levees.

In a prvious life I drafted all the letters to communities regarding the
outcome of levee maintenance inspections conducted by Corps personnel.
Almost without exception communities failed to maintain levees in good
operating condition. But, at least they were duely informed that the levees
were subject to failure and/or leakage at water levels below design due to
poor to nonexistant maintenance.


That's a good point, and it's a political hot potato to sling back &
forth between the folks who want to do levee meaintenance... either
because they live next door to it, or because they want the contract...
and the people who don't want to spend money on maintenance because if
they let it fall apart, the Corps will come and upgrade it at no (or
less) cost to the locals.


A lot of folks don't realise that the US Army Corps of Engineers are good
guys who provide a lot of help to communities and who help fight floods when
they come.


Agreed. The Corps of Engineers has been doing so much with so little for
so long, that it's now expected to do everything with nothing.

DSK

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