Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Need some levee facts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-05 03:46 PM
Original message
Need some levee facts
I heard on NPR a couple days ago that one of the levee's that broke was incomplete due to *'s funding cuts. Can anyone confirm this?
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drewskie Donating Member (465 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. You can find articles on this all over the web... here's one:

New Orleans Officials Worried In 2004 That Federal Cuts Would Bring Disaster
David R Mark

The Bush Administration ignored warnings last year that New Orleans' east bank hurricane levees were left vulnerable as the administration diverted money from an Army Corps of Engineers project to the Iraq War.

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. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained.

But, according to an article in the Philadelphia Daily News: "(A)fter 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 (New Orleans) Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars."

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 a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, La., 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."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al 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," Naomi 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 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.

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: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-05 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. from this article...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20050606/ai_n14657367



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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Newkophile Donating Member (101 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-05 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here's another link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. I can't.
ACE says the opposite.

Nobody's cited the actual link between the budget cuts and the projects for the specific levees that broke, apart from the one that says the contractor was hurrying to finish work on one levee (that did fail) earlier this summer.

But that last story contradicts the previous ones: it means the levee project was funded.

The study that wasn't funded is a red herring: it wouldn't have helped in this instance. I suspect that the study was to deal with category 4/5 hurricane issues, since the levees were only intended to be brought up specs for category 3 storms.

Most of the SELA funding was provided; most occurred pre-* (1996, '97, '98, '99, '00, '01), '02 was apparently funded; '03 apparently was funded at 44%, and I've heard about proposed cuts-from-planned budget amounts for '04 and '06 ('06 being after the 10-year SELA project) was to end. I've heard little about '05.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drewskie Donating Member (465 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It's a black or white issue...
the dollars were there or they were'nt. Where are your figures? And only a retard would claim underfunding "any" sort of project would have no impact on said project. I suppose the Times-Picayene was lying out of their teeth when they wrote that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-05 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yes, it is a black-or-white issue.
But the claim is that the specific levees failed because of budget cuts wrt planned amounts in '03-'05. The government was to spend something like $600-700 million over 10 years. As of the end of f/y 2002 they had spent something like $430 million; then the amount was reduced for the remaining years: $250 million in projects, but the amounts spent probably were closer to $125 million. But while it was one big project, it was executed as subprojects.

This means there were specific subprojects due to be carried out that were not, or that were cut back. Here's the real question: were the levees that failed part of subprojects that were defunded, and not carried out by the end of Aug. '05?

If they weren't, the budget cuts were immaterial as far as Katrina is concerned. If they were, the budget cuts are potentially very material. Only the ACE as addressed that question. They've said no, all the levees had been worked on and brought up to spec. They should know, but their answer could be politically skewed.

Looking at the global budget allocations, and some proposed numbers, doesn't address the issue. Somebody will have to look at specific budget amounts allocated to specific subprojects, and compare them to what the overall project initially required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-03-05 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. Another...
http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0203/07/m05.html


March 7, 2002

Criticism leads to Parker's ouster



The assistant secretary of the Army, Mississippi's former U.S. Rep. Mike Parker, was forced out Wednesday after he criticized the Bush administration's proposed spending cuts on Army Corps of Engineers' water projects, members of Congress said.

"Apparently he was asked to resign," said U.S. Rep. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., a member of the House Appropriations Committee's energy and water development subcommittee that oversees the corps' budget.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also said Parker was dismissed.

Parker's nomination to head the corps drew heavy criticism last year from environmental groups pushing to downsize the agency, calling its flood control projects too costly and destructive.

*******Parker earned the ire of administration officials when he questioned Bush's planned budget cuts for the corps, including two controversial Mississippi projects.*******
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC