questions re: freeper arguments about NO, Army Corp of Eng. old lawsuit?

[uncle ray]

on a non-politics board, a freeper type brought up a couple of points that i haven't yet been able to find facts on, help please?

1. he says that the "wacky environmentalists" sued the Army Corp of Engineers in 1971 to prevent upgrading of the levies around NO, saying that it would ruin wetlands? anybody have any insight into this lawsuit? did it even apply to the NO levies?

2. he says that louisiana is the largest recipient of army corp of engineers funding "in recent years". he says "where did the money go".

the rest of his points are easy enough to shoot down. he says that "we shouldn't blame the fed government for the problems of the most corrupt state in the USA". :puke:

thanks.

[yourout]

1. we shouldn't blame the state for the problems of the most corrupt....

fed government in history. That must be what they meant.

[mrcheerful]

2. More sheepican blame games

BTW, the money for the dams, levees and dykes went the way of socal responsilbilty, GW killed it. Just last year GW cut founding for the levees,dams and dykes by 50% after being told that they could stand up to a level 3 hurricane. His experts said the chances of being hit by a level 5 hurricane were 99.5% against that happening.

[uncle ray]

3. thanks, i know,

but i need some facts on the specific questions before i counter him, i can't go off on how it's all *'s fault, "politics" are strictly forbidden in this board, which, being run by a freeper type, means anything supporting * stands until some fucking librel adds their opinion. basically i can't make political commentary, i need just the facts and i'll have to let the other readers figure it out.

[PatsFan2004]

4. Look in the LA Times. There is an article about this.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-surge9sep09,1,7901524.story?coll=la-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Basically, President Johnson signed into a law a project to massively improved the levees around NO. The project was derailed by an environmental lawsuit and the project was eventually abandoned. The article goes into detail about the possible helpfulness of the original project. However, there was and probably still is opposition by environmentalists and local municipalities around NO.

[uncle ray]

6. thanks, good article!

sounds like he was half right, or just picking and choosing facts. the way i read the article, it was as much fed. regulations etc. that stalled it as much as environmentalists, in that their environmental impact study was incomplete.

[blonndee]

5. Here's something IMPORTANT about the ACE

Ex-Army Corps officials say budget cuts imperiled flood mitigation efforts

By Jason Vest and Justin Rood [e-mail]

As levees burst and floods continued to spread across areas hit by Hurricane Katrina yesterday, a former chief of the Army Corps of Engineers disparaged senior White House officials for "not understanding" that key elements of the region's infrastructure needed repair and rebuilding.

Mike Parker, the former head of the Army Corps of Engineers, was forced to resign in 2002 over budget disagreements with the White House. He clashed with Mitch Daniels, former director of the Office of Management and Budget, which sets the administration's annual budget goals.

---snip---

Parker -- who, along with members of his family, was forced to evacuate his Mississippi farm on Sunday night -- drew media attention (and the White House's ire) in 2002 by telling the Senate Budget Committee that a White House proposal to cut just over $2 billion from the Corps' $6 billion budget request would have a "negative impact" on the national interest. Parker also noted that cuts would mean the end of scores of contracts and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

---snip---

Amid the largesse, however, Congress and the administration have made targeted cuts, some of them in Louisiana. As New Orleans City Business noted earlier this year, the Corps' construction budget for the district has gone from $147 million in fiscal 2001 to $82 million in fiscal 2005. Scores of projects, from efforts to build levees, canals and pumping stations to bridge improvements -- all of which deal with flood mitigation -- are incomplete. (The administration's fiscal 2006 budget proposal cut construction funding for the district even further, to $56 million.)

much more at

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0905/090105jv1.htm