Slashdot Mirror


Federal Judge Says Corps of Engineers Liable For Katrina Damage

Hugh Pickens writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that a federal judge has ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers — and thus the US government — is liable for a big chunk of the damage caused when hurricane Katrina pushed ashore on August 29, 2005 by failing to stop the natural widening of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet canal (aka Mr. Go) causing it to eventually bump up against the shore of Lake Borgne, on the city's east side. 'It is the court's opinion that the negligence of the corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MR-GO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia, and shortsightedness,' wrote US District Court Judge Stanwood Duval. Judge Duval said he believed it was the failure to shore up the outlet that 'doomed the channel to grow to two to three times its design width' allowing waves on Lake Borgne to enter the Mr. Go and travel into the east side of the city, battering the levees to a degree to which they were not designed. 'One of the greatest catastrophes in the history of the US' was both predictable and preventable, testified veteran Louisiana geologist Sherwood Gagliano, a former Corps consultant."

100 of 486 comments (clear)

  1. What? by wpiman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The people who knowingly decided to live below sea level bear no responsibility?

    Seriously; this look to government to protect one's self has gone too far.

    1. Re:What? by Krneki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The people who knowingly decided to live below sea level bear no responsibility?

      Seriously; this look to government to protect one's self has gone too far.

      In the US of A, being stupid is a civil right.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    2. Re:What? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Appealing to "individual responsibility" is fun and all; but senseless if perspective is not kept.

      Living below sea level is stupid. However, living below sea level behind a levee designed specifically to make that area habitable, which has been doing exactly that for years and years now is considerably less stupid.

      Does "individual responsibility" require near-Cartesian levels of doubt in every possible piece of infrastructure?

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people who knowingly decided to live below sea level bear no responsibility?

      So, let's get this right... If you contract me to do some work on your roof and it leaks -- it's your own damn fault for choosing to live in an area where it rains?

      I like it!

    4. Re:What? by Walzmyn · · Score: 5, Informative

      While I agree that trying inhabit the New Orleans area is rather stupid, this ruling was pretty specific about this particular canal's design and maintenance. Apparently residents and city officials have been complaining about this thing since a 1965 hurricane that did a miniature version of what Katerina did and have been begging the Corp to change the canal to prevent exactly what happened.

      That's what I got from some extensive radio news coverage yesterday.

    5. Re:What? by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      60% of the population of the Netherlands live below sea level. Are they all stupid too?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    6. Re:What? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful
      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Having been to Holland many, many times I can in fact confirm that the entire population are indeed stupid. Next question please...

    8. Re:What? by HaZardman27 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it were a cheaply made levee whose maintenance had been ignored for some time, then it's still pretty stupid. Obviously the average person wouldn't know what kind of state the levee was in, but as someone who lives down south, it's safer to just expect that everything is falling apart.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    9. Re:What? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      60% of the population of the Netherlands live below sea level. Are they all stupid too?

      No, but they all have their fingers stuck in dikes.

      Send the Army Corps of Engineers to the Netherlands. All the folks that live below sea level will move, real fast.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    10. Re:What? by dlt074 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if the levee is only rated to work and hold up to a category x type storm and a x+1 type storm comes along and you're still there. you have nobody to blame but yourself.

    11. Re:What? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From what I remember the Corp has been begging since 1965 for money to make the changes. Every year state and federal funds went to things that were at that time deemed more important.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re:What? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well it's no accident that the 9th ward was hard hit; the whole ward didn't exist until it was dredged from the river. Basically it used to be a flood plain.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:What? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Informative

      no but they at least know how to build levee's and dam's

      I dunno, build levee's and dam's what?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    14. Re:What? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can't afford to move indeed. Even Bag Ladies move. If you decided to stay in squalor after being born there. You pretty much decided to be poor. You decided not to be educated. You decided not to try to better yourself. All this because you gave up because you were born poor.Poor you, sit on a government pity pot.

      Silly ass.

      You are being sarcastic, right?

      Cause if you're serious, I'll assume you delivered yourself by C-Section. After carefully choosing appropriate parents, of course.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    15. Re:What? by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, their government does that.

      Oh wait.

    16. Re:What? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The people who knowingly decided to live below sea level bear no responsibility?

      They probably didn't even know they were below sea level. What is your town's elevation? Hell, Cahokia IL is smack in the middle of the midwest and it's only 400 feet above sea level.

      And a lot of people, especially the poor, don't have much of a choice where they live. If you were talking about the rich people in California who build mansions where they can slide off a cliff, or in a wooded area that was prone to wildfires you would be right. If someone's home Kansas gets blown away by a tornado do you blame them because they live in Kansas? If someone's house in Japan gets destroyed in an earthquake do you blame them for living in Japan? If someone in Florida's house is destroyed by a hurricane do you blame them just because they live in Florida? There aren't many places on earth that are immune from natural disasters. But the disaster in N.O. was caused by the Corps of Engineer's incompetence. It's scary; I have friends in the St Louis area. I just saw in the paper yesterday that the levees in Alton, IL are in bad shape. I hope the one in Caholia is good, I have friends there. When the hundred year flood hit in the nineties, the Mississippi was at the top of the levee there.

      Blaming the victim is despicable, and that's just what you're doing. The government reassured these people and they believed the gov. Who's to blame, the liar or the one who believes the lies?

    17. Re:What? by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Appealing to "individual responsibility" is fun and all; but senseless if perspective is not kept. Living below sea level is stupid. However, living below sea level behind a levee designed specifically to make that area habitable, which has been doing exactly that for years and years now is considerably less stupid. Does "individual responsibility" require near-Cartesian levels of doubt in every possible piece of infrastructure?

      The levee could not handle a Category 3 hurricane. Category 3 hurricanes which hit that area are periodic events that happen from time to time; they are absolutely inevitable. So you have a city below sea level protected by a barrier which cannot possibly handle an event that you know with certainty will one day happen. Additionally, all those years that passed without it happening were ample opportunity to reinforce the levee and otherwise to prepare for that eventuality. This did not happen. This alone would dissuade me from living there because the result is absolutely predictable. It's only a question of when.

      What do you call it when people make themselves available for preventable disasters that are easy to foresee? Usually the word "stupid" is used to describe actions like this. "Stupid" is also used to describe people who need a politician or other official to tell them when something is a bad idea because they've lost their common sense and have replaced it with various authority figures. So without a government mandate or official inquiry they, acting on their own, would not seriously question the integrity of the levees or the tremendous risk they were taking. That sheeplike dependency, that inability to independently question and reason, explains not only why New Orleans was such a terrible diaster but also most of American politics and government expansion.

      If you want to do something constructive, don't feel sorry for them or make excuses for them. Those sentiments are probably meant well but they accomplish nothing. They have no power to prevent a future disaster. If you want to do something, use this as an example for why there is no substitute for thinking for yourself and assessing your own risks. Let it represent why there is no substitute for those things, that all kinds of preventable harm is caused by the failure to value those things. The (minority of) people who understand this got out of New Orleans a long time ago and wouldn't have considered moving back without substantial improvements to the inadequate levee. The rest were surprised by the inevitable, which is like choosing to be a victim.

      So yes, individual responsibility was a big factor here. It's not about doubting everything to an absurd degree. It's about knowing the situation you're in and putting yourself into a different situation if it's an invitation to disaster. But the folks who were hit hardest were not thinkers. They didn't think about their situation or compare it to other situations or evaluate risks. They had no such awareness. They just did their daily thing without a second thought and were surprised when something happened. That's the real message here.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    18. Re:What? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the irony, actually. Normally, the same people who are big on "personal responsibility" are also big on "accountability". Why would they be opposed to the Army Corps of Engineers being "accountable" for fucking up?

      One can legitimately assert that this bit of engineering shouldn't have been their job; but it has been for some decades now and they've never been absolved of it. Why would anybody not want them to be accountable for doing their job properly?

    19. Re:What? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You pretty much decided to be poor. You decided not to be educated. You decided not to try to better yourself.

      This is the great conservative myth, born in the 1970's under the auspices of Barry Goldwater and popularized by Ronald Reagan.

      People don't decide to be poor. No one wakes up in the morning and says "I want to lose all my money and become broke". But the statistics don't lie: Either the vast majority of children of poor people are lazy, stupid, and unmotivated while the vast majority of children of wealthier people are smart, hardworking, and motivated, or there's some other factor at work.

      For instance, in private colleges and universities it is not uncommon to find children from wealthy families who have a hard time writing at a 6th grade level. Explain that via personal decision-making. In your typical Best Buy you can and will find people who with a bit of training could have become darn good developers and admins, but the best they can manage is working overtime for the Geek Squad to make ends meet. Explain that via personal decision-making. Or for that matter, explain someone who works at my company answering customer service calls while earning a 2-year degree in web development, got that degree, and still is answering the phones for a living.

      Even in Horatio Adler stories, being smart and motivated wasn't enough. The hero usually needed quite a bit of luck, and a benefactor of some kind.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    20. Re:What? by MrMr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, 60% sounds about right. (ps. I'm a native, so I should know)

    21. Re:What? by flyneye · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually yes. Eventually those shingles will wear and be damaged and it'll rain again and it'll leak again. Move to the desert if this arrangement bothers you. Its not the governments responsibility to control weather, raise land to above sea level, plug faults, super glue cliffs together by the ocean, fireproof trees or quench volcanos. If you choose to live where there are naturally dangerous occurrences and they occur , It isn't my fault, it isn't the governments fault, it isn't even the insurance companys fault , it's yours.
              To further look into this, It isn't the governments job to make you safe against anything but invasion (what a fine f**king mess that is) and various sundry constitutional duties. If you really want to know what the states liability is, then read your states constitution. The rest is in your hands. Live in a flood zone? Build on stilts and take the elevator up. Live in a quake zone? Build a single story in the wide open. Live on a volcano? Buy some barbeque sauce , Einstein.
                  Unless my semen had something to do with your birth and it was my responsibility to teach you how to get along in life, everything else is your responsibility.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    22. Re:What? by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but they all have their fingers stuck in dikes.

      Careful, Kurt Greenbaum might be listening...

    23. Re:What? by AlecC · · Score: 5, Informative

      Particularly, in the two years immediately before Katrina, a huge amount of the Corps budget ($2-300 milllion, IIRC) was switched to funding the occupation of Iraq because, since it was already Army money, it could be switched without permission of Congress. Which puts the blame squarely on the Adminstration, rather than the Corps of Engineers. And also shows how silly it is to have what is basically a civil job being done by the Army.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    24. Re:What? by AlecC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When those houses were first built, more than a century ago, they were above everyday river levels. The continuous building of levees has cause the river to silt its bed and raise itself up above the surrounding land. Levee building on a silty river is a job which, once started, can never be stopped. Better, but more expensive in the short term, would be to have dredged the river down rather than levee it up. But this was a gradual process - there was no day (until Katrina) in which the inhabitants could say that their homes (and major capital assets) has suddenly become uninhabitable. They depended on assurances from City, State and Engineers that they would be "all right", that the levees were up to their needs. And why should they not accept the assurances of the people who are supposed to know?

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    25. Re:What? by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The levees in New Orleans were not ever designed to make a Category 3+ storm survivable, and they've always been in a TERRIBLE state of repair (anyone who's actually been the the area could tell you that water constantly seeped through them in several places). New Orleans floods during normal rainstorms. Anyone who thought they were safe there during a Hurricane doesn't deserve any pity.

      Also, the money allocated to levee repair/upgrade was spent on things like off-ramps for casinos and such by the local levee boards. This judge declaring the Corps. to be responsible while ignoring the gross criminal negligence by state and local officials is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice I have ever seen.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    26. Re:What? by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't tend to pray that hurricanes decide to change direction to avoid them... So I say no.

      Location. Location. Location.

    27. Re:What? by flyneye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Conservative myth? And you're quoting fiction literature?

                I was born poor, buddy. I watched poor friends decide not to try. I watched poor friends use their resources to get ahead as I did. I made the effort to stay in school. I made the effort to further my education while they decided to party and turn into welfare leeching drunks. You can quote all the liberal regurgitation you want in place of actual knowledge, and it won't make it anything but Democratic campaign vote buying points. If this is truely what you believe, you can be a Democratic dressing room fluffer. At least you picked a career that pays better than writing html. (which by the way was his fault for choosing a shakey career. Why not just take your college money to Vegas instead of finding something that actually pays?)
                If you spent a bunch of money on education and the industry you prepared for tanks, start over again. Just don't remain inert crying in your beer and accepting poverty. Even in the 90's average career changes had changed to every 6 years down from 10 in the 80s and 12 in the 70s.
      Did you have something better to do? Feeling sorry for yourself is a low paying job.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    28. Re:What? by wilder_card · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You, like most people, are overlooking a few facts here. New Orleans used to be well inland and above sea level. A long series of environmentally disastrous policies lowered the water table, removed natural barriers, concentrated storm surges, and generally guaranteed that NO was a disaster waiting to happen.

      Unfortunately the government and Army Corps aren't legally liable for severe technical malpractice and rank stupidity. This suit slips through a loophole in the legal immunity the government gave the Corps.

      New Orleans could be saved. And the cost of abandoning a major city is immense, far more than building better hurricane defenses. Building better hurricane walls will cost far more than restoring wetlands, allowing the water table to recover, and re-engineering the waterways. Of course, the best/cheapest solution is probably the one least likely to be selected by our broken political process.

      And the cheapest solution of all (short-term) is to blame the victim and do nothing. It's worked really well so far.

    29. Re:What? by Spazztastic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop posting AC & I could be bothered to respond to you.

      But you did respond...

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    30. Re:What? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the irony, actually. Normally, the same people who are big on "personal responsibility" are also big on "accountability". Why would they be opposed to the Army Corps of Engineers being "accountable" for fucking up?

      I personally think the Army Corps of Engineers should be held partly accountable for its actions contributing to the mess. But it's worth noting that the Corps isn't the primary source of blame. The city of New Orleans and its inhabitants have to be responsible for their part in this mess as well.

    31. Re:What? by locallyunscene · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So we should have stuck to the African plains? Humans are not meant to go underwater/in space/in the air/over the ocean so we should never try? Your opinion is terrible.

    32. Re:What? by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps the State has no responsibility to act for the benefit of its citizens, but if not, then what is its purpose?

      There are some that would argue that it would have been inappropriate for the State (I'm assuming you mean State to represent Government as a whole, rather than just the State of Louisiana) to selectively assist only those districts based on their lack of social mobility. The people as a whole have a right to Government assistance, but 'poor' people don't have a greater right to assistance than 'rich' people.

      On a personal level, I would argue that lack of social mobility doesn't translate to a lack of physical mobility. Even if these people were not able to afford to move out of these risky areas, given the several days of warnings that preceded Katrina's landfall, most NO residents should have been able to simply walk out of harms way. Instead many of them simply sat in their homes waiting for someone to tell them what to do. In the days immediately following the storm, many residents were something like 7 miles away from help, but refused to walk there under their own power.

      I have a friend that was a Marine at the time. His unit was sent to the area to assist in disaster operations. He personally wound up as a door gunner of an evacuation helicopter, this was necessary because people were shooting at helicopters to get their attention.

      The State certainly has an obligation to act for the benefit of its citizens. The citizens also have a responsibility to act for themselves.

    33. Re:What? by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      60% of the population of the Netherlands live below sea level. Are they all stupid too?

      Not yet - but they would be if they were devastated by a natural disaster exacerbated by their elevation (say, a tsunami or hurricane), and then proceeded to whine to their federal government for not protecting them from it. However, unlike Louisiana, the Netherlands is not in a prime hurricane or tsunami path, so their elevation in relation to the sea is less of consequence.

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    34. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      These very factors are why the smart and able people evacuated, like my family. AND these reasons are why home owner's insurance policies are now being written with much more stringent base flood elevation requirements. The number of homes in the worst hit areas are being raise 4 to 12 feet is impressive, now some of these folks will actually have a chance of not having their homes destroyed if another levee failure happens.

      The lessons learned in New Orleans after Katrina are the lessons that folks who have lived along the coast of Florida and elsewhere have known for a while. Hurricanes come and they blow shit over and make water rise up to crazy heights. So if you want your stuff to make it through you need to build your house up about the storm surge height and add some extra strapping to your roof and walls to keep them from blowing away.

      Having grown up in Florida, lived in New Orleans for 3 years up to Katrina, and now being back in New Orleans again I have only modest levels of sympathy for the folks who lost everything, seeing as I lost a good deal myself. But I was properly insured, evacuated as advised and knew what to expect from 21 years of hurricanes in Florida. The anger needs to be directed at the incompetent local government that didn't take care of its own. Nagin waited too long to order the evacuation and, instead of using the city's fleets of public and school buses to get people out he had everyone go to the Superdome and people died en masse because of his and other local politician's incompetence. And yet he got re-elected because he and the idiot populi blamed the federal government rather than pointing the finger where it rightfully belonged.

    35. Re:What? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also many experts (including the Army Corps of Engineers) were saying to replace the NO levees back in the 1960s. New data (1960 data) suggested that the levees could fail if a cat 3 or greater storm hit. new Orleans did not want it done, the construction would get in way of the partying (ie money coming in).

      I saw that on the history channel. Why wasn't that footage brought in?

    36. Re:What? by Machtyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but what about the previous 35+ years? This puts the blame squarely on the local and state government. At least with the Administration, they knew where the money was going to in Iraq. With New Orleans, we're not sure which person's freezer the bags of cash would wind up.

    37. Re:What? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just got off work, and I'm just to tired to do the search that I ought to do. Anyone can google if they care to.

      The retaining walls in New Orleans failed in exactly two places. No more, and no less. In precisely those two places, the N.O. water and sewer department had disturbed the wall, years earlier. They lifted the panels out of the wall, and out of the prepared soil in which they had been planted. After making alterations to these panels, they were lifted back into place, and set back on the very same groung, without any work being done to the ground.

      Some people who have never been around a construction site may need to ask around, or research, but I'll tell you what you'll find. Lifting a fencepost, a wall, or anything out of the ground, breaks built up adhesion. In fact, adhesion is going to lift great gobs of dirt along with whatever you are lifting. When you put that fencepost, or panel, or whatever BACK into the hole, you will have voids. Voids are conducive to water flow.

      And, those two panels that failed, did so BECAUSE water had percolated UNDER them, removing all the loosened soil under and around the panels. Once all the loose soil was gone, water flow increased, washing out more and more stabilized earth.

      Eventually, the walls collapsed when several panels were left without any support.

      Bottom line? That judge is full of shit. The New Orleans water and sewer department caused the city to flood. Katrina was not the primary cause, nor were the Corps of Engineers. Water and sewer fools who had no idea what they were doing, took it upon themselves to tamper with vital infrastructure, without consulting the Corps.

      I'm going to bed. If I'm barraged with challenges, maybe I'll find the pertinent reports for everyone when I get up. But, I'm sure that SOMEONE can find the news articles as well as the reports.

      Have fun!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    38. Re:What? by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Let's stop wasting money on all that water diversion to California, those guys can go back to their natural state of dying of thirst.

    39. Re:What? by patlabor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wooden shoe rather be Dutch?

    40. Re:What? by nametaken · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They get a lot of hurricanes in the Netherlands, huh?

    41. Re:What? by Tarsir · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You wrote:

      So you have a city below sea level protected by a barrier which cannot possibly handle an event that you know with certainty will one day happen. Additionally, all those years that passed without it happening were ample opportunity to reinforce the levee and otherwise to prepare for that eventuality.

      The judge agrees with you:

      'It is the court's opinion that the negligence of the corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MR-GO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia, and shortsightedness,'

      The thing is, the judge lives, along with most of us, in a world where people and organizations have some minimal obligation to other people. Thus, when there is a government organization whose responsibility it is to build levees that will protect a city full or people, and when this organization fails to protect against something that is, as both you and the judge point out, perfectly predictable, then we say this organization has been negligent, and we hold it responsible. We call this state of affairs civilization. Come join us!

    42. Re:What? by HaZardman27 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously the average person wouldn't know what kind of state the levee was in

      Let me repeat that for you.

      Obviously the average person wouldn't know what kind of state the levee was in

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    43. Re:What? by kirillian · · Score: 2, Informative

      True...I was also born poor too...and there is a little truth to both sides...there are a whole bunch of people who get ahead in life on the back of others' efforts. However, the ones who cry "I'm a victim!" and don't even make the effort to help themselves. Both sides are at fault here. I'm where I'm at because I worked my ass off and kept pushing even when it was exceptionally hard. Many people I grew up with did not. Many just gave up and are stuck in their own little vicious cycle in and out of jail. At the same time, it has ALWAYS bothered me how easy it was for some of the people that I met who just threw money at every problem to get by. Bitterness doesn't really help you much in life though. Just get up off your butt and try again. Stop enabling the self-proclaimed victims. I wish I could ask people to stop accepting bribes, but that's never gonna happen.

    44. Re:What? by nametaken · · Score: 2

      As much as I'd like to agree, my guess is most people would simply assume that the levee would do the job.

      Those who did question it probably couldn't afford to move on a hunch. We're not talking about wealthy areas here.

      Even worse, any plea to local government was probably deferred in favor of other issues considered more pressing to a depressed area.

      Just guessin'.

    45. Re:What? by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's complicated.

      In my case, for example, my parents were both from very poor farmer families.

      They moved to the city, studied at night after work to finish high-school and slowly progressed up to what's essentially lower middle class. Even so, they choose to only have one child (me) because they knew they couldn't afford to have their kids go through university if they had more than one - I still remember that when I was 8 I had to sleep in the sofa in the living room in an apartment and the paint would peel from the walls due to humidity and improper construction.

      For myself, it so happens that I'm good with intellectual endeavors so I managed to go through High-School and University without needing any extra (paid) tutoring. Now, 15 years past the end of my education and 3 countries later, my income is in the top 10% of the country where I live (UK) in, roughly 7 times the average around here. Compared to where I came from, my income is probably 20+ times the average income there.

      A lot of my success is my own doing (the intellectual abilities, the taking the risks of changing jobs, employment styles and countries) but all of that is based on my parents choices:
      - Their choice of moving to the city.
      - Their choice of furthering their education.
      - Their choice of only having one kid.
      - Their choice of pushing me to go through University instead of putting me to work when I was 16.
      not to mention the values they taught me, some of which came from my grandparents.

      Had my parents not made those choices they did or taught me the values they taught me, my own skills and abilities might not have been enough to make me go much further beyond just another poor peasant.

      In the end, a bright kid with unlucky, dumb, inept or just plain screwed-up parents (say a single-mother junkie) will be way much more likely to end up in a life of poverty than a dumb kid with reliable, educated and wealthy parents.

    46. Re:What? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be clear, I myself am doing extremely well professionally compared to others my age. I'm not any of the people I mentioned in my previous post. I'm not sorry for myself in the least: I'm raking it in and worrying more about how to properly invest the savings than how to make ends meet.

      How poor were you born? Seriously. Did your family ever survive via government assistance? Did you ever move frequently because your parent/guardian couldn't pay the rent? Was there a time when largest meal of the day was your government-supported school lunch? Believe me, I know what poor looks like: I never lived it, but I spent a lot of time with kids in all of these circumstances.

      I'm not saying people can't overcome their circumstances. I'm saying they're the exception, not the rule, and that the answer of "they're stupid and lazy" seems to me to be a massive oversimplification.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    47. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize, of course, that it's not nearly as simple as "we've identified that the levees are inadequate and now we're going to fix them." I mean, nobody in their right mind would believe that the Corps was fully funded, fully staffed and with free mandate to enact change just sat there with their thumbs up their arses, looking at the existing structures and liabilities thinking "eh...good enough." Once again, what * I * see here is a knee-jerk reaction of people unwilling to take a look at the real complexities of acheiving ANY change where a government/locality/municipality/etc is involved. Short of criminal negligence, and i've not yet heard "Mr. Jones, the engineer responsible for the levee was lying about it's suitability for it's intended purpose" or "Mr. Jones takes extended Hawaiian vacation on Corps $$$", it's reasonable to assume that they were attempting to do their job with whatever limited resources were available to them. I can't envision that the Corps went to Congress, asked for a Billion Dollars, got it and then ignored the repairs. Isn't it at least reasonable to assume they had limited funds to acheive the overall management of their charges in the area and were therefore as a necessity, required to make a cost-benefit analysis for available projects. In this case they got burned. But I never hear anyone shouting from the roof tops about how the Corps was responsible, give me one credible real-world idea about how to accomplish what they needed to do on limited resources.

    48. Re:What? by Mordac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wish this was right at the top. I was hoping someone would point out that New Orleans was not naturally in a dangerzone.

      The Army Corp of Engineers over a century of work has done so much damage to the surrounding wetlands that the Gulf has encroached hundreds of miles, and the city itself has sunk. The Army Corp in trying to tame the Mississippi doomed New Orleans to this fate, and then did nothing to protect it. Instead they waste money on dredging more channels that will be barely if ever used, and lead to more damaged wetlands and increased flooding.

    49. Re:What? by Buelldozer · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's because the ACoE DIDN'T fuck up. They'd been calling for upgrades since the 60's and couldn't ever get the funding! The secondary problem was the lack of maintenance. The dollars for maintaining the existing levies did exist but the LOCAL, as in not the ACoE, boards kept rejecting the maintenance requests and spending the money on other projects. Such as golf courses and on/off ramps.

      So in this case the analogy of roofs and rain, as presented, is broken. It's more like you told the roofing contractor you wanted a lightweight roof and the contractor said you should really have one made of tiles. You say you don't want to pay for that so build the cheap. The contractor builds the cheap one, tells you again that it's insufficient for the storms you get in your area and then keeps coming back to your house asking to do upgrades and repairs...which you refuse to allow even when the contractor is willing to pay for it.

    50. Re:What? by Buelldozer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the two years before Katrina outweigh the 30+ years, since 1965 or so, that the Corps had been asking for budget to fix JUST THIS?

      Talk about myopic!

    51. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but they all have their fingers stuck in dikes.

      Not the men

    52. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_tides_of_the_North_Sea
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_surge

      Hurricanes don't flood costal areas; storm surges do.

    53. Re:What? by mvdwege · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, they did. In 1953, some 1800 people drowned when storms combined with a high tide ripped through the dikes. Some people died in England too.

      The difference is, the government took a good look at the dike system, and decided it wasn't up to scratch. Cue a massive program of dike improvements and dams to shorten the coastline, and we're expected to be safe from catastrophic floods for millennia.

      Now, if you compare the dikes around the Dutch polders to the levees in New Orleans, it becomes clear where to put the blame. The Netherlands, having a much smaller chance of catastrophic climate events (like a surge tide during storm) has much heavier dikes than the levees at NO. So NO is woefully underprepared. And who is responsible for that?

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    54. Re:What? by Neofluffybunny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If that is true, the LA is abusing the right. I work for an insurance company who writes in LA. There are people there who think that a storm comes, they get $300. Doesn't matter what for. Its not a matter of having the money to get out, they have a mentality that people owe them something. 3 of every 10 homes have damage that has not been repaired from Katrina. The stories I have from LA are limitless. People wanting get paid back for staying in 5 star hotels for almost a month even though they were only evacuated for 2 days. (a more recent hurricane).

      --
      The time for the purification is at hand! The impure shall be cleansed and crystal clear purity shall fill the cup of th
    55. Re:What? by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The army corps warned the state and local government in the 1960s that the levees were inadequate. The state and local governments ignored them.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    56. Re:What? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There have also been any number of stories published about the Army Corps of Engineers' analyses of the New Orleans levee system over the past decade. The Corps sent a good number of reports to Congress, predicting most of what actually happened during Katrina. This included pinpointing all the actual points of failure. They submitted proposals for maintenance and enhancements. Congress pretty much turned them all down.

      So yes, the Army Corps of Engineering was "responsible", in the obvious sense that they understood the situation quite well, knew what had to be done, and didn't do it. They didn't do it because they were denied the funding.

      The Dutch situation is an interesting comparison. A similar storm devastated Holland in 1953, breaching the dikes and flooding most of the area below sea level. Their response was a huge project to improve their system so it wouldn't happen again. An interesting aspect of this was that their engineers got together with Japanese engineers, because Japan is the country with the most people living below sea level, and they had a lot of useful experience with dikes and levees. The result was greatly improved technology in both countries. Japan's situation is even worse: Millions of people live below sea level in the Tokyo-Yokohama metro area, they're in a major earthquake zone, and they have frequent hurricanes (or typhoons if you prefer). If you're into natural disasters, the history of this area makes for some interesting reading.

      The US government tends to take a different approach, more like "We're the most advanced society in the world, and we don't have anything to learn from the rest of you turkeys." Their attitude towards New Orleans has also been pretty clear, along the lines of what others have said here: "That's what you get for living in a flood zone." I.e., "Tough luck, suckers."

      But the American population keeps voting for them, so what happened must be what most Americans want, right?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    57. Re:What? by jwilty · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, let's get this right... If you contract me to do some work on your roof and it leaks -- it's your own damn fault for choosing to live in an area where it rains?

      I think this is a good point but the analogy needs to be extended. You contract me to do work on your roof but only give me 50% of the money I say the repairs will cost. At the end, I tell you that your new roof will be fine for normal rain showers but that it WILL leak during a downpour. Then, when my prediction comes true, you blame me. This is where personal responsibility comes into play.

    58. Re:What? by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

      But it was the local government that refused to do the necessary repairs, maintenance, and new construction that they were told needed to be done.

      For four decades.

    59. Re:What? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Informative

      They get a lot of hurricanes in the Netherlands, huh?

      No, they get storm floods.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    60. Re:What? by eison · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1103/p02s02-ussc.html
      "We found dozens of breaches throughout the levee system," says Peter Nicholson, who leads the American Society of Civil Engineers' levee-assessment team."

      ASCE senate testimony: http://www.ewrinstitute.org/files/pdf/katrinalevees.pdf
      "Rather than a few breaches through the floodwalls in
      the city caused largely by overtopping, we found literally dozens of breaches throughout
      the many miles of levee system. A number of different failure mechanisms were
      observed, including scour erosion caused by overtopping, seepage, soil failure, and
      piping."

      "Where the storm surge was most severe, causing massive overtopping, the levees
      experienced a range of damage from complete obliteration to intact with no signs of
      distress."

      Two specific breaches were investigated and failed in the way you describe:
      "Finally, three major breaches, and at least one significantly distressed levee-floodwall
      section, were investigated at sites along the 17th Street and London Avenue canals
      which, as explained before, were clearly not overtopped.
      Obvious soil failures within the embankment or foundation soils at or below the bases of
      the earthen levees had occurred at two of the breaches. At the distressed section,
      seepage and piping were evident. These types of soil instabilities appear likely to have
      been responsible for failure of these wall systems."

      Because two breaches failed in the way you described doesn't mean there were only two breaches, or that the sewer company ruined everything for everyone. It's possible the root cause was the panels weren't sunk low enough in the first place. It's definitely the case that there were other failures with other failure reasons.

      Wikipedia looks like a decent place to start for an overview, but as always you'll need to check their sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_levee_failures_in_Greater_New_Orleans

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    61. Re:What? by flyneye · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes all those criteria described me.
            Exceptions to the rule are a much higher ratio.
      Most people have the choice to make themselves better. Those who can't are such an insignificant number as to be helped by preferably churches and charities, but also government assistance though they throw our money to pretty much anyone not too proud to scam them.Out of thousands I've known, met or heard of in my life so far I can honestly say 3 were state kept quadriplegics with brain damage.
                I even know a man as simple, well close to as simple as Forrest Gump who won't live on government assistance. He lives humbly,on his own, works hard and even has retirement funding set up. He always has a smile in spite of the crap he gets from others. Not rich, not poor and certainly stupid.
                I'm tired of hearing apologea for those unwilling to help themselves.It's crap.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    62. Re:What? by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could see blaming the French for setting up a fort / trading post in a vulnerable but lucrative location, but blaming fifth or sixth generation native-borns (who weren't exactly rolling in dough) for not moving away seems a bit Darwinian.

      It's not about blame. It's about the choice of either taking effective action or waiting until there is a disaster so you can assign blame. If I live in New Orleans prior to Katrina and the federal government won't fund better levees, I might ask the state or local governments to do so. If they won't do so, then I can't do it myself.

      At that point, if the government won't do it and I can't do it myself, then two options remain: 1) stick around and eventually get hit by an inevitable disaster, or 2) move away and leave the area to its fate. I'll take the second option every time. If I have a family, then it's no longer an option at all; I would then have an obligation to safeguard my family and would be a piss-poor husband/father if I cared about the inconvenience of moving more than their well-being.

      Now, why don't others see it in terms of foresight and proactive action? Do they see it differently because they have a superior point of view? I would argue that a point of view which needlessly places them and their families in danger is not superior. Take a hard look and you'll find that they didn't care enough to look into it, didn't use some foresight and some sense, or naively expected that government would take care of everything without their input. None of these are good attributes worthy of acquisition.

      They are all personal failings or character weaknesses. Calling them by their proper names is the first step towards getting rid of this victim mentality which, in the name of "compassion", wants to tell people who are not helpless that they are helpless victims. I don't find anything compassionate about telling people that they are helplessly at the mercy of every problem that might come their way, like a leaf in the wind. I think doing so condemns them to experiencing a lot of preventable suffering. I don't think people need my pity. I think they need to inform and equip themselves and learn to be their own masters.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    63. Re:What? by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      The point isn't about Cal vs other places, the point is rich vs poor. The rich can live wherever they want, the poor don't have that luxury.

      I noticed that the fire-prone and mudlide-prone areas of California are full of mansions, not shacks. They don't have to live there, the poor who live in earthquake zones in your state do.

    64. Re:What? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "60% of the population of the Netherlands live below sea level. Are they all stupid too?"

      The Dutch don't live in an area plagued by hurricanes, they don't have much alternative due to crowding (which is what drove land reclamation in the first place), and they don't live in a willfully culturally backward and infamously corrupt state.

      The US has vast amounts of land. No one "needs" to live in New Orleans, below sea level or otherwise. (Do note that the old French Quarter wasn't wiped out because they didn't fucking build in a flood zone!)

      Katrina was a "perfect storm" of the most backward culture and people in the US insisting on staying in their slums so they could die in droves. They had time for crime, violence, and drugs. They had time for sloth and ignorance. They didn't devote appropriate time to prepare, and they suffered the consequences. Katrina flushed some slums, big deal. They'll be rebuilt to humor the stupid, and will get zapped again one day.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    65. Re:What? by ahabswhale · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It actually has nothing to do with lacking the technology to solve the problem, as you imply. The ACE was both fully aware of the problem and knew how to fix the problem. The real issue was simply an issue of funding: there was none. Now if the Dutch and Japanese have some kind of technology for imparting common sense in politicians, you might be right. However, I'm guessing they don't.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  2. Remember, kids... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why you need to listen to the guys with hard hats and pocket protectors.

    They aren't the only necessary ingredients of a functional society; but engineers(in concert with scientists) are your best hope of pulling nature's teeth before it can bite you in the ass.

  3. Pay no attention! by LeepII · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pay no attention to the reports from residents that heard the levies being blown to protect the rich neighborhoods.

    1. Re:Pay no attention! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, because breaching a levee in one place does not magically strengthen it in others, nor does it "relieve the pressure" being exerted by a fucking hurricane. What kind of fucking numbnuts even entertains such a notion?

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:Pay no attention! by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its paranoia, but partially justified paranoia. In 1927 they did blow the levee to prevent economic damage to New Orleans (and causing a flash flood that killed several people south of the city).

      They did it once? why not do it again? The circumstances were different, and it wouldn't work this time. And the water wouldn't have anywhere to go. The "rich" french quarter was "saved" by being the oldest part of the city, built on dry land before the levees and higher than the rest of the city. Its a ridiculous notion, and not correct, but sometimes ridiculous things happen.

  4. Finger pointing by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've read in several disparate sources that the Corps repeatedly informed the powers-that-be in Louisiana and New Orleans that the levies were insufficient but were regularly ignored.

    1. Re:Finger pointing by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Corp was backed up by an exercise called Hurricane Pam. In that exercise, FEMA headed by Mike Brown (the same Mike Brown) simulated what would happen if a hurricane hit New Orleans. This was conducted in 2004 (a year before Katrina). The results showed that a slow moving Category 3 hurricane (Pam) would wreck the city and topple the levees. Almost a million people would be homeless with 600,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. In other words: catastrophe.

      After the initial part of the exercise that determined the extent of damage was completed, the next phase would have been planning a course of action to mitigate and prepare for such an event. At this time, funding was cut to the project by the Bush administration.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. Re:lack of funds Liable For Katrina Damage by Brainpimp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do any of you RTFA? Cheap levees had nothing to do with this portion of the ruling. They didn't maintain a large man-made canal. They let it expand and erode into the existing natural barrier. This applied to the St. Bernard and some lower 9th areas. This had nothing to do with the 17th street or other canals that were topped and then eroded. To the dimwit that said people that live below sea level, FYI the area is not below sea level. It is outside the levee and the MRGO and the corp's failure to maintain it as originally planned is what made this a problem. This would be similar to if a plane crashed into an area that was near a runway and then telling the people that they bear part of the responsibility.

  6. susceptible cities by rwv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At the beginning of the trial this summer, US District Court Judge Stanwood Duval asked, "You all know what this is about: ... What did the Corps know, when did it know it, and when should it have known?"

    He answered in a 158-page ruling late Wednesday.

    "It is the court's opinion that the negligence of the corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MR-GO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia, and shortsightedness," he wrote.

    He awarded 4 people (presumably New Orleans landowners) about $750,000 apiece for a lawsuit that's been going on since 2006. I don't know any more specifics about this case, but that seems like a small price to pay compared to the millions/billions that were spent immediately after the storm.

    What I don't understand is why natural disasters should have been mitigated by technology. There are certain areas of the country that are susceptible to certain disasters. They wouldn't blame a construction firm when a tornado rips apart a building in the Midwest. They wouldn't blame the fire department when fires are engulfing a city. Why point extra blame towards the Corps of Engineers when a very powerful storm hits a susceptible city with the full force of its power? I don't buy the argument that we should be expected to spend the money up-front to guard against storms that big.

    1. Re:susceptible cities by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How exactly is a city so important to trade routes based on a river ? If it had never been built the river would still exist, and all that was needed was occasional dredging to keep the water way clear. Without New Orleans you lose nothing. But you seem to want to start from now and work backwards in your estimation of importance. The simple fact is, that when NO was built, they built it on DRY LAND, not reclaimed mud. Which bits survived the hurricane ?

  7. Myopia and shortsightedness by michelcolman · · Score: 2, Funny

    In my opinion, it wasn't just myopia and shortsightedness, but nearsightedness as well!

  8. Do they even realize it by aepervius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When my parents bought a home, the elevation was not on the contract or even sale presentation. You could only see if you were going to search for special map with precise elevation lines. So how many people living there do REALLY realize they live on ground below sea level ? Well *NOW* maybe a lot. but how many did back then ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  9. Re:Bush cut funds for levee project by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    funding for the flood control project essentially dried up

    I think that one deserves a rim shot.

    But yes, one of the many causes of Hurricane Katrina was short-termism and a "cut government spending" ideology that led to underfunding of essential maintenance of levees, bridges and other not-so-glamorous infrastructure in many parts of the country.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  10. It is always the guy with the biggest bank account by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    who is responsible else how will the lawyers get paid?

    So, the Corp is responsible. Big deal. Fix the problem. I do not see how this entitles anyone to sue the government for money. Whats next? Suing the government for permitting tobacco sales? Its not like the government doesn't know they are bad for you.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  11. Fuck Yeah! by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck the poor, the weak and the helpless!
    They've nobody and nothing to blame but themselves!

    That's the spirit.

    Silly ass-O.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:Fuck Yeah! by HisOmniscience · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cause it's not the poors' fault that they decided to drop out of school, not use contraceptives, raise their children in single parent homes, and continue to rely on welfare.

      (Anecdote: my class had a 58% graduation rate... and that's normal for my area.)

  12. Re:This was known for some time by rs232 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "While Katarina was ongoing, there were plenty of independent news outlets running video footage of professionals warning what would happen. It made the Bush mantra of "No one could have predicted..." out to be just as much of a joke as the "No one could have predicted..." 9-11 version. (And then the Aug 6th PDB title was released.)"

    Exactly, so how a Judge could belatedly blame the Army Corps of Engineers, defies logic. Of course he couldn't every state the real reasons. That the levees failed because of their flimsy construction and funding was denied to pay for Bushs war in Iraq. Not only that Bush was warned in advance about Katrina, but took no action.

    "President Bush is expected to shift $1.3 billion away from raising and armoring levees, installing floodgates and building permanent pumping in Southeast Louisiana in order to plug long-anticipated financial shortfalls in other hurricane-protection projects, a move Sen. David Vitter describes as a retreat from the president's commitment to protect the whole New Orleans area"

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  13. Predictable... by wolvesofthenight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are partly correct: This catastrophes in the history was both predictable and preventable. They built a city right next to the ocean, bellow sea level, in a major hurricane zone, on a sinking delta, and in the flood plain of one of the world's largest rivers. It is quite easy to predict that any such city will be flooded, and being a major city it was a major disaster. And it was preventable: they could have built the city somewhere else, and limited the use of the delta area to only stuff that had to be there.

    --
    -WolvesOfTheNight
    1. Re:Predictable... by Mordac · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did not build the city next to the gulf and below water. Open a history book, this is a man made disaster, we humans have moved the Gulf to New Orleans and sunk the city. Its what happend when you destroy thousands of square miles of wetlands to allow a couple more ships per day up the Mississippi and ignore why people built New Orleans so far inland (it was to the Gulf originally as Baton Rouge is now.)

      For a supposed bunch of intelligent people, most of you readers on Slashdot seem to know nothing of history, nor of engineered malfeasance.

    2. Re:Predictable... by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They did not build the city next to the gulf and below water. Open a history book, this is a man made disaster, we humans have moved the Gulf to New Orleans and sunk the city. Its what happend when you destroy thousands of square miles of wetlands to allow a couple more ships per day up the Mississippi and ignore why people built New Orleans so far inland (it was to the Gulf originally as Baton Rouge is now.)

      I'd mod you up...

      For a supposed bunch of intelligent people, most of you readers on Slashdot seem to know nothing of history, nor of engineered malfeasance.

      But you're a douche.

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
  14. Ridiculous oversimplification by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There are some projects that can only be undertaken by large resources: the reclamation of the Netherlands and the East Anglian Fens from the sea being successful examples. The return on investment can be very large. But the effect of drainage is to reduce soil levels, so land that started up above sea level ends up below (you can see this very easily in East Anglia, where the drainage canals are often well above field levels.) East Anglia and the Netherlands have amazing hydrological systems to prevent flooding, which are well maintained, and I imagine that abandoning, for instance, Cambridgeshire and Befordshire to the sea might not be a sound idea financially. I don't know any more about New Orleans that a few articles in Sci Am have told me, but it looks as if the root cause of the problem is that large amounts of land and harbor have been reclaimed in ways that are perhaps hydrologically unwise, and the US Government decided to stop funding the protection measures. Now, what about all the people who have roots in the area from before the hydrological works started? They were presumably perfectly safe until the changed pattern of water movement created the conditions for a disaster. They at least should be able to claim against the developers and the Government who created the problem in the first place. And what of the people who moved into the area on the basis of misrepresentation that the system was safe?

    Me? I live 65 metres above sea level and my backyard drops two metres to a drainage ditch. The prospect of flooding does not alarm me. But some of the most agriculturally productive parts of our area (and the Fens, and the Netherlands) are potentially liable to flooding, and in 30 years some of them may be abandoned to the sea. This will result in large economic loss. The decision on when and what to abandon will have to be taken on ruthless economic grounds. The decision in the US seems to have been taken on the grounds that (a) isn't this war expensive? and (b) why are we paying to protect poor people who vote Democrat? People do have a right to expect better of the Governments that they elect and pay taxes to.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  15. This is total BS by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same Army Core of Engineers recommended for years the levies be reinforced. There is no reason to think doing so would not have avoided the flooding problems. The people there failed to make the investment. Its the local government there that is responsible and nobody else.

    What we have here is a professional organization said the situation was unsafe and recommended a fix. The customer did not elect to implement the fix. Then when things went wrong the customer is trying to blame that organization for not having recommended something else.

    Its total crap.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  16. so federal funding got cut..... by kick6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this was such a major concern for the state of Louisiana......................why didn't they just use state money? This is a classic case of fingerpointing.

  17. Re:This was known for some time by Bakkster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It also makes the entire state of Louisiana look stupid for not declaring an emergency (Federal gov't can't send in the national guard without the state's say so) or forcing an evacuation, even though they are the ones who should have best known that anything above a category 3 would put the city underwater.

    --
    Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  18. Re:This was known for some time by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

    funding was denied to pay for Bushs war in Iraq

    Ah. So, back in the 1990's, when Clinton was running things, and the design wasn't any better and local engineers were saying the same things, that was different? I see. It's different because of your politics, not because of reality. The levees weren't built to withstand a Katrina. That reality goes back well before Bush. Of course you know that, and you're a troll.

    Your heros on the left could have spent money to change the levee construction for years and years before Katrina hit. Why didn't they? Well? Did they somehow know that years later, Bush would come into office with pre-existing, poorly built protections around a city that had spent decades making the problem worse - and they were somehow pre-blaming Bush for later political advantage? Sounds about right.

    Also, it's Bush's fault that your coffee wasn't very good this morning, and that the traffic lights in your area aren't synchronized very well.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  19. Let the Corps sue the city now by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The Corps has recommended the levees be strengthened. It was very well known that New Orleans was in danger long before Katrina. Heck my daughter found a Nat Geo article with maps predicting flooding way before Katrina while looking for pictures to cut and paste for a 2nd grade project. The cities and the state and the feds never gave it the funding needed and diverted the funding to dredge shipping channels for the super tankers to ply through.

    Now Corps would have a case against the city and the state and let it transfer the liability to the city.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. Louisiana did declare an emergency by Attack+DAWWG · · Score: 2, Informative

    . . . the day before the Federal Government did. See the second paragraph in this link.

    Also, see this link for how they requested federal assistance and how the Feds botched it up.

  21. so don't live in by doginthewoods · · Score: 2, Insightful

    any town on the MS river, CA for earthquakes, FL for hurricanes, the midwest for drought and tornadoes, the north for snow storms, etc. Are you trying to show how little you know about why New Orleans flooded? It was not Katrina, but the failure of the levees. And they failed because they were not maintained, and the reason they were nto maintianed is becasue Bush stole the money to pay for tax breaks for his rich friends.

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  22. Re:They WERE designed to resist Cat3 storms by Ceiynt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ya, Cause GWB told the Louisiana government how to spend the federal money sent to them. Oh, and what about Mr. Clinton? Did he stand up for 8 years demanding the NO levees be reinforced to handle a Cat5? It's not the president's responsibility to tell states how to spend money. It's congress critters that do that.

  23. Sue the Pope next by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 3, Insightful

    New Orleans is heavily Catholic and God could have steered Katrina away. As God's representative on earth, we should sue Pope Benedict.

    1. Re:Sue the Pope next by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

      And after they lose, people will have to sign a worship disclaimer every Sunday stipulating that their faith does not guarantee that they will be protected by the Almighty.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  24. Moving by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mmm. I think if you check the New Orleans flood map, you'll find that the hardest hit districts were the ones with the lowest social mobility. If you're born there, and can't afford to move anywhere else, then should you be damned for your "decision" to be poor?

    Very, very few people in the US are so poor they cannot move elsewhere. Yes it's harder for those without means but it's not remotely impossible. I grew up in a family that was poor as church mice when I was little. We could have moved if we felt the need. Saying you can't move because you are poor is demonstrably untrue most of the time. Nobody promises you it will be easy but it most definitely is possible.

    Perhaps the State has no responsibility to act for the benefit of its citizens, but if not, then what is its purpose?

    Of course its job it to act for the benefit of the citizens but ONLY for those things the citizens can't do themselves. There is hardly an able bodied or able minded adult person in this country who could not pick up and move to another location within the US if they set their mind to it. They don't need the government's help to do that in most cases.

  25. Poor can still be mobile by sjbe · · Score: 2, Informative

    They probably didn't even know they were below sea level.

    I don't buy that bit of excuse making for a second. If they didn't know they damn well should have known. It's not as if it was a secret.

    What is your town's elevation? Hell, Cahokia IL is smack in the middle of the midwest and it's only 400 feet above sea level.

    About 630ft in my case. If I get flooded animals will be lining up in twos.

    And a lot of people, especially the poor, don't have much of a choice where they live.

    Only the children and the handicapped. I've been poor myself but even poor people can move in the US. It isn't as easy as for those with means but its entirely possible. Even poor people in the US aren't generally so poor they can't relocate. It might be hard but most definitely have a choice.

    But the disaster in N.O. was caused by the Corps of Engineer's incompetence.

    Since the Corps of Engineers has had plans for DECADES to fix the problems and was never given the funds to make it happen, exactly how is that the ACoE's fault? Yes they bear some responsibility but the majority of the fault lies with the people who lived there and chose not to take responsibility themselves. If you live near a danger and do not constantly prod your government to mitigate that danger then the fault lies mostly with you. If the government won't fix it then move elsewhere. It's not that complicated.

    It's scary; I have friends in the St Louis area. I just saw in the paper yesterday that the levees in Alton, IL are in bad shape. I hope the one in Caholia is good, I have friends there. When the hundred year flood hit in the nineties, the Mississippi was at the top of the levee there.

    I lived in St Louis for several years. The people that live in the Mississippi and Missouri flood plain are pretty well aware of the dangers. If you live near a big river like that it is basically impossible to contain the biggest floods. There have been 3 very large floods in the last hundred years in the Saint Louis area and you can be sure that there will be another in the next 50-100 years. I have friends with property right on the Mississippi. They are insured as much as possible and they have evacuation procedures in place for their property. They are as prepared as they can be. Only a moron would assume that fellow citizens should subsidize your risk taking activities.

  26. Local man blames someone else by DarthVain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    News at 11.

  27. Get this through your head. by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Army Corps of Engineers failed in their responsibilities.

    Can you get it through your head the Corp of Engineers asked congress for the money but congress refused? It's one thing to blame the military when the military is in control, and it's something else when instead of having the power they have to beg for money.

    Falcon