unknown
2008-09-01 22:44:28 UTC
New Orleans: Nobody Asked, Why Not Sooner?
Posted by Harry Shearer, Huffington Post at 12:10 PM on August 31,
2008.
Why isn't New Orleans ready for a storm everyone knew would eventually
come?
Of course, the primary hope is that this question remains, if not
rhetorical, at least not forensic. The hope is that Hurricane Gustav
doesn't prove the fragile repairs of the deeply defective levee and
floodwall system in New Orleans have been repairs in name only, that
the storm goes west, or east, that it peters out, or, most
miraculously, that the repairs by the Army Corps of Engineers actually
strengthened the system to a point where it can protect the city.
But one question does need to be raised now, before we know next
week's outcome. After Katrina, the Corps wasted nine months in lying
and refuting the findings of expert teams of engineers -- the Corps
insisted the levees were over-topped, while the teams reported
disturbing evidence of construction and design flaws. Finally, after
denigrating the experts for months, calling them liars in the local
press, the Corps issued its own report in June 2006, calling the
system it had designed and constructed "a system in name only."
Most crucially, the Corps announced that the system would be repaired,
up to the advertised level of the pre-K system, the so-called 100-year
storm, by 2011.
Maybe somebody in Congress asked, in some hearing, why will this take
six years? But nobody asked that question in public, nor the obvious
followup: what's the city, and its citizens, supposed to do in the
meantime, say, in 2008?
The old slogan, in engineering as in many other lines of work, is that
you can have it good, fast, and cheap -- pick two out of three. Is
money the reason New Orleans has to wait three more years before even
the semblance of protection is in place? If so, what politician,
Democratic or Republican, will speak up to suggest that that schedule
needs to be accelerated, that good and fast has to replace good and
cheap?
UPDATE: For those new to this subject, or for those who cling to
misinformation about the 2005 disaster, here's a video that should be
enlightening:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/97083/
Posted by Harry Shearer, Huffington Post at 12:10 PM on August 31,
2008.
Why isn't New Orleans ready for a storm everyone knew would eventually
come?
Of course, the primary hope is that this question remains, if not
rhetorical, at least not forensic. The hope is that Hurricane Gustav
doesn't prove the fragile repairs of the deeply defective levee and
floodwall system in New Orleans have been repairs in name only, that
the storm goes west, or east, that it peters out, or, most
miraculously, that the repairs by the Army Corps of Engineers actually
strengthened the system to a point where it can protect the city.
But one question does need to be raised now, before we know next
week's outcome. After Katrina, the Corps wasted nine months in lying
and refuting the findings of expert teams of engineers -- the Corps
insisted the levees were over-topped, while the teams reported
disturbing evidence of construction and design flaws. Finally, after
denigrating the experts for months, calling them liars in the local
press, the Corps issued its own report in June 2006, calling the
system it had designed and constructed "a system in name only."
Most crucially, the Corps announced that the system would be repaired,
up to the advertised level of the pre-K system, the so-called 100-year
storm, by 2011.
Maybe somebody in Congress asked, in some hearing, why will this take
six years? But nobody asked that question in public, nor the obvious
followup: what's the city, and its citizens, supposed to do in the
meantime, say, in 2008?
The old slogan, in engineering as in many other lines of work, is that
you can have it good, fast, and cheap -- pick two out of three. Is
money the reason New Orleans has to wait three more years before even
the semblance of protection is in place? If so, what politician,
Democratic or Republican, will speak up to suggest that that schedule
needs to be accelerated, that good and fast has to replace good and
cheap?
UPDATE: For those new to this subject, or for those who cling to
misinformation about the 2005 disaster, here's a video that should be
enlightening:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/97083/