Is it any surprise? It's worse because of Dubya

No doubt the irrational Bush apologists on this forum won’t get it, but it appears that part of the reason that things went so badly in NO is because our federal gov’t had its financial priorities elsewhere (Iraq; tax cuts) while the area’s flood protection projects were being neglected over the past few years. Tax cuts, anyone?

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313


Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? ‘Times-Picayune’ Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/photos/icons/Dollars_L.jpg

By Will Bunch

Published: August 31, 2005 9:00 PM ET
PHILADELPHIAEven though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans. That’s because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city’s 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it’s level with the massive lake.

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. 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, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

 **HURRICANE COVERAGE**

Editor of Biloxi Paper Surfaces With a Column
‘Times-Picayune’ Finds New Home, Reports Looting
For ‘St. Pete Times,’ Katrina Coverage is a Test of Preparedness
Baton Rouge Paper Rides Out the Storm
Biloxi Paper Perseveres
Hurricane Blog, Day 3
Hurricane Blog, Day 2
Hurricane Blog, Day 1

Yet after 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 Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: “No one can say they didn’t see it coming. … Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation.”

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, Louisiana; 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,” he 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 panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

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.

The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, “The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana’s coast, only to be opposed by the White House. … In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana’s chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need.”

Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, “the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be.”

Damn thats a shame. I guess they shouldn’t have voted the fucktard into office, twice!

Well, the thing is that you could completely flip the argument around.

I mean, if you’re a true conservative and believe in limited government, then we simply wouldn’t have an ACOE doing these sorts of domestic projects at all. Why should federal taxpayers pay to maintain a city in these circumstances? Whether or not New Orleans continues to exist below sea level would simply become a matter of commercial imperative.

Likewise, you could make a conservative argument as to why there should be any federal disaster relief or involvement in this hurricane. One could argue that this should all be handled by private insurers and limited efforts by state and local governments to maintain order, with private charities. The existence of government hands here only serves to encourage people to not be as careful or purchase insurance or whatever. Or for that matter live in places where hurricanes occasionally show up.

But we don’t hear those arguments. It’s sort of an interesting phenomena to me, in that people always like to talk about killing government, but when they need it, it’s always about “where is the government?” People bash the government until they are against the wall, then they wail about where is the government. I don’t know, I just find it fascinating that people can be so obviously hypocritical and not realize it.

Agreed, those arguments could be made - but true conservatives don’t support Bush either. The fact is, nondiscretionary, non-military spending increased faster under Bush than under Clinton. The “smaller government” arguments are so contradictory to so many of Bush’s policies, that a Bush supporter can’t advance them without reeking of hypocrisy - not that that has stopped anyone from trying in other situations.

And, even if the true, federal-government-minimalist conservatives ever took power in this country, I would sincerely hope they’d realize that you have to transition out federal oversight and programs in certain areas - simply pulling the plug overnight, in areas like flood control, would be devastating, without sufficient private-provider analogs in place.

My point is that the America these “true conservatives” want is untenable.

You would end up with an even more polarized country than we already have, with the have-nots living increasingly desperate lives, and the haves happy to have their tax bill reduced for this. But the irony is that whenever something bad happens, people want to know where the federal government is. Can you imagine a state of being where the federal government had no involvement whatsoever? What would the devastation and human suffering look like then? And do people want to live in a country where the federal government is so limited in powers that it can only stand back and watch such abject misery?

Oh, and here’s Knight-Ridder’s take on FEMA’s reaction. And apparently, even conservatives at NRO are concerned that Bush’s speech was long on stats and short on empathy.

Federal government wasn’t ready for Katrina, disaster experts sayhttp://www.realcities.com/images/common/spacer.gif
By Seth Borenstein
http://www.realcities.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Knight Ridder Newspapers
http://www.realcities.com/images/common/spacer.gif

WASHINGTON - The federal government so far has bungled the job of quickly helping the multitudes of hungry, thirsty and desperate victims of Hurricane Katrina, former top federal, state and local disaster chiefs said Wednesday.

The experts, including a former Bush administration disaster response manager, told Knight Ridder that the government wasn’t prepared, scrimped on storm spending and shifted its attention from dealing with natural disasters to fighting the global war on terrorism.

The disaster preparedness agency at the center of the relief effort is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was enveloped by the new Department of Homeland Security with a new mission aimed at responding to the attacks of al-Qaida.

“What you’re seeing is revealing weaknesses in the state, local and federal levels,” said Eric Tolbert, who until February was FEMA’s disaster response chief. “All three levels have been weakened. They’ve been weakened by diversion into terrorism.”

In interviews on Wednesday, several men and women who’ve led relief efforts for dozens of killer hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes over the years chastised current disaster leaders for forgetting the simple Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.

Bush administration officials said they’re proud of their efforts. Their first efforts emphasized rooftop rescues over providing food and water for already safe victims.

“We are extremely pleased with the response of every element of the federal government (and) all of our federal partners have made to this terrible tragedy,” Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said during a news conference Wednesday in Washington.

The agency has more than 1,700 truckloads of water, meals, tents, generators and other supplies ready to go in, Chertoff said. Federal health officials have started setting up at least 40 medical shelters. The Coast Guard reports rescuing more than 1,200 people.

But residents, especially in Biloxi, Miss., said they aren’t seeing the promised help, and Knight Ridder reporters along the Gulf Coast said they saw little visible federal relief efforts, other than search-and-rescue teams. Some help started arriving Wednesday by the truckloads, but not everywhere.

“We’re not getting any help yet,” said Biloxi Fire Department Battalion Chief Joe Boney. “We need water. We need ice. I’ve been told it’s coming, but we’ve got people in shelters who haven’t had a drink since the storm.”

The slow response to Katrina and poor federal leadership is a replay of 1992’s mishandling of Hurricane Andrew, said former FEMA chief of staff Jane Bullock, a 22-year veteran of the agency.

Bullock blamed inexperienced federal leadership. She noted that Chertoff and FEMA Director Michael Brown had no disaster experience before they were appointed to their jobs.

The slowness is all too familiar to Kate Hale. As Miami’s disaster chief during Hurricane Andrew, Hale asked: “Where the hell’s the cavalry?”

“I’m looking at people who are begging for ice and water and (a) presence,” Hale said Wednesday. “I’m seeing the same sort of thing that horrified us after Hurricane Andrew. … I realize they’ve got a huge job. Nobody understands better than I do what they’re trying to respond to, but …”

Budget cuts haven’t made disaster preparedness any easier.

Last year, FEMA spent $250,000 to conduct an eight-day hurricane drill for a mock killer storm hitting New Orleans. Some 250 emergency officials attended. Many of the scenarios now playing out, including a helicopter evacuation of the Superdome, were discussed in that drill for a fictional storm named Pam.

This year, the group was to design a plan to fix such unresolved problems as evacuating sick and injured people from the Superdome and housing tens of thousands of stranded citizens.

Funding for that planning was cut, said Tolbert, the former FEMA disaster response director.

“A lot of good was done, but it just wasn’t finished,” said Tolbert, who was the disaster chief for the state of North Carolina. “I don’t know if it would have saved more lives. It would have made the response faster. You might say it would have saved lives.”

FEMA wasn’t alone in cutting hurricane spending in New Orleans and the surrounding area.

Federal flood control spending for southeastern Louisiana has been chopped from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in 2005, according to budget documents. Federal hurricane protection for the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity in the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget dropped from $14.25 million in 2002 to $5.7 million this year. Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu requested $27 million this year.

Both the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper and a local business magazine reported that the effects of the budget cuts at the Army Corps of Engineers were severe.

In 2004, the Corps essentially stopped major work on the now-breached levee system that had protected New Orleans from flooding. It was the first such stoppage in 37 years, the Times-Picayune reported.

“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,” Jefferson Parish emergency management chief Walter Maestri told the newspaper. “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.”

The Army Corps’ New Orleans office, facing a $71 million cut, also eliminated funds to pay for a study on how to protect the Crescent City from a Category 5 storm, New Orleans City Business reported in June.

Being prepared for a disaster is basic emergency management, disaster experts say.

For example, in the 1990s, in planning for a New Orleans nightmare scenario, the federal government figured it would pre-deploy nearby ships with pumps to remove water from the below-sea-level city and have hospital ships nearby, said James Lee Witt, who was FEMA director under President Clinton.

Federal officials said a hospital ship would leave from Baltimore on Friday.

“These things need to be planned and prepared for; it just doesn’t look like it was,” said Witt, a former Arkansas disaster chief who won bipartisan praise on Capitol Hill during his tenure.

FEMA said some of its response teams were prepared.

The agency had 18 search-and-rescue teams and 39 disaster medical teams positioned outside storm areas and moved them in when the hurricane died down.

Nonetheless, victims of this week’s hurricane should have gotten more, said John Copenhaver, a former southeastern regional FEMA director.

“I would have difficulty explaining why there has not been a visible presence of ice, water, tarps - the kind of stuff that typically get delivered to hurricane areas,” Copenhaver said.

A FEMA spokesman, James McIntyre, blamed the devastation in the region for slowing down relief efforts.

Roads were washed out and relief trucks were stopped by state police trying to keep people out of hazardous areas, he said.

That explanation didn’t satisfy Joe Myers, Florida’s former emergency management chief.

“I would think that yesterday they could have flown in,” said Myers. “Everyone was flying in. Put it this way, FOX and CNN are there. If they can get there …”

FEMA moved quickly with its search-and-rescue teams, which took precedence over delivering water and ice, McIntyre said.

“We’re trying to save lives,” McIntyre said. “The rescue teams are FEMA people. The medical assistance are FEMA people. Right now, getting people off roofs and keeping people from drowning are a priority.”

Further complicating the relief effort in Louisiana is scandal within the state agency. Recently, three top officials of Louisiana’s emergency management office were indicted in an investigation into the misuse of hurricane funds from last year’s Ivan.

None of this matters to residents of the Gulf Coast.

“We’re lost,” said Steve Loper of Pascagoula, Miss. “We have no direction, no leadership. People are in bad trouble.”

Alison Young, Ron Hutcheson and Tish Wells of the Knight Ridder Newspapers Washington Bureau, Pete Carey of the San Jose Mercury News and Scott Dodd of the Charlotte Observer contributed to this report.

It has already been established on earlier threads that the hurricane was caused by Bush with help from Haley Barbour.

At least this thread added the fact that domestic spending has gone up under Bush faster than under Clinton and also that the federal government didn’t do levee improvements because it had other financial priorities in Iraq. I am trying to get my mind around both those ideas at the same time, but I am having a problem with it. Maybe you can help me.

No…it’s worse because New Orleans is below sea level. In fact, the city should have never been built where it is.

I’m apalled that we’ve spent so much money to keep a city dry that should be there in the first place. It was a disaster waiting to happen.

In addition, the people stranded in the city didn’t heed the call to evacuate. A category 4/5 hurricane was coming straight for them. They were warned and didn’t take the advice. They only have themselves to blame.

I thought Bush has a direct line to God? Why didn’t he know this was going to happen? Maybe because he was on five weeks of vacation?

why do people sit around and bitch about this stuff?

In addition, the people stranded in the city didn’t heed the call to evacuate. A category 4/5 hurricane was coming straight for them. They were warned and didn’t take the advice. They only have themselves to blame.

Have a little compassion, huh? Something like 40% of these people live in poverty. It’s not like they had the means to load up an SUV and drive somewhere else. A lot of them probably didn’t have $50 in their pocket to pay for gas. All they have (had) is their house.

What about senior citizens? Living on social security, no car or can’t drive? What if their social security check was due to arrive a few days after the hurricane? Think they had enough cash laying around to buy a plane ticket and fly out?

As I said…there was no way to guarantee the safety of anyone left in the path of this hurricane. Local officials did all they could do to warn these folks to get out of the way.

I have tons of compassion for those who suffered. I also am a realist as to the limits that man has against a storm of this size. It’s not realistic to think that local governments could provide for their safety given the enormity of the storm.

What, did the city of New Orleans just pop up in the last 8 yrs.? The problems with the levees, funding, etc. were around way before Bush took office. Did you not read the part about problems with funding going back to the late 1960’s??? Why does a catastrophe like this have to be politicized anyway?

To further the issue, it’s a catastrophe that New Orleans built its city under sea level.

When the city first started, the French Quarter was one of the first areas to be developed. As time went on city planners allowed development into the low lying areas. This continued over time until the current setup where most of the city was vulnerable to flooding.

“Why does a catastrophe like this have to be politicized anyway?”

Isn’t everything politicized in today’s world? Sad reality.

What I don’t understand is that it doesn’t seem that they were looking for astronomical amounts of money. It looks like from the article they needed something like 60 million (according to the last paragraph). This is like 15 bucks from each resident of Louisiana. So the state and the city couldn’t come with this money even though it was so critical.

The real reason the money wasn’t raised is that everyone wanted to ignore the potential of a huge storm hitting New Orleans because everything that was built wasn’t built to withstand a Cat 4 or 5 storm. Raising the levees back to their original levels would have meant they were safe from a Cat 3, but not necessarily from a monster like Katrina.

I realize you are attempting sarcasm, though I don’t think people dying because of bad priorities is funny. Apparently, you do. No one has suggested that Bush or Barbour caused the Hurricane. What has been shown is that Bush’s spending priorities (Iraq) left less money for federal flood control projects over the past several years. It is entirely likely that fewer people would be dead right now if not for Bush’s budget focusing on Iraq and tax cuts rather than badly needed levee maintenance.

Funny, Art, isn’t it?

Actually, that’s not correct.

There is no way that any type of feasible levee system could have assured the holding back of this or any storm. In addition, it’s foolish to think that any type of assistance from federal, state or local would have averted this disaster.

It is correct to say that nothing could have been done to assure safety or loss of life in this manner. Trying to pin this on the war in Iraq and Bush is extremely ignorant for you to do.

No…it’s worse because New Orleans is below sea level. In fact, the city should have never been built where it is.

I’m apalled that we’ve spent so much money to keep a city dry that should be there in the first place. It was a disaster waiting to happen.

In addition, the people stranded in the city didn’t heed the call to evacuate. A category 4/5 hurricane was coming straight for them. They were warned and didn’t take the advice. They only have themselves to blame.
I agree that the City should not have been built in such a poorly-situated location. I don’t agree with letting 'em drown, or with abandoning flood dcontrol efforts.

Notice that the article doesn’t say that had the funding been provided that anything on the ground would be different today.

I haven’t checked lately, but I am guessing the state and the city both have governments and budgets too.

Besides, everyone already knows it is all Bush’s fault because of Kyoto anyway.

Besides, everyone already knows it is all Bush’s fault because of Kyoto anyway.

Art you are on to something. This is from the democraticunderground.com. BTW, does anyone else think it’s suspicious that the levees didn’t break until AFTER the hurricane passed and it was clear the storm surge was not going to swamp the city. It would probably only take a couple of sticks of dynamite to get those things flowing. Seems like someone wanted Bush to have another pile of debris to climb on top of.

I didn’t think of deliberate destruction of the levee, but that’s sure possible. No one was there to see. I HAVE been wondering why Bush looks so perky and happy - like he’s very PLEASED about the hurricane. It seems like more than his usual sociopathic cluenessness. Is there something about the oil infrastructure, the neighborhoods that were destroyed (surely not strongholds of GOP support), the probable availability of cheap land now that so much has been destroyed. Or perhaps just that the cost of oil has soared so high? He’s a sociopath who is incapable of empathy, yes, but doesn’t he seem really, really tickled to you? Like he’s gotten something he thought he might not be able to pull off?

There you have it. George Bush may have ordered the flood wall in New Orleans destroyed for some political advantage. Obviously Cindy Sheehan isn’t the only leftist crackpot out there.

What you’re short on understanding is from an engineering perspective nothing can be planned for that will cover all contingencies for a situation of this magnitude.

No one suggested that we let them drown. They were told to get out of the city. That’s about all they could do in this case.