> Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding?
>
> He did slash funding for levee projects. But the Army Corps of
> Engineers says Katrina was just too strong.
>
> September 2, 2005
> Summary
>
> Some critics are suggesting President Bush was as least partly
> responsible for the flooding in New Orleans. In a widely quoted
> opinion piece, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal says that "the
> damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of
> an act of nature," and cites years of reduced funding for federal
> flood-control projects around New Orleans.
>
> Our fact-checking confirms that Bush indeed cut funding for
> projects specifically designed to strengthen levees. Indeed, local
> officials had been complaining about that for years.
>
> It is not so clear whether the money Bush cut from levee projects
> would have made any difference, however, and we're not in a
> position to judge that. The Army Corps of Engineers – which is
> under the President's command and has its own reputation to defend
> – insists that Katrina was just too strong, and that even if the
> levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand
> a category 3 hurricane.
>
> Analysis
>
> We suspect this subject will get much more attention in Congress
> and elsewhere in the coming months. Without blaming or absolving
> Bush, here are the key facts we've been able to establish so far:
>
> Bush Cut Funding
>
> Blumenthal's much-quoted article in salon.com carried the headline:
> "No one can say they didn't see it coming." And it said the Bush
> administration cut flood-control funding "to pay for the Iraq war."
>
> He continues:
>
> Blumenthal: With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of
> New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico . But the damage
> wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act
> of nature.
>
> …By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project
> essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004,
> the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans
> district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the
> waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional
> cuts at the beginning of this year…forced the New Orleans district
> of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.
>
> We can confirm that funding was cut. The project most closely
> associated with preventing flooding in New Orleans was the U.S.
> Army Corps of Engineers’ Hurricane Protection Project, which was
> “designed to protect residents between Lake Pontchartrain and the
> Missisippi River levee from surges in Lake Pontchartrain,”
> according to a fact sheet from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
> (The fact sheet is dated May 23, long before Katrina). The multi-
> decade project involved building new levees, enlarging existing
> levees, and updating other protections like floodwalls. It was
> scheduled to be completed in 2015.
>
> Over at least the past several budget cycles, the Corps has
> received substantially less money than it requested for the Lake
> Pontchartrain project, even though Congress restored much of the
> money the President cut from the amount the Corps requested.
>
> In fiscal year 2004, the Corps requested $11 million for the
> project. The President’s budget allocated $3 million, and Congress
> furnished $5.5 million. Similarly, in fiscal 2005 the Corps
> requested $22.5 million, which the President cut to $3.9 million in
> his budget. Congress increased that to $5.5 million. “This was
> insufficient to fund new construction contracts,” according to a
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ project fact sheet. The Corps
> reported that “seven new contracts are being delayed due to lack
> funds” [sic].
>
> The President proposed $3 million for the project in the budget for
> fiscal 2006, which begins Oct. 1. “This will be insufficient to
> fund new construction projects,” the fact sheet stated. It says the
> Corps “could spend $20 million if funds were provided.” The Corps
> of Engineers goes on to say:
>
> Army Corps of Engineers, May 23: In Orleans Parish, two major
> pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major
> contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for
> them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to
> provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in
> fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from
> addressing these pressing needs.
>
> The Corps has seen cutbacks beyond those affecting just the Lake
> Pontchartrain project. The Corps oversees SELA, or the Southeast
> Louisiana Urban Flood Control project, which Congress authorized
> after six people died from flooding in May 1995. The Times-Picayune
> newspaper of New Orleans reported that, overall, the Corps had
> spent $430 million on flood control and hurricane prevention, with
> local governments offering more than $50 million toward the
> project. Nonetheless, "at least $250 million in crucial projects
> remained," the newspaper said.
>
> In the past five years, the amount of money spent on all Corps
> construction projects in the New Orleans district has declined by
> 44 percent, according to the New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper,
> from $147 million in 2001 to $82 million in the current fiscal
> year, which ends Sept. 30.
>
> A long history of complaints
>
> Local officials had long complained that funding for hurricane
> protection projects was inadequate:
>
> *
> October 13, 2001: The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported
> that “federal officials are postponing new projects of the
> Southeast Louisiana Flood Control Program, or SELA, fearing that
> federal budget constraints and the cost of the war on terrorism may
> create a financial pinch for the program.” The paper went on to
> report that “President Bush’s budget proposed $52 million” for SELA
> in the 2002 fiscal year. The House approved $57 million and the
> Senate approved $62 million. Still, “the $62 million would be well
> below the $80 million that corps officials estimate is needed to
> pay for the next 12 months of construction, as well as design
> expenses for future projects.”
> *
> April 24, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that “less money
> is available to the Army Corps of Engineers to build levees and
> water projects in the Missisippi River valley this year and next
> year.” Meanwhile, an engineer who had direct the Louisiana Coastal
> Area Ecosystem Restoration Study – a study of how to restore
> coastal wetlands areas in order to provide a bugger from hurricane
> storm surges – was sent to Iraq "to oversee the restoration of the
> ‘Garden of Eden’ wetlands at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates
> rivers,” for which President Bush’s 2005 gave $100 million.
> *
> June 8, 2004: Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for
> Jefferson Parish, told the Times-Picayune:
>
> Walter Maestri: 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.
>
> *
> September 22, 2004: The Times-Picayune reported that a pilot
> study on raising the height of the levees surrounding New Orleans
> had been completed and generated enough information for a second
> study necessary to estimate the cost of doing so. The Bush
> administration “ordered the New Orleans district office” of the
> Army Corps of Engineers “not to begin any new studies, and the 2005
> budget no longer includes the needed money.”
> *
> June 6, 2005: The New Orleans CityBusiness newspaper reported
> that the New Orleans district of the Corps was preparing for a
> $71.2 million reduction in overall funding for the fiscal year
> beginning in October. That would have been the largest single-year
> funding loss ever. They noted that money “was so tight" that "the
> New Orleans district, which employs 1,300 people, instituted a
> hiring freeze last month on all positions,” which was “the first of
> its kind in about 10 years.”
>
> Would Increased Funding Have Prevented Flooding?
>
> Blumenthal implies that increased funding might have helped to
> prevent the catastrophic flooding that New Orleans now faces. The
> White House denies that, and the Corps of Engineers says that even
> the levee project they were working to complete was not designed to
> withstand a storm of Katrina's force.
>
> White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, at a press briefing on
> September 1, dismissed the idea that the President inadequately
> funded flood control projects in New Orleans :
>
> McClellan: Flood control has been a priority of this
> administration from day one. We have dedicated an additional $300
> million over the last few years for flood control in New Orleans
> and the surrounding area. And if you look at the overall funding
> levels for the Army Corps of Engineers, they have been slightly
> above $4.5 billion that has been signed by the President.
>
> Q: Local people were asking for more money over the last couple
> of years. They were quoted in local papers in 2003 and 2004, are
> saying that they were told by federal officials there wasn't enough
> money because it was going to Iraq expenditures.
>
> McClellan: You might want to talk to General Strock, who is the
> commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, because I think he's
> talked to some reporters already and talked about some of these
> issues. I think some people maybe have tried to make a suggestion
> or imply that certain funding would have prevented the flooding
> from happening, and he has essentially said there's been nothing to
> suggest that whatsoever, and it's been more of a design issue with
> the levees.
>
> We asked the Corps about that “design issue.” David Hewitt, a
> spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said McClellan was
> referring to the fact that “the levees were designed for a category
> 3 hurricane.” He told us that, consequently, “when it became
> apparent that this was a category 5 hurricane, an evacuation of the
> city was ordered.” (A category 3 storm has sustained winds of no
> more than 130 miles per hour, while a category 5 storm has winds
> exceeding 155 miles per hour. Katrina had winds of 160 mph as it
> approached shore, but later weakened to winds of 140 mph as it made
> landfall, making it a strong category 4 storm, according to the
> National Hurricane Center.)
>
> The levee upgrade project around Lake Pontchartrain was only 60 to
> 90 percent complete across most areas of New Orleans as of the end
> of May, according to the Corps' May 23 fact sheet. Still, even if
> it had been completed, the project's goal was protecting New
> Orleans from storm surges up to "a fast-moving Category 3
> hurricane,” according to the fact sheet.
>
> We don't know whether the levees would have done better had the
> work been completed. But the Corps says that even a completed levee
> project wasn't designed for the storm that actually occurred.
>
> Nobody anticipated breach of the levees?
>
> In an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on September 1,
> President Bush said:
>
> Bush: I don’t think anyone anticipated breach of the levees
> …Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.
>
> Bush is technically correct that a "breach" wasn't anticipated by
> the Corps, but that's doesn't mean the flooding wasn't forseen. It
> was. But the Corps thought it would happen differently, from water
> washing over the levees, rather than cutting wide breaks in them.
>
> Greg Breerword, a deputy district engineer for project management
> with the Army Corps of Engineers, told the New York Times:
>
> Breerword: We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some
> levees and some flood walls would be overtopped. We never did think
> they would actually be breached.
>
> And while Bush is also technically correct that the Corps did not
> "anticipate" a breach – in the sense that they believed it was a
> likely event – at least some in the Corps thought a breach was a
> possibility worth examining.
>
> According to the Times-Picayune, early in Bush's first term FEMA
> director Joe Allbaugh ordered a sophisticated computer simulation
> of what would happen if a category 5 storm hit New Orleans. Joseph
> Suhayda, an engineer at Louisana State University who worked on the
> project, described to the newspaper in 2002 what the simulation
> showed could happen:
>
> Subhayda: Another scenario is that some part of the levee would
> fail. It's not something that's expected. But erosion occurs, and
> as levees broke, the break will get wider and wider. The water will
> flow through the city and stop only when it reaches the next higher
> thing. The most continuous barrier is the south levee, along the
> river. That's 25 feet high, so you'll see the water pile up on the
> river levee.
>
> Whether or not a "breach" was "anticipated," the fact is that many
> individuals have been warning for decades about the threat of
> flooding that a hurricane could pose to a set below sea level and
> sandwiched between major waterways. A Federal Emergency Management
> Agency (FEMA) report from before September 11, 2001 detailed the
> three most likely catastrophic disasters that could happen in the
> United States: a terrorist attack in New York, a strong earthquake
> in San Francisco, and a hurricane strike in New Orleans. In 2002,
> New Orleans officials held the simulation of what would happen in a
> category 5 storm. Walter Maestri, the emergency coordinator of
> Jefferson Parish in New Orleans , recounted the outcome to PBS’ NOW
> With Bill Moyers:
>
> Maestri, September 2002: Well, when the exercise was completed
> it was evidence that we were going to lose a lot of people. We
> changed the name of the [simulated] storm from Delaney to K-Y-A-G-
> B... kiss your ass goodbye... because anybody who was here as that
> category five storm came across... was gone.
>
> --by Matthew Barge
>
> Sources
>
> Sidney Blumenthal, “No one can say they didn’t see it coming ,”
> http://www.salon.com
31 August 2005
>
> Deon Roberts, “Bush budget not expected to diminish New Orleans
> district’s $65 million,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 07 February 2005
>
> Manuel Torres, “Flood work to slow down; Corps delays new
> projects,” Times-Picayune, 13 October 2001
>
> Mark Schlefistein, “Corps sees its resources siphoned off; Wetlands
> restoration officials sent to Iraq ,” Times-Picayune, 24 April 2004
>
> “Mark Schleifstein, “Ivan stirs up wave of safety proposals;
> Hurricane-proofed stadium is one idea,” Times-Picayune, 22
> September 2004
>
> Deon Roberts, “Bush budget not expected to diminish New Orleans
> district’s $65 million ,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 07 February 2005
>
> Mark Schleifstein, “Bush budget cuts levee, drainage funds; Backlog
> of contracts waits to be awarded,” Times-Picayune, 08 February 2005
>
> “Bush budget fails to fund flood control in New Orleans ,” New
> Orleans CityBusiness, 14 February 2005
>
> Deon Roberts, “ New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of
> Engineers faces ,” New Orleans CityBusiness, 06 June 2005
>
> Will Bunch, “Did New Orleans catastrophe have to happen? ‘Times-
> Picayune’ had repeatedly raised federal spending issues,” Editor &
> Publisher, 31 August 2005
>
> Toby Eckert, “Could disaster have been prevented?,” Copley News
> Service, 02 September 2005
>
> Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker, “ Critics say Bush undercut New
> Orleans flood control ,” Washington Post, 02 September 2005
>
> “The City in a Bowl ,” Transcript, NOW, Public Broadcasting
> Service, 20 September 2002
>
> Jon Elliston, “ A Disaster Waiting to Happen ,”
> bestofneworleans.com, 28 September 2004
>
> Scott Shane and Eric Lipton, “ Government saw flood risk but not
> levee failure ,” New York Times, 02 September 2005
>
> Paul Krugman, “ A can’t-do government ,” New York Times, 02
> September 2005
>
> “Lake Pontchartrain, LA and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project,
> St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Charles Parishes, LA ,”
> Project Fact Sheet, US Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans
> District, website, 23 May 2005
>
> “Fiscal Year 2006: Civil Works Budget for the U.S. Army Corps of
> Engineers ,” Department of the Army, February 2005
>
> “Press Briefing by Scott McClellan ,” whitehouse.gov, 01 September
> 2005
> Karen Turni, “Upgrade of levees proposed by corps; gulf outlet
> levee may be too low, officials worry,” Times-Picayune, 12 November
> 1998
> John McQuaid and Mark Schleifstein, “The big one: A major hurricane
> could decimate the region, but flooding from even a moderate storm
> could kill thousands. It’s just a matter of time,” Times-Picayune,
> 24 June 2002
>
>
> This message was sent by: FactCheck.org, 320 National Press
> Building, Washington, DC 20045
>
> Manage your subscription: http://www.intellicontact.com/icp/mmail-
> mprofile.pl?l=&s=EXP1&r=860058789&m=1018410
No comments:
Post a Comment