There is a pit thread going on right now attempting to assign blame for why the dikes failed in N.O. in the recent hurricane. Some of the posts got me thinking and I’m not sure where to get the answers so I thought I’d ask here as it seems to be a factual quesion/answer.
Appearently the Army Engineers is responsible for maintaining the dikes and leevies in and around N.O. (as well as all kinds of other places throughout the country). First off, why? Are they solely responsible for such things or do they act as support for local efforts?
Second question would be, why was their budget cut…and who all decided to cut that budget? My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the President and his administration submits a budget, which is then authorized by the Congress who spends the money. If true then the budget cuts were proposed by the president and then authorized by the president…right? Is the budget voted on by the Congress line by line, or accepted or rejected as a whole? WAS the budget reviewed by the congress? Was there any opposition by any in congress over this particular item? If so, who was opposed? Who was for? How would one find out?
The last question has nothing to do with the OP but is related to the ‘who’s to blame’ for the N.O. disaster. I’m not going to ask ‘who is to blame’ as that seems to be a debate…but who prioritized the Army Engineers projects? Obviously the President/Congress allocate the money…but who decides which projects get priority and which do not? The Army? The President? Congress? Someone else?
Anyway, thanks in advance. Hope someone can at least point me in the right direction to get some of these facts so I can sift through and decide who, if anyone, is to blame for this disaster.
I can’t answer the historical reason “why,” but yes, the Army Corps of Engineers has broad responsibilities for water projects all across the country.
As far as the budget, the President proposes a detailed budget in the first week of February each year. Congress then reviews the budget over several months, makes changes, and appropriates money in various bills, which must be passed and signed into law. Congress is not bound by the spending priorities of the President at all.
For example, for next year’s budget, the President proposed that $270 million be spent for engineering projects on the Mississippi River. Fairly big PDF, see page 939. However, the House has passed an appropriations bill (sorry, can’t link to it, temporary file) to provide $290 million for engineering projects on the Mississippi River. The Senate version of that bill proposes that $433 million be spent for the same purpose.
Traditionally, Congress adds a substantial amount to the Corps of Engineers’ budget. This usually brings on squeals of “Pork! Pork! Pork!” But as one can so evidently see, water projects are important to many parts of the country.
There are many chefs involved in who cooks up priorities for the Corps. The Corps gets a first cut, but their suggestions must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget (a White House agency) and Congress before a dime can be spent. And, as noted before, Congress often adds funds for projects it thinks is important (see the pork thing above), so that can effect what projects get dealt with when.
As always, appreciate it Ravenman…you are practically a national resource. I especially found the squeals link…ironic. I wonder if that group plans to retract that pork watch statement now that its become a bit obvious that it wasn’t such a waste after all.
How much input does the President actually have if basically the Congress can modify up or down the budget? Does the President expect the Congress to bump this up (thats the implication I’m getting from your squeals link anyway…thats its something that often occurs)?
Maybe someone else will be along to answer the questions related to the Army Engineers and how they prioritize projects…and can explain why this was seemingly a low priority.
Since the President has to sign the Budget into law, I would say the President has some say in the matter.
I’m not familiar with how the Army Corps of Engineers prioiritizes its work, but there is likely a lot of horse trading for projects. And to say that the work of the Army Corps of Engineers is universally well-liked or approved is not true. You can read the work of John McPhee, who is probably the most famous critic of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Although bear in mind how difficult it really is for a government to make reasonable decisions around this stuff. Assume you are a responsible legislator determined to hold the line on spending, say because of the deficit or because you simply believe the government should be frugal and responsible with the people’s money. So, is it better to spend $113.3 million for Yazoo River and Basin projects, or $30.9 million for the American River watershed modifications? Exactly what information do you have available to you that can give you a reasonable sense of the pros and cons in the whole day and a half you’ll spend this year on this particular issue? Both states are making exuberant claims about the benefits, and downplaying the risks and potential overhead costs?
The answer is that you can’t. The miracle of government is not that it’s really good at these kinds of decisions, but that occasionally they get it right. If the levee work was unfunded, it probably happened because some senator made a deal to give it up in exchange for something else. Doesn’t even matter what party they’re from - this stuff is endemic.
The Mississippi delta falls generally within the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, an interstate project that the Army Corps of Engineers built and maintains (along with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway).
What of the local states? Do they have no budget allocations to assist? Do they have no requirement to assist or is this completely on the Federal Government to provide?? I’m completely ignorant of all this obviously. I always thought that in this kind of matter the State was primary (as they know exactly what needs to be done, in theory, and what the priorities should be), and that the Federal Government offered only assistance or aid. I suppose I can kind of see why the Army Engineers are involved (I think historically they were involved in dredging and such, weren’t they), but why are they primary…or appearently soley…responsible for things that directly impact the states? Seems…well, odd to me I guess.
The more I’m finding out about this the more confusing this muddle seems to be. Maybe I’m missing something here.
From where I’m sitting, it seems like a lot of folks in the southern Louisiana area knew that those levees needed help, and kept pushing for it – only to be rebuffed with budget cuts and the bill for the Iraq war…
With some notable exceptions, the President’s influence on appropriations bills comes mainly with laying out his budget, as opposed to later on in the process. That’s because his budget includes a limit on how much discretionary funding he suggests that Congress limit itself to. Congress generally bumps this up a bit, but it does mean that much of the work of Congress is making trade-offs within the general framework of the President’s budget.
(Quick background: Federal spending is in two parts, mandatory spending (like Social Security, Medicare, and other “automatic” programs) that does not require Congress to enact a bill for those funds to be spent; and discretionary spending (like military, law enforcement, health research, environment, and so on) which requires Congress to enact an appropriations bill each year.)
If Congress wants to spend more money on Program A, the President can say that’s a bad idea, but short of threatening a veto, really only has the power of persuasion. Veto threats on spending bills usually come on really big issues of principle (eg, abortion), not really on things like, “You fatcats in Congress are giving too much money to the Corps of Engineers!”
As I’ve noted elsewhere, the levee system in this case was a terrible idea. It can’t change the fact that New Orleans is sinking, and has basically turned into a giant lake which they busily pump out.
Franly, the Army Corp of Engineers has done a lot of these projects, which hurt more in the long run than they help. Remember the Kissimmee River fiasco?
Except that the destruction of New Orleans by levee failure was an extremely well-publicized diaster scenario. There’s been a steady drumbeat of alarm in the media for at least the last five years. There were articles in Scientific American, reports on NPR, newspaper articles across the nation. This was not some weird, random occurance.
In early 2001 FEMA issued a report saying that the three most likely catastrophic events in the United States were:
A major hurricane hitting hitting New Orleans
A terrorist attack against New York
A major earthquake in San Francisco
So, yes, the federal government can’t be expected to anticipate everything. But you’d expect it could at least prepare for the top ten or so contingencies. Or at least refrain from CUTTING the budget for projects intended to address these problems.
If we weren’t prepared for a major hurricane in New Orleans, what ARE we prepared for? This was one of the top dangers facing the nation, yet it seems as though the federal government was totally asleep at the switch. Which seriously calls into question the current administration’s ability to deal with ANY major crisis. Are there plans for evacuating major cities in case of a dirty bomb attack? Are there plans for recovery if a bomb in a container ship shuts down a major port? Or is the federal government just planning on winging it?
This is what happens when you elect people who don’t believe that government can get the job done. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. They do a crap job, then shrug their shoulders and say “well, the government always screws up, what do you expect?”
I agree that in the long run the levees were probably a bad idea. I’ve read about a variety of other mechanisms for protecting New Orleans, from revitalizing the wetlands south of the city, to changing the way water flows in and out of Lake Pontchartrain, to elevating key parts of the key, to rerouting the path of the Mississippi. When the city is rebuilt I hope that a better solution is found.
The point is that the federal government DIDN’T HAVE A PLAN. It wasn’t like they were saying “the levees aren’t working, let’s do THIS instead”. Instead they just cut the funds for repairing the levees and DIDN’T DO ANYTHING ELSE.
Yes, the levees are part of the problem. Yes, in the long run they’re not an adequate solution. But until an adequate solution was implemented it was irresponsible not to keep them in good repair.
I especially found the squeals link…ironic. I wonder if that group plans to retract that pork watch statement now that its become a bit obvious that it wasn’t such a waste after all.