Is the Bush Administration partly to blame for the failure of the New Orleans levees?

Great Debates
1

In this thread on America’s “crumbling national infrastructure” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=345372 – Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor mentioned the New Orleans levees as an example, and smiling bandit jumped in and asserted, “That levee had had work done on it for a very long time. It now appears that it was simply not built properly. But there was certainly enough money and time to work on it; it was simply the lack of any accountability in Louisiana.” I brought up allegations that the Bush Administration had cut funding slated for repairs (being strapped to pay for both the war and the tax cuts). smiling offered the following cites:

Levee system not designed to handle storms of this magnitude: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9213319/

Army COE official complains of Bush’s decision to cut the budget (but some Corp members believe the proposed work wouldn’t have helped): http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0905/090105jv1.htm

Much Army COE funding for Louisiana went to unrelated and questionable projects: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html

For a contrary view, see this article from In These Times, 9/27/05 – http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2329/. And a sidebar with a timeline of events related to levee maintenance/funding: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2328/

So – could/should the Bush Administration have done more to prevent this disaster, or not?

2

See this post.

3

This wa beat to death alrady, but some of us (me for example) said yes the Bush administration is to blame. Some said no. It started ugly and got worse really fast.

4

Guess I missed that thread.

In a thread about Bush? How did that happen? :confused:

5

I must have missed that one, too.

Personally, I agree with David Simmons:

Of course, that only touches on the real problem: a lack of funding and public concern. With both the state and federal budgets being tightened its a given that one of the line items that would be cut would be coastal related. This isn’t just a federal issue, because the feds only provide a portion of the budget for coastal projects, the other part comes from the state.

From my experience in coastal engineering, there has to be local (state) support for federal funds to make it to the state (I know a community in TX who may have to forfiet their FEMA funds due to lack of interest in TX). And while unfortunate, many of the residents I have personally talked to concerning coastal projects would rather us take a hands off approach and use the money elsewhere.

As for the levees not being designed for a larger storm, that’s pure statistics and cost comparitive analysis. While unfortunate, most coastal structures are not built to withstand a CAT 3 storm. Here in TX, the recommended design life for coastal structures is around 25 yrs (approximately a CAT 3 storm) due to the cost of constructing structures larger. That’s not to say that some structures are not built stronger, and that the levees surrounding a city should not be built stronger, but from a legislative point of view, where do you take a chance, on the roads and bridges that are used regularly and ASCE has continually giving a failing grade, or the levees that really only face a threat if a CAT 3 storm hits from a particular direction (which had a low probability of occuring this year).

Of course, I’m not saying Bush isn’t to blame, he did cut funds for these types of projects, but I just don’t think the blame can be pinned on a single person. There’s still the engineer, contractor, city and state. Personally, I’d hate to have been the resident engineer on that construction project!

Finally, concerning that the Corps spending the money elsewhere, that’s a given. The Corps, being a government agency, is highly political and everyone wants a piece of the pie and whoever yells the loudest gets the money; and considering what kind of influence the oil and gas industry has on the Gulf coast, its no wonder that some of their projects get funded first - that’s simple economics. Then you have environmentalists demanding that the Corps focus on the degrading wetlands in LA and other groups demanding this or that … it seems obvious to me that it would take a huge failure for people to pay attention. Not even that really works but time will tell…

6

Say, where’s smiling bandit?

7

Just popped in. I don’t check GD all that often. Most of the stuff here is pretty well-worn for me. I did probably mistate the case slightly: I now read there had been work on the levees in the last few years; it was just shoddy.

I am willing to even agree that a small part of the failure was Bush’s. But that’s a matter of hindsight. From his POV, it was money being spent fattening up Louisiana politicos and their friends versus, in his eyes, more pressing needs. That excuse, however, doesn’t hold much water for the Louisiana folks who were directing money away from the critical projects.

Frankly, if I had been in his shoes, I would have publicly told off half of Congress for pork, and worked to prevent any budget which didn’t adhere to some stricter rules. What can say, except…

…

GO PORKBUSTERS!

Ahem. Sorry for the outburst.

8

There was an excellent NOVA special on PBS last night about the hurricane, and much of it focussed on how the levees failed. If you want to blame Bush, you’d better blame every other president going back to the early 1900s.

New Orleans is fighting a losing battle against the ocean, the weather, and human propensity to take short cuts and ignore potential disasters. We can do something about the last issue, but the first two will get us in the end. No way would I live in that city.

9

Well, the Old Quarter is fine, and much of the “new” sections (some dating back to the 1950’s or before) are perfectly fine; they were built on high ground which was unused because it wasn’t a huge city. Many of the best and most valuable properties are so because wealthier folks back in the day didn’t want to built a mansion in a rut, so chose a higher landscape.

The problem is that increasingly, moreso in the last 50 years, people have drained some marshy land to put up cheap housing. You can get away with sort of thing in most places, but not in a swampy lowland next to the ocean. And the structure of the penninsula means that you can’t pull a Holland. So people built the levees as a compromise and it didn’t work. And then, having made a poor compromise, they proceeded to fail to carry through on it.

10

Sonar shows 17th Street Canal leve sheetmetal pilings are seven feet shallower than the Corps claimed

A hundred thousand men equipped with sandbags and bulldozers could not have fixed the design problems once Katrina hit.
If Bush bears any responsibility for the failure, it’s of the nebulous “could have, should have” sort.

11

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Is the Bush Administration partly to blame for the failure of the New Orleans Levees

[QUOTE]
In a word, no. The levees were designed for a level 3 storm and they worked as designed despite the fact they are built on unstable ground. Different levees failed for different reasons. The Industrial Canal on the East side of the city took a storm surge that came up connecting waterways from the Gulf side. The 17th Street canal was undercut by overtopping water that was fed, uninterrupted, from the lake above.

The solution is not a single one-stop-shopping fix. IMO the failure of the inner city canals was the result of a lack of floodgates. If the lake was isolated from these canals (with gates) they could have pumped the canals down somewhat in preparation for the storm. Floodgates would also prevent the lake from emptying into the city via the canals. The river and lake levees are another story. They need to be high enough to hold back a storm surge (almost impossible in a level 5 hurricane). The industrial canal has a lock on the river side which can act as a floodgate but should still have a gate on the lake side. The same goes for any connecting waterways into the Industrial Canal.

And finally, there is no reason US taxpayers should fund the majority of the New Orleans levee system. My community is protected by a massive dam and levee system that we paid for locally and is maintain through a separate tax. If New Orleans is not viable by itself then something needs to.
change.

12

New Orleans native checking in here. You cannot blame Bush for this. There are other things that stick to him quite nicely, though.

The levee “system” is really a hodge podge of construction on top of construction on top of construction. Much like the city of Troy, one layer atop the other. Old natural levees were built upon to protect farms; these were raised so folks could build houses; retaining walls were built on top of these as population density increased. The Corps estimate was that we could take a Cat 3 storm just fine, but it was just an estimate.

The Corps did not design the most recent levee upgrades adequately, as has been pointed out. Forensic tests have shown that shoddy construction methods were used and oversight did not catch them. Today’s paper points out that inspection of the 100 mile system was an annual affair that took about 6 hours so as to allow for a seafood lunch afterwards (www.nola.com).

Construction contracts were awarded by one of several local levee boards made up of low-level government cronies appointed by the governor. None were engineers. All wanted to be on the board, even though it is an unpaid position. Note that it’s legal in Louisiana for levee board members to award contracts to their wives companies, their father’s companies, their son’s companies - - in short, it’s a good way to get rich on the government nickel.

Recently, residents below the 17th street canal have complained that they had water seeping into their yards over the past year. They called the local Sewerage and Water Board. Inspectors came out and found that it was lake water and not a broken water main. Instead of either party - - the residents or the S&WB - - calling the appropriate entity - - The Corps or the levee board - - each just sat on their thumbs. Now, if my house (which stayed dry, luckily) were beneath a canal levee that was leaking, oh, say LAKE WATER, I’d be on the phone to the Corps in a heartbeat. Not these folks.

Blame Bush if you want to. But really blame the Corps, the levee boards, and the people of South Louisiana who have allowed this crap to go on as long as it has. Thank you and good night.

13

I’m with you, mostly. The Army Corps of Engineers somehow got involved in this and has oversight of the system. Federal, state, and local monies are used to work on the levees. You just need to decide if having a city that can handle shipping at the mouth of the continent’s largest river is worth it. If you like the oil and gas that comes up from the Gulf, and having an outlet for midwest grain, you’re going to have to put up some levees. The Corps is going to be the entity to do that, and that’s going to require some federal funds.