[StBernard] Washington Post Editorial

[Westley Annis]

This was in today's Washington Post - given the assessors debate, levee
board debate, allegations of Rep. Shepherd's blackmailing and now this. I am
really beginning to believe that as soon as they are elected, most of these
idiots lose all common sense and/or their minds.

Katrina's Unlearned Lessons
A government agency admits error, and Congress wants to reward it.

Wednesday, June 7, 2006; A22


LAST WEEK the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers admitted responsibility for much
of the destruction of New Orleans. It was not true, as the Corps initially
had claimed, that its defenses failed because Congress had authorized only
Category 3 protection, with the result that Hurricane Katrina overtopped the
city's floodwalls. Rather, Katrina was no stronger than a Category 2 storm
by the time it came ashore, and many of the floodwalls let water in because
they collapsed, not because they weren't high enough. As the Corps'
own inquiry found, the agency committed numerous mistakes of design: Its
network of pumps, walls and levees was "a system in name only"; it failed to
take into account the gradual sinking of the local soil; it closed its ears
when people pointed out these problems. The result was a national tragedy.


You might think that the Corps' mea culpa would fuel efforts to reform the
agency. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) are
pushing a measure that would do just that, requiring that future Corps
proposals be subject to technical review by an independent agency. But the
stronger current in Congress goes in the opposite direction. A measure urged
by Louisiana senators and written by Sens. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and
Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) would loosen oversight of the Corps.
Billions of dollars may be spent in ways that ignore the most basic lessons
from Katrina.


Congress has already passed laws with language directing the Corps to design
a new flood-protection plan for Louisiana. The language encourages the
construction of Category 5 protections for the whole state, a project that
could cost tens of billions of dollars; it advertises its own profligacy by
laying down that the flood-protection plan should be exempt from
cost-benefit analysis. The new measure, which is reportedly part of a
revised version of a water projects bill that will be unveiled shortly,
would lower the bar for congressional approval of whatever Louisiana
defenses the Corps sees fit to propose. Rather than requiring full votes in
both chambers of Congress, the Corps' plan could be authorized by votes in
two committees that tend to rubber-stamp such projects.


In the wake of Katrina, this is almost beyond belief. The Corps' admission
of its own technical shortcomings points to the need for tougher oversight,
not less. And the New Orleans disaster has illustrated the folly of building
flood defenses for vulnerable low land: Some of the worst-hit areas would
not have been developed in the first place if the Corps hadn't decided to
build "protections" for them. Encouraging the Army Corps of Engineers to
build Category 5 defenses for all of Louisiana, including parts that are
sparsely populated for good reason, would not merely cost billions that
would be better spent on defending urban areas. It would encourage
settlement of more flood-prone land and set the stage for the next tragedy.

                    C 2006 The Washington Post Company