[StBernard] Washington Post Editorial

[Westley Annis]

My God!  The COE *does* need outside oversight.  What are Vitter and
Landrieu thinking?  I'm wondering if their thinking is that they can get
projects for LA done more quickly by just going through committees, but this
isn't the way to do it.

Jim

	-----------------------------------------------------
	
	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