Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

So Scientists have been saying that Hurricanes to hit the U.S. are likely to be more deadly, instead of giving more money to prepare Vacation boy made cuts to those who prepare for them.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bush administration funding cuts forced federal engineers to delay improvements on the levees, floodgates and pumping stations that failed to protect New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters, agency documents showed on Thursday.

The former head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that handles the infrastructure of the nation’s waterways, said the damage in New Orleans probably would have been much less extensive had flood-control efforts been fully funded over the years.

“Levees would have been higher, levees would have been bigger, there would have been other pumps put in,” said Mike Parker, a former Mississippi congressman who headed the engineering agency from 2001 to 2002.

“I’m not saying it would have been totally alleviated but it would have been less than the damage that we have got now.”

Eighty percent of New Orleans was under water after Katrina blew through with much of the flooding coming after two levees broke.

A May 2005 Corps memo said that funding levels for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 would not be enough to pay for new construction on the levees.

Agency officials said on Thursday in a conference call that delayed work was not related to the breakdown in the levee system and Parker told Reuters the funding problems could not be blamed on the Bush administration alone.

Parker said a project dating to 1965 remains unfinished and that any recent projects would not have been in place by the time the hurricane struck even if they had been fully funded.

“If we do stuff now it’s not going to have an effect tomorrow,” Parker said. “These projects are huge, they’re expensive and they’re not sexy.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration had funded flood control efforts adequately.

Tensions over funding for the New Orleans levees emerged more than a year ago when a local official asserted money had been diverted to pay for the Iraq

In early 2002, Parker told the U.S. Congress that the war on terrorism required spending cuts elsewhere in government funding.

Situated below sea level, New Orleans relied on a 300-mile

network of levees, floodgates and pumps to hold back the waters of the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain.

Levees were fortified after floods in 1927 and 1965, and Congress approved another ambitious upgrade after a 1995 flood killed six people.

Since 2001, the Army Corps has requested $496 million for that project but the Bush administration only budgeted $166 million, according to figures provided by the office of Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Congress ultimately approved $250 million for the project during that time period.

Another project designed to shore up defenses along Lake Pontchartrain was similarly underfunded, as the administration budgeted $22 million of the $99 million requested by the Corps between 2001 and 2005. Congress boosted spending on that project to $42.5 million, according to Landrieu’s office.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050901/pl_nm/weather_katrina_funding_dc_1

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

well i was kind of wondering about why Bush is asking for pledges. US is the richest country in the world and should be able to fix the new orleans on its own without the help of funds from other countries or its own citizens in the rest of the states, no?

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

He’s To busy giving tax breaks to oil companies

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/22/MNG45CDDBS1.DTL

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

I saw it on the news today...i have watched a news show all week and seeing new orleans was rather shocking, Im surprised by the lack of help given to these people.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

UTD, not exactly the whole story. The army corps of engineers is one of the most poorly managed US agencies. As of 2001, the backlog of approved projects NOT funded by Congress was $38 Billion. Their annual construction budget is 1.6 to 2.0 Billion per year. So Bush pretty much inherited a 20 year backlog. (The 2001 Budget is created 18 months ahead of time.) By the time Bush submitted his first budget, the FY2002 budget, the backlog had swelled to $54 Billion, the increase due to election year projects approved to appease various consituencies, but completely unfunded by Bushs’ opponent. (ahem) It is the quinissential pork barrel.

By the way, Louisiana is the number one recipient of funds from the army corps of engineers, both in terms of absolute numbers, and per capita.

Read up.

http://www.taxpayer.net/corpswatch/LearnMore/corpsbudgetanalysis.pdf

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

Bottom line funds were cut OG, spin it all you like, scientists have been warning of more destructive hurricanes and fund were cut, bottom line. Flood protection projects were cut in N.O. because and I quote the link you posted "Bush proposed to take the Corps down a different road..." Well Bravo Vacation boy!

OG, how do you want to spin that fact that Bush decided to stay on vacation on his fk'in ranch while unprecedented destruction moved towards the United Stated? I mean I’m not surprise, after all what type of “leader” takes a 5 week vacation when you have tens of thousands of troops at war anyways!? How can you not be outraged at this dipsh1t?

Do you think Vacation boy holds some responsibility on how the response to N.O. has been conducted or is his hands clean of that to??

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

No my friend, you simply don’t understand what you are looking at. The Corps requests twice what they think they will need, then bargains it down. Welcome to Washington.

Senators threaten action over Corps reforms
By Christopher Doering
Reuters —** June 19, 2002**
WASHINGTON — Two senators threatened to stall funding for a slew of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects unless Congress reforms the federal agency responsible for multibillion-dollar dams and public works.

Republican Robert Smith of New Hampshire and Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said the Corps’ credibility must be restored after years of criticism for mismanagement and make-work projects.

The two senators said they would block passage of the Water Resources Development Act — legislation that authorizes every two years which projects the Corps can begin — unless Congress agrees to overhaul the agency.

Lawmakers “are not going to get these projects unless we get reform,” Smith told reporters at a news conference. “We have a lot of things we can do on the floor to stop (the Water Resources Development Act) from moving. We’re not in a compromising mood.”

Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to reform the agency in Congress during the last few years. A bill introduced in March by Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Smith, and Feingold would subject the Corps to an independent peer review and improve the financial benefits of a project before it can be allowed to proceed.

The beleaguered Corps, the federal agency responsible for building dams and designating flood plans, has long been criticized by environmental groups for wasteful spending and rigging data to justify projects that create jobs. **The agency has a backlog of about $52 billion in unfinished projects. **

Despite the criticism, the Army Corps of Engineers has the support of many lawmakers whose districts benefit from large public works projects.

Smith said he was “confident” that both Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the White House would support reform.

Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, the chief engineer of the Corps, separately told a Senate environment panel he agreed changes were needed to reduce the agency’s huge backlog of projects. “We have about $5 billion worth of inactive projects that technically remain on our books but whose designs won’t solve the original problems or for which there is no longer support,” Flowers told a panel hearing.

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/news/2002/0626/1399394.html

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

Not to mention all the frustration that is now beginning to slowly come out in the public, since most of those who are suffering right now there are African Americans...

I bet you if they were all middle-class upper-class white people, you wouldn't be seeing what you're seeing.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

If this happened in Jeb’ Bush’s Florida Vacation boy would have been on national television at prime time explaining what the response was going to be hours after it hit.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

And pray tell, on whose watch did the Corp accumulate a $52 Billion backlog of unfunded projects? Me thinks your blame may be displaced a bit....

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

does it matter? Bush had eight years and a blank check from the public for 'National Security' funds.. he could have stuffed unlimited funds up FEMA's behind and no one would have dared object.. and he did and no one objected..

if this is our state of preparedness .. we better disband FEMA and let states take the money and decide how they want to plan for these disasters themself.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

haha FEMA? Take a look at what Bush did to FEMA. This article is from over a year ago…

A Disaster Waiting to Happen
As FEMA weathers Bush administration policy changes, some insiders fear that concerns over terrorism are trumping protection from hurricanes and other natural hazards.

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-09-28/cover_story.html

-from article-
Among emergency specialists, “mitigation” – the measures taken in advance to minimize the damage caused by natural disasters – is a crucial part of the strategy to save lives and cut recovery costs. But since 2001, key federal disaster mitigation programs, developed over many years, have been slashed and tossed aside. FEMA’s Project Impact, a model mitigation program created by the Clinton administration, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half. Communities across the country must now compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

OG any response to the above article? Really spells it out doesn't?

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

it is horrible.. BBC has been covering the story min by min. most of them seems to be african americans in new orleans. there are kids being raped!! KIDS! there are snippers who won't let helecopters come down! there is no food, no shelter and no proper clothing.
why isnt the gov using all the resources, latest technology they so boast about to get help to these ppl asap?

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

A total of 13 helicopters are dedicated to rescuing the poor black citizen of the USA.

This disaster and it’s handling by the Bush administration should be an eye opener for the Americans.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

whats more amazing is, CNN is not even showing half of the footage that BBC is covering. simply incredible!

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

Too bad those poor black people don’t have world’s oil.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

UTD, man yer like a buzzard. Everybody is a critic in hindsight. I can tell you as a Florida homeowner that FEMA was excellent last year. Not one but four hurricanes and they did very well. I think what you fail to fathom here is that this hurricane is more akin to an atomic bomb spread over three states. The enormity of this event is beyond anything the country has ever seen.

As far as the article, they sort of neglect to say that funds for FEMA have doubled under Bush. I think that you will find that the money spent on FEMA, particularly computers, communications, and prepositioned supplies are not only helpful in terrorist attacks, but in the coming weeks when they will have to run the entire city.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

In Hindsight? The article is from a year ago OG.

My original post on Katrina was put up on the 28th Bush didn't end his vacation until the 30th, how pathetic.

Re: Bush administration forced cuts in flood protection in N.O. ($ went to Iraq)

No, your Monday morning quarterbacking…

A much more thoughtful article fromt the NYT

Government Saw Flood Risk but Not Levee Failure

By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LIPTON
Published: September 2, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 - When Michael D. Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, returned in January from a tour of the tsunami devastation in Asia, he urgently gathered his aides to prepare for a similar catastrophe at home.

“New Orleans was the No. 1 disaster we were talking about,” recalled Eric L. Tolbert, then a top FEMA official. “We were obsessed with New Orleans because of the risk.”

Disaster officials, who had drawn up dozens of plans and conducted preparedness drills for years, had long known that the low-lying city was especially vulnerable. But despite all the warnings, Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed the very government agencies that had rehearsed for such a calamity. On Thursday, as the flooded city descended into near-anarchy, frantic local officials blasted the federal and state emergency response as woefully sluggish and confused.

“We’re in our fifth day and adequate help to quell the situation has not arrived yet,” said P. Edwin Compass III, the New Orleans police superintendent.

The response will be dissected for years. But on Thursday, disaster experts and frustrated officials said a crucial shortcoming may have been the failure to predict that the levees keeping Lake Pontchartrain out of the city would be breached, not just overflow.

They also said that evacuation measures were inadequate, leaving far too many city residents behind to suffer severe hardships and, in some cases, join marauding gangs.

Large numbers of National Guard troops should have been deployed on flooded streets early in the disaster to keep order, the critics said. And some questioned whether the federal government’s intense focus on terrorism had distracted from planning practical steps to cope with a major natural disaster.

Disaster experts acknowledged that the impact of Hurricane Katrina posed unprecedented difficulties. “There are amazing challenges and obstacles,” said Joe Becker, the top disaster response official at the American Red Cross.

Under the circumstances, Mr. Becker said, the government response “has been nothing short of heroic.”

But he added that the first, life-saving phase of hurricane response, which usually lasts a matter of hours, in this case was stretching over days.

While some in New Orleans fault FEMA - Terry Ebbert, homeland security director for New Orleans, called it a “hamstrung” bureaucracy - others say any blame should be more widely spread. Local, state and federal officials, for example, have cooperated on disaster planning. In 2000, they studied the impact of a fictional “Hurricane Zebra”; last year they drilled with “Hurricane Pam.”

Neither exercise expected the levees to fail. "In an interview on “Good Morning America” Thursday, President Bush said, “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.” He added, “Now we’re having to deal with it, and will.”

Some lapses may be because of inadequate money. For example, Mr. Tolbert, the former FEMA official, said that “funding dried up” for following up on the July 2004 Hurricane Pam exercise, cutting off work on planning for certain categories of response, notably the need to shelter thousands of survivors.

Brian Wolshon, an engineering professor at Louisiana State University who served as a consultant on Louisiana’s state evacuation plan, said little attention was paid to the evacuation of New Orleans’s “low-mobility” population - the elderly, the infirm and the poor without cars or other means of fleeing the city, about 100,000 people.

At disaster planning meetings, he said, “the answer was often silence.”

Inevitably, the involvement of dozens of agencies complicated the response.

Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, said that with so many different government units in the area, communications were critical. But Ms. Landrieu said that the communications system is “entirely dysfunctional.”

The chaotic disaster response came despite repeated efforts over many years to plan a coordinated defense if the worst should occur. As recently as July 2004, federal, state and local officials cooperated on the Hurricane Pam drill, which predicted 10 to 15 feet of water in parts of the city and the evacuation of one million people.

Martha Madden, who was the Louisiana secretary of environmental quality from 1987-1988, said that the potential for disaster was always obvious and that “FEMA has known this for 20 years.”

“Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent, in studies, training and contingency plans, scenarios, all of that,” said Ms. Madden, now a consultant in strategic planning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/02/national/nationalspecial/02response.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5094&en=9ef3f7389573ef2a&hp&ex=1125633600&partner=homepage