NSF: Corps cutting corners on Levee repair

[Balta1701]

So this is one of those things I would file as under "not good". I would understand it pretty well if the Corps of Engineers said that "We're trying to put the best system in place we can before the hurricane season this year and we're going to hope for the best" and at least was admitting that they were under too much time pressure to totall rebuild the things.

 

But the fact that they seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that they're cutting corners, while the NSF is saying they are...is very troublesome, because that might mean that they'll say "we're done" after they finish this first stage of reconstruction and either they or the politicians might decide not to put additional funds into finishing the upgrading and strengtheining of the levees.

 

And why the heck are we still only planning for a low-level category 3?

 

The Army Corps of Engineers seems likely to fulfill a promise by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans's toppled flood walls to their original, pre-Katrina height by June 1, but two teams of independent experts monitoring the $1.6 billion reconstruction project say large sections of the rebuilt levee system will be substantially weaker than before the hurricane hit.

 

These experts say the Corps, racing to rebuild 169 miles of levees destroyed or damaged by Katrina, is taking shortcuts to compress what is usually a years-long construction process into a few weeks. They say that weak, substandard materials are being used in some levee walls, citing lab tests as evidence. And they say the Corps is deferring repairs to flood walls that survived Katrina but suffered structural damage that could cause them to topple in a future storm.

 

The Corps strongly disputes the assertion -- by engineers from a National Science Foundation-funded panel and a Louisiana team appointed to monitor the rebuilding -- that substandard materials are being used in construction. Agency officials maintain that the new levees are rigorously inspected at each step. But they acknowledge that much more work will be needed after June 1, the beginning of hurricane season, and that the finished system still will not be strong enough to withstand a storm the magnitude of Katrina.

If another storm follows the route into New Orleans at any point in the next few years, the remnants of that city will probably wind up under water again.

 

But if the Corps is, as the NSF team says, cutting any corners to get done and saying that they're not just trying for a temporary fix, then it's possible that we could repeat Katrina in 20 years...no storms hit for a decade or so, people move back in thinking that it's finally safe now, then a storm does strike, and all those corners the corps cut years before suddenly come back and cause further collapses.

[NorthSideSox72]

So this is one of those things I would file as under "not good".  I would understand it pretty well if the Corps of Engineers said that "We're trying to put the best system in place we can before the hurricane season this year and we're going to hope for the best" and at least was admitting that they were under too much time pressure to totall rebuild the things.

 

But the fact that they seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that they're cutting corners, while the NSF is saying they are...is very troublesome, because that might mean that they'll say "we're done" after they finish this first stage of reconstruction and either they or the politicians might decide not to put additional funds into finishing the upgrading and strengtheining of the levees.

 

And why the heck are we still only planning for a low-level category 3?

 

If another storm follows the route into New Orleans at any point in the next few years, the remnants of that city will probably wind up under water again. 

 

But if the Corps is, as the NSF team says, cutting any corners to get done and saying that they're not just trying for a temporary fix, then it's possible that we could repeat Katrina in 20 years...no storms hit for a decade or so, people move back in thinking that it's finally safe now, then a storm does strike, and all those corners the corps cut years before suddenly come back and cause further collapses.

 

Honestly, I cannot blame the Army Corps for this particular problem (the build to L3). The substandard materials is bad, yes. But for them to compress their work as they are, I think they are doing everything they can.

 

Now I do believe that the Army Corps, through its consistently displayed institutional ignorance on the environment, did in fact contribute to the Katrina disaster. The way they continually dredged the delta pathways, failed to allow more natural water flow of the Mississippi (which could have been done with more sophisticated dams), and their habit of trying to solve every issue with more digging and more cement all contributed to the breakdown of the natural reefs around the delta. Those reefs would have mitigated the damage of the storm surge significantly. The Army Corps clearly needs to have its decisions monitored by someone who has a clue about environmental implications.

[Balta1701]

Yes, I also understand them shooting only for a level 3 right now, and just trying to do a patchwork job just so there's something in place in case a storm comes within a hundred miles or so. But if they're using sub-standard materials, and then denying that they're doing so, then that removes the impetus for further improvement in subsequent storm seasons. If the Corps says everything was fixed right this time, there will be people who won't want to pay for the second set of repairs.

[Rex Kickass]

Balta, there are people who don't want to pay for this set of repairs.

[Balta1701]

Balta, there are people who don't want to pay for this set of repairs.

Exactly my point. So if the Corps goes and says "We don't need further repairs", then there's likely to be even less money available for the repairs which do need to be done. Combine that with 20 more years of wetland erosion and time for people to forget Katrina and move back into N.O., and you've got yourself set up in the exact same potential mess you had last year.

[EvilMonkey]

Maybe we would be better off if it flooded right away, sparing us the need to pump billions more dollars to keep dry an area below sea level, that was a cesspool when I was there several years ago, and is likely to not get better. Sam Kinnison used to have a joke about the Ethiopians starving that went something like "You're starving, well, YOU LIVE IN A f***ING DESERT! MOVE! OH! OOOOOH!" Well, "House flooding again? YOU LIVE BELOW SEA LEVEL! MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND! OH! OOOOOOH!" (I know, I know, keep my day job)

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe we would be better off if it flooded right away, sparing us the need to pump billions more dollars to keep dry an area below sea level, that was a cesspool when I was there several years ago, and is likely to not get better.  Sam Kinnison used to have a joke about the Ethiopians starving that went something like "You're starving, well, YOU LIVE IN A f***ING DESERT!  MOVE!  OH! OOOOOH!"  Well, "House flooding again?  YOU LIVE BELOW SEA LEVEL!  MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND!  OH! OOOOOOH!"  (I know, I know, keep my day job)   

I must admit, there is part of me that agrees with this. New Orleans' history should be evidence that the area there is not meant to have a large city in it. I'd be ecstatic if some way could be found to let many of those low-lying areas lie foul and revert to the flood plains they once were. Ultimately, it would help much of the rest of the region to have more flood plains and a more natural barrier out there.

[Balta1701]

I must admit, there is part of me that agrees with this.  New Orleans' history should be evidence that the area there is not meant to have a large city in it.  I'd be ecstatic if some way could be found to let many of those low-lying areas lie foul and revert to the flood plains they once were.  Ultimately, it would help much of the rest of the region to have more flood plains and a more natural barrier out there.

But see, then you run into a problem...where do you draw the line between a city worth the risk and a city not worth it.

 

San Francisco and Los Angeles both sit right along major fault lines which could do real damage and kill a lot of people. Seattle and Portland, maybe even more so. Should we decide not to rebuild those if they're totally lost? Or should we not decide to spend the money now to retrofit buildings before the big one hits?

 

New York City was struck by 2 hurricanes in the 1800's. The 2nd one killed several hundred people. With the skyscrapers now, even a category 2 would be amplified and would be an absolute disaster. Would you not want New York rebuilt?

 

These are the problems with living on a planet like this. There is significant risk to building almost anywhere that you actually would want to build. Want to be on an ocean? You risk earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes, depending on which waterway you're on. Want to be in the heartland? Drought, lack of drinking water supplies, high cost of transportation.

 

These are not easy questions to answer...how much risk is too much? I think there is fairly significant economic and cultural value to having the city on the delta. It's one of the biggest ports in the world, a major tourist destination, a major historical site, and I think its rebuilding probably justifies the expense just as much as rebuilding any number of other cities would.

[NorthSideSox72]

But see, then you run into a problem...where do you draw the line between a city worth the risk and a city not worth it.

 

San Francisco and Los Angeles both sit right along major fault lines which could do real damage and kill a lot of people.  Seattle and Portland, maybe even more so.  Should we decide not to rebuild those if they're totally lost?  Or should we not decide to spend the money now to retrofit buildings before the big one hits?

 

New York City was struck by 2 hurricanes in the 1800's.  The 2nd one killed several hundred people.  With the skyscrapers now, even a category 2 would be amplified and would be an absolute disaster.  Would you not want New York rebuilt?

 

These are the problems with living on a planet like this.  There is significant risk to building almost anywhere that you actually would want to build. Want to be on an ocean?  You risk earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes, depending on which waterway you're on.  Want to be in the heartland?  Drought, lack of drinking water supplies, high cost of transportation.

 

These are not easy questions to answer...how much risk is too much?  I think there is fairly significant economic and cultural value to having the city on the delta.  It's one of the biggest ports in the world, a major tourist destination, a major historical site, and I think its rebuilding probably justifies the expense just as much as rebuilding any number of other cities would.

 

All valid points.

 

I am not saying the city should be left out completely, BTW. Just some of the lowest areas most likely to be flooded. Take this opportunity to scale things back.

 

And there are subtle layers to risk. Yeah, a disaster COULD hit any city. But the risk level is near 100% for a major flooding hurricane in New Orleans in a fifty year period. The chances of a C3 or higher hurricane hitting NY in a fifty year period is, I am sure, much less.

[Rex Kickass]

And the Rebuild New Orleans into a Neapolitan City (don't forget the Strawberry!) commission is doing that. It's a painful decision, but it will be made. And it should be.