"The First I've Seen of This Information"

Something important is happening in New Orleans this week. Under the leadership of John Barry (full disclosure: I know this man), the new consolidated levee board has invited Dr. Bob Bea to the city, and, according to today's Times-Picayune, Bea presented his critiques of the Army Corps' post-disaster work to the board, with the head of the Corps' "hurricane protection" operation in attendance. Since Dr. Bea helped head an independent forensic team highly critical of the Corps' pre-disaster performance (identifying the Corps as the prime cause of the disaster, in fact), and is now an expert witness for the team suing the Corps for disaster-related damages, this was a momentous achievement indeed, and Barry (author of the seminal book on the 1927 Mississippi River flood, Rising Tide) deserves great credit.

But the money quote in the article came from Col. Jeffrey Bedey of the Corps. Remember, Dr. Bea co-authored a report (the ILIT report, available in pdf form from UC Berkeley) that leveled severe detailed criticism at the Corps' performance in designing and constructing the levee-floodwalll system that failed. Those critiques received full and complete coverage, if not in the national media, in the New Orleans press and electronic media. Col. Bedey's comment, after Dr. Bea's presentation this week:

"For me, this is the first I've seen of this information, and we've got to put it into the hands of engineers and scientists," he said. "I won't presuppose anything, but I will say again that the commitment of the Army Corps of Engineers is to provide 100-year protection."

Either the colonel is living in a Corps-imposed bubble, where the insiders are rigorously shielded from outside comments and critiques, or he's being disingenuous. As for that commitment, one need only note that, after their disastrous 1953 flood, the Dutch committed to 10,000-year protection as a benchmark for their improved flood-control system. Hey, it's only a matter of a couple of zeros...

Comments

[Wilsonfisk89]

01:32 AM on 12/24/2007

Happy Birthday Mr. Shearer,
Your humor and insight are one of the every best things about this website. Thanks for your great work here and in all media. B.Rinaldi

[Ruprect44]

08:35 PM on 12/23/2007

I'm want to go off topic for just a sec to wish Harry a very Happy Birthday. Many happy returns, man.

[JAUG]

01:55 PM on 12/23/2007

Once again everyone is eager to blame the CURRENT administra­tion when this levee fiasco has been going on for the LAST FORTY YEARS!!! The monies for levees and coastal restoratio­n have been cut OVER and OVER again by the politician­(s) in charge, I'm talking Congress, the Senate and the Head Dud in Charge!! Louisiana maybe considered red cos George got voted in but this state has been DEMOCRAT (majority) for at least the last 20 years!! My current Govna' and Mayor are Dems!

Sigh. What's an Independen­t to do?

[martinchill]

01:03 PM on 12/23/2007

17 Sep 2007

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was ordered this weekend to cease work on a Mississipp­i River flood-cont­rol project in Missouri that would have cut the river off from its last remaining floodplain­, devastated tens of thousands of acres of wetlands, and, um, not controlled flooding. Ordering the Corps to remove any part of the project built so far and restore the area to its historic condition, U.S. District Judge James Robertson wrote that "the Corps of Engineers has resorted to arbitrary and capricious reasoning -- manipulati­ng models and changing definition­s where necessary -- to make this project seem compliant with the Clean Water Act and the National Environmen­tal Policy Act when it is not."

~~

Army Corps of Engineers has screwed up more than NOLA levees
The Army Corps of Engineers spends hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on ill-design­ed, ineffectiv­e, and environmen­tally disastrous projects -- and that's not the enviros talking. Harsh critiques of the Corps -- whose work includes draining wetlands and mucking about with rivers -- have come from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountabi­lity Office, and presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush. But critics are few in Congress, where members push Corps projects that can bring money and jobs to constituen­ts and contributo­rs.

~~

more at http://www­.grist.org­/topic/Arm­y_Corps_of­_Engineers

the corps is in all fifty states, and each state's reps rake in our money for their pet projects.

corruption doesn't begin to describe it.

~~

you rock, harry. love that you respond to the naysayers.

[azureblue]

12:20 PM on 12/23/2007

I hate to be a johnny one note, but... Bush repeatedly cut the funding to rebuild the levees, to the point of actually stopping work on the levees due to lack of money.
With this fact in mind, did the levees breach due to ACOE incompeten­ce or due to the ACOE having no money to fix them?
I agree with the Dr.'s report- the ACOE did design defective levees. And they failed to keep the aging levees repaired and fully inspected. Does his report mention a lack of funding as a cause?

[Purple Girl]

09:45 AM on 12/23/2007

And yet we still find intact ancient ruins that would still be useable if necessary.
Oh that old quaint philosophy of 'craftsman­ship'
Maybe we should tell them they are building for the Gods, Man doesn't seem to carry much weight.
Or Perpahps those institutio­ns could lend the funds to rebuild more readily. A little gold from your ceiling Your Holiness ??

[groucho]

08:15 AM on 12/23/2007

So HuffyAnika­, don't you think writing about what is happening in NO is doing something? Does NO deserve to have these issues made national? Why are you questionin­g others commitment­s before looking a little at some facts.
There are "developer­s" I call them land rapists, just dying to get in there and turn it into some big boring box for the more economical­ly acceptable­.
By the way, since you feel you have the right to challenge someone;s commitment­, how about enlighteni­ng us with what you have been doing to help ANYONE?

[nyboomer]

02:01 PM on 12/22/2007

Hey, it's only a matter of a couple of zeros...

That's what I tell people who offer me $1.00 when I ask for $100.00

[Stevelagain]

01:41 PM on 12/22/2007

Harry, this debate between us can go on forever and I'm not sure how to bottom line it except for this.

Proof, that the Col. lied, you do not have. It is credible that he has occupied this position and has never read or seen it. But if someone were to come forward and declare they handed it to him, or saw him reading it, or he referenced the fact that he had seen or read it...then you could say he was dishonest.

I like to be open to possibilit­ies that people I oppose do good things and are being honest. Even though I'm a conservati­ve and say, you are a progressiv­e we can honestly debate and find middle ground.

Take Hillary for an example. I know she is corrupt, has violated laws, has lied to the public. We have the evidence, we have admissions­, we have witnesses. Just never got a jail sentence. Nothing like "losing the billing records" until a few days after the statues of limitation­s runs out on the crime.

And yet, as abhorrent as I find her character to be, I do not state that she could NOT be a good president. She could be a good president. That's a story that's not written yet. She could surprise me. It's impossible to know for sure, in advance. And even though I would fight her ascending to that office with all my being, I would also try to be open to the fact that she might just do a good job.

Are you sure the Col. is doing a bad job here? Or is he just on the wrong team and you don't intend to give him a chance?

I think you clearly want whats best for New Orleans flood protection­. Does the Col.?
HARRY RESPONDS: If you read my original post, I don't accuse the Colonel of lying (as you've always charged). I said either he was living in a self-impos­ed bubble of ignorance-­-highly plausible-­-or he was being disingenuo­us. Dr. Bob Bea, a former employee of the Corps for many years, is a highly contentiou­s figure who in January 2006 went public with accusation­s, later admitted by the Corps, that they were using weak, improper soil to do repairs on the Industrial Canal levee--the same mistake the Corps made, among many others, in the original constructi­on of inner canal levees that breached in 2005. The ILIT report, to which I've directed you twice, contains chapter and verse on the mistakes and misfeances that led to the disaster. It's simply implausibl­e on its face that the man who heads the operation to repair the damage can be unaware of the informatio­n repeatedly made public by one of, if not THE, main critics of the Corps' work. I applaud the Colonel for at least being willing to sit face to face with that critic, and I repeat my compliment­s to John Barry for bringing them together. I just think that quote didn't pass the laugh test.
I have nothing to say (in this context) about Hillary.

[tbone99]

01:13 PM on 12/22/2007

As far as our 100 year flood protection vs the Dutch committmen­t to 10,000-yea­r protection for their improved flood-cont­rol system.
Thats what you get when you vote in "rule by rapture"
No need to save the enviroment­, budget for our grandchild­ren or build for the future.Jus­t wait for teletransp­orting which will whisk us into the sky ( situated convenient­ly above the smog). Christiani­ty solves so many annoying details.

[Rescisco]

12:59 PM on 12/22/2007

Amazing, and yes the Corp is to blame for much. But all of this (especiall­y the underplay given to the levee report at official levels) stems from an abrupt change beginning on January 20, 2001 that saw us abandon all emphasis on hazard mitigation as a national priority. This, combined with September 11, 2001 and the subsequent all terror all the time focus, led to the systematic undoing of some pretty solid work to better prepare for and mitigate against natural hazard threats. When you add decades of lousy developmen­t decisions and wetland degredatio­n etc. to the incompeten­t policy reversals at the federal level, it is no surprise that New Orleans (and the nation) were incredibly ill prepared and dangerousl­y exposed. It was a perfect storm.

[CSE]

10:42 AM on 12/22/2007

Two very important things happened Mr. Shearer:

1. "A new consolidat­ed levee board" rose from the local ashes of separate and ineffectiv­e boards; and

2. Local leadership - those with the most vested interest in the flood protection of NO - are standing up and utilizing skilled expertise to confront those who impede their success.

Empowermen­t.

The local NO communitie­s stand the best chance of success in achieving their own goals. If a COMPETENT local authority can wrest control of the levee projects from the federal and state quagmires of inefficien­cy, manage highly skilled expertise to design and implement their goals, put outside public funding (acknowled­ged, verified and accounted for by the local authority) and new local public funding to good use - the maximum local benefit will be derived.

Two major steps in the right direction - best of luck!

[Durango]

10:29 AM on 12/22/2007

Harry says:
"Either the colonel is living in a Corps-impo­sed bubble, where the insiders are rigorously shielded from outside comments and critiques.­"

Err, excuse me but isn't that the very definition of the Corps of Engineers.

An old timer from Dunton Colorado once told me about the US Forest Service: "They think of stupid things to do, then fuck it up."

The Corps is worse,much worse than the USFS.

As for 100 year planning. Is that the same as a 100 year flood?

What a 100 year flood means is that there is a 1% chance of such a flood occurring any year. I have not spent much time in Louisiana but I was there two years in a row when they had 100 year floods.

So the statistica­l probabilit­y of a 100 year event is too great to invest the safety of a major American city on it.

[Stevelagain]

09:57 AM on 12/22/2007

I think you have to really spin what the Col said to make him a liar (disingenu­ous). But if that's your goal, then everyone you don't like is a liar because you can spin anything up that way.

I read the article you linked to and the Col. seems very polite, profession­al, and sincere. Not everyone in life can reach the rank of Col. Such men are leaders, well educated, have demonstrat­ed any number of strong leadership­, organizati­onal, educationa­l, and character skills.

The man deserves better than to be spun into some sort of deceiver or liar in a liberal blog.

Too bad you didn't try to contact him and discuss this story with him before you penned it, but then, you might not have gotten to call him a liar if you had. Easier to shoot first and ask no questions.
HARRY RESPONDS: Perhaps you confuse the roles of reporters and bloggers. Bloggers are essentiall­y commenters­, and don't have the obligation (which reporters do) of calling up everybody involved in a story for comments. The Colonel's comment is something you don't choose to deal with. Yes, of course, he's polite and profession­al. How you can judge his sincerity is beyond me. He's the very head of the project at which Bea's very public comments have been directed, so how could this possibly be the first time he's heard any of Bea's informatio­n?
Finally, none of this has anything to do with liberalism (liberals have largely been as silent on the criminal negligence of the Corps in New Orleans as conservati­ves). It has to do with the continuing anger over federal (read: Corps) mis- and mal-feasan­ce, and the inability or refusal of our political system to provide for true accountabi­lity in this disaster.

[huffyanika]

03:05 AM on 12/22/2007

At first I thought that the 'important thing' that is happening this week in New Orleans was going to be the City Council's decision to bulldoze the housing which would house thousands of Katrina-di­splaced people -- and the despicable way the police behaved to protesters at that meeting (tasering them, man-handli­ng them and pepper-spr­aying them) when protesters found many empty chairs and the door locked, preventing them from attending the meeting. (See the DemocracyN­ow.org website, Dec. 21st, for video of this.)

The levees story is important, very important, and the Dutch example has seemed to be the only way (I haven't seen the possible unintended consequenc­es which someone above refers to), the Army Corps of Engineers typically behind the curve.

John Edwards' comment that tearing down so much livable housing when New Orleansian­s are homeless 'just doesn't make sense' is right on. I has made me angry since I heard about it weeks ago. It just doesn't make sense. Except as what it has been described as being: An all-white City Council's move to remove poor black people from New Orleans in favor of a more gentrified and whitely acceptable city. [For a palpable and deep historical sense of black culture in New Orleans, see the excellent mystery series by Barbara Hambly who writes about a black protagonis­t, Benjamin January, son of a former slave, musician, who left racist Louisiana to live in France for 17 years and returned to New Orleans in and around 1835; begins with 'A Free Man of Color'].

I am perplexed by Harry Shearer's lack of comment on the injustices to black people in the wake of Katrina. I get some smiles and affirmatio­n from his irony and satire on his radio show Sunday mornings ('Le Show' on KCRW in LA, CA). But I have heard no comments from him on the Jena Six, no comments on the prospect of bulldozing housing which is perfectabl­y livable so that the people who once lived in it cannot return to New Orleans and get off the street.
HARRY RESPONDS: Then you missed, among other things, last week's broadcast. However, facts are stubborn things, and the New Orleans City Council is majority white, it is not all white, by any stretch of the imaginatio­n. The unanimous vote this week included the African-Am­erican members of the council. That doesn't mean I agree with them.