Doing What It Takes

On April 16, 2007, the President spoke about the emergency supplemental spending bill that Congress plans to pass and the President plans to veto:

We must give our men and women in uniform the tools and resources they need to prevail. Providing these resources is the responsibility of the United States Congress. And that is why, 70 days ago, I sent Congress an emergency war spending bill that would provide the vital funds our troops urgently need. But instead of approving this funding, Democrats in Congress have spent the past 70 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops. They passed bills in the House and the Senate that would impose restrictions on our military commanders. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq. And they spend billions of dollars on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war.

President Bush wants to do what it takes to prevail in Iraq. We all remember another pledge to do what it takes:

And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives.

It appears that doing what it takes in Iraq is at odds with doing what it takes to rebuild communities and lives on the Gulf Coast.

The President plans to veto the emergency supplemental spending bill in its current form because it will “impose restrictions on our military commanders” and “spend billions of dollars on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war.”

One of those domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war is a $1.3 billion allocation to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make up for a $1.3 billion dollar hole in the levee building funding on the East and West Banks.

To make up for the lack of funding on the West Bank, the USACE proposed to shift money from East Bank projects over to the West Bank, leaving a hole in the East Bank funding:

If approved, the plan has the potential to slow new levee work on the East Bank, where most of New Orleans is situated, and pit the city's residents against those on the West Bank.

***

The corps says projects on the East Bank will continue and that the levee system is as good now as it was before Katrina. Plans to further improve that system are tied up in technical reviews, according to the corps.

Whether or not the East Bank projects will be slowed by diverting the funds now, at some point the money *will be needed* and will have to be allocated.

The President says the levee funds should not be tied to his “emergency war spending bill,” what I call the emergency supplemental spending bill.

Mary Landrieu, at her committee meeting last week, explained why it *must* be:

We are 1.3 billion short and we can not get this money if it is moved out of the regular appropriations, and I will tell you why.

The total appropriations for the entire United States of America for new construction for the Corps of Engineers is only 1.5 billion. So I most certainly can not be put in the position as the appropriator representing Louisiana to go ask the committee for all the money they have for this levee project. And I’m not going to do it.

So, I need you to take this message back to the President. This money has to come to us through emergency supplemental, it can come in this emergency supplemental or another one. I can not fund this through regular appropriations and he needs to ask for it. And if he doesn’t, we will put it in supplemental.

That’s my transcript from the committee’s video about 58 minutes and 33 seconds in.

In his fiscal year 2008 budget proposal, President Bush asked for $1.523 billion for new construction projects other than specifically allocated projects. Bush didn’t ask for the $1.3 billion needed to fully fund the levee projects already on the books (i.e. “do what it takes”) in his regular budget request. He doesn’t want the $1.3 billion added to the supplemental bill. That means another supplemental bill would have to be passed. And that takes time.

When the President made his budget request the USACE said we have time:

Woodley denied suggestions that "reallocating" the money would put residents at risk. He said designs have to be completed -- -- a process that can take many months -- before pumping stations can be built, levees raised or floodgates erected.

How much time?


My full transcript of Mary Landrieu and Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding Donald Powell at the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery hearing on 4/12/07 talking about President Bush’s commitment to the Gulf Coast, the shifting $1.3 billion, and – strangely enough – the Saints:

MARY LANDRIEU: You say in your testimony, quote, “The President Bush promised a better and stronger hurricane protection system.” This statement seems inconsistent, however, with the administration’s recent request to shift $1.3 billion previously allocated between levee projects instead of authorizing and additional 1.3.

Um…

This Congress has put the 1.3 back in the budget. The President says he’s issued a veto threat saying it is neither necessary… and it’s extraneous…uh, it’s not, um… it’s not cost effective.

I know you have to carry the President’s message. But, what would you say if I argued with you that his words are not matching his budget documents?

DONALD POWELL: Senator, let the record also reflect that I am a New Orleans Saints fan. [mumble…laugh]

ML: Do not try to divert… [crosstalk…laughter]

***

DP: I spend a lot of time briefing the President on the Gulf Coast area. Without question there is no reservation in my mind that he’s committed to building the levee system better and stronger than it has ever been. And there’s no question in my mind that he’s committed to spending the necessary money to protect the people against a one hundred year flood. No question in my mind.

The vehicle… as I understand it, the reason for transferring the 1.3 billion from one supplemental to another supplemental – and I’m not a legislative person and I don’t understand the mechanics of that; but I do understand his commitment – was to make sure that work did not cease, and make sure that work would continue and would not stop because, as I understand it, when Congress appropriates it, it appropriates it for specific issues. The way I describe it, in my simple mind, you’ve got five or six check books. And you can only write a check out of that account for specific areas. So, when that checkbook has a zero balance and this one has money in it, we want to transfer from that checkbook to that checkbook in order for that work to continue.

But, there’s no question in my mind about his commitment. 58.10

ML: You have described the process, but I have to get on the record that that checkbook system only works if you’ve got someone actually filling in when all the checkbooks actually go down to zero with the appropriate amount of money.

Now, if you start of short a billion dollars, it doesn’t matter how much is in each checkbook because at the end you’re still going to be a billion short. And that’s my problem. And that’s our problem.

We are 1.3 billion short and we can not get this money if it is moved out of the regular appropriations, and I will tell you why.

The total appropriations for the entire United States of America for new construction for the Corps of Engineers is only 1.5 billion. So I most certainly can not be put in the position as the appropriator representing Louisiana to go ask the committee for all the money they have for this levee project. And I’m not going to do it.

So, I need you to take this message back to the President. This money has to come to us through emergency supplemental, it can come in this emergency supplemental or another one. I can not fund this through regular appropriations and he needs to ask for it. And if he doesn’t, we will put it in supplemental.

The History of the Levees

As written by the victors.

In this US Army Corps of Engineers response [PDF] “to speculation and concern about temporary pumps,” the USACE provides a history of the levees. Some of it can be read as “We told you so”:

In 1965, when the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project was originally authorized, it did not require flood protection improvements along the 17th Street, London Avenue or Orleans Avenue Canals. The reason for this was that the proposed barriers at the Rigolets and Chef Passes were intended to keep the design storm surge out of Lake Pontchartrain.

Implication: If the barriers at the passes had been built, the floodwalls at the outfall canals would have held.

Why weren’t the barriers at the passes built? According to the USACE, the environmentalists shut them down:

In response to the 1977 injunction (due to a lawsuit by Save Our Wetlands) challenging the Corps’ Environmental Impact Statement, the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project was re-evaluated. The 1985 Reevaluation Report by the Corps eliminated the Rigolets and Chef Barriers from the project and, instead, recommended higher levees along the southern lakeshore of Lake Pontchartrain.

And the outfall canal levees were then deemed inadequate, leading to the inadequate construction of floodwalls on the 17th Street Canal and London Avenue Canal.

This version of the history of the levees is accurate, but (surprise, surprise) inadequate. It leaves out an interesting detail that the Government Accountability Office included [PDF]in its history:

In fact, Corps staff believe that flooding would have been worse if the original proposed design had been built because the storm surge would likely have gone over the top of the barrier and floodgates, flooded Lake Pontchartain, and gone over the original lower levees planned for the lakefront area as part of the barrier plan.

More official UASCE history [PDF]:

In the mid to late 1980s, the Corps of Engineers recommended the construction of storm surge gates at the London Avenue and Orleans Avenue outfall canals to block the design storm surge from entering the canals.

The gates, of course, are being built now, along with gates at the 17th Street Canal.

Continuing the history lesson:

Ultimately, for the 17th Street Canal, the Corps agreed to and recommended construction of the locally preferred plan which consisted of floodwalls instead of a structure at the mouth of the canal. The Corps agreement was based on the fact that the estimated cost for each alternative was almost equal.

The cost for the gated structures at London Avenue and Orleans Avenue outfall canals was far less expensive than the locally preferred floodwalls. Therefore, the Corps maintained that the additional costs for construction of those floodwalls would have to be paid by the local sponsor. The local sponsor, the Orleans Levee District, did not want to pay those additional costs.

Finally, Congress passed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act (EWDAA) of 1992 that directed the Corps of Engineers to construct floodwalls along London Avenue and Orleans Avenue outfall canals, the locally-preferred plan.

Implication: Politicians forced the USACE to build floodwalls on the London Avenue and Orleans Avenue Canals instead of what they wanted to do, build gates, which they are now building.

My opinion: the USACE public relations strategy is “We didn’t build a defective levee system. We were forced by local interests to build a levee system we didn’t want to build, which ultimately failed. We are now building the levee system we had originally planned to build. We hate to say it; but, we told you so.”

Of course, my opinion doesn't get written into the history books.

No War, No Money

President Bush:

Yesterday I gave a speech, making it clear that I'll veto a bill that restricts our commanders on the ground in Iraq, a bill that doesn't fund our troops, a bill that's got too much spending on it. I made that clear to the members.

We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded; and we've got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders; and that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money.

Emphasis mine.

How Congress would like to spend the people’s money:

The war spending bill that the U.S. House has passed - which calls for a pullout of troops from Iraq by March of 2008 - could mean some $7.7 billion for areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, House Democrats said Thursday.

***

The House version of the bill could bring $6.4 billion in cash and almost $1.3 billion more in forgiven loans to the region.

A Senate version passed Thursday included more than $3 billion for hurricane recovery and other projects in Louisiana, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said in a news release.

But both bills include target deadlines for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, and Bush has said he will veto any bill with such a requirement. He also has criticized both bills for including domestic projects.

White House spokesperson Dana Perino elaborates on the President's position:

Our troops are in harm's way and engaged with the enemy, and they need the funds. Just this morning the Department of Defense notified Congress that in order to meet the force protection needs of the Marine Corps and the Army we are borrowing funds from other important Marine and Army procurement programs. That is taking funding intended for medium tactical vehicle replacement, Humvees and Humvee equipment, the tactical communications modernization program, and upgrades to other vehicles.

***

This reprogramming of funds is only necessary because Congress has failed to act in a timely manner on the President's emergency funding request. And so this, again, underscores the need to get this show on the road, get the bill to the President, he will veto it, and then we'll take it from there.

Reprogramming funds… you mean like what the Army Corps of Engineers wants to do with the West Bank levees?

The Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to divert up to $1.3 billion for levee repairs from the Mississippi River's East Bank, which was ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, to the West Bank, where tens of thousands of people have resettled.

***

If approved, the plan has the potential to slow new levee work on the East Bank, where most of New Orleans is situated, and pit the city's residents against those on the West Bank.

Why doesn’t Congress act in a timely manner and pass a bill funding both projects so one doesn’t have to steal money from the other?

Oh, wait. That’s what they are trying to do in the bill Bush says he will veto:

Both bills [House and Senate version] include $1.3 billion for levee work.

Early in March, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said it wanted to move that amount from work on east bank levees to shore up dangerously low levees on the west bank, which remained largely free of floods after Hurricane Katrina.

Let’s get this show on the road!

A History of Terrorists and the Levees

In reverse chronological order.

Michael Brown, February 2, 2007:

"Had terrorists blown up the levees in New Orleans, the response and recovery would have been different," Brown said, "and I know that, because I've been there."

Mary Landrieu, January 29, 2007:

“I often think we would have been better off if the terrorists had blown up our levees,” she said. “Maybe we’d have gotten more attention.”

Ashley Morris, January 8, 2006:

THE TERRORISTS BOMBED THE LEVEES. THE TERRORISTS BOMBED THE LEVEES.
THE TERRORISTS BOMBED THE LEVEES. THE TERRORISTS BOMBED THE LEVEES.
THE TERRORISTS BOMBED THE LEVEES. THE TERRORISTS BOMBED THE LEVEES.
[etc.]

CNN, October 12, 2005:

"There's only one terrorist around here," said the Louisiana National Guardsman, as he paced outside the New Orleans Convention Center. "And her name is Katrina."

Jim Bernazzani might agree. He's the FBI's special agent in charge for New Orleans, a man who has spent years working counterterrorism.

***

The city, he soon discovered, might just as well have been hit by a terrorist attack. "For New Orleans, the net result is the same. Clearly the tourism industry getting knocked out -- that happened. The only target of opportunity that didn't happen was sinking a ship in the river.

"What we were preparing for, relative to a terrorist attack, had been handed to us by Mother Nature."

The “net result” was the same. What about the net response?

When the Army Corps of Engineers Comes to Town

No levee is safe.

The Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that 122 levees from Rhode Island to California are at risk of failing, potentially affecting thousands of people and requiring millions of dollars in repairs.

As further proof that New Orleans is no longer part of the United States, there are no Louisiana levees on the list (pdf).

Don’t worry:

But Maj. Gen. Don Riley, director of civil works for the Corps, told reporters that levees in the New Orleans area would be adequate once the current work is completed. He said Mississippi River levees are subject to very stringent programs and none in Louisiana shows any deficiencies.

Maj. Gen. Don Riley must also be making the distinction between a levee and a floodwall (what sits on top of the levee). If he isn’t, then he must not be reading Matt McBride:

It seeming that the storm on December 21, 2006 was a bigger deal than it even seemed at the time. So far, we know:

- the level of the London Avenue canal got within five inches of the Safe Water Level, which is depth of water above which a levee breach could be imminent.

That really scares me, by the way.

California had the most nominations:

Thirty-seven levees from Chico to Santa Maria are at risk of failing because of poor maintenance - far more than in any other state, according to a list released Thursday by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

What happens after your levee makes the list? The cleaner comes in.

FEMA:

SACRAMENTO - The federal government says it is reversing an earlier decision and redrawing flood maps for a fast-growing region near the state capital.

The announcement today by the Federal Emergency Management Agency affirms that the risk of a potentially catastrophic flood is greater than originally believed.

FEMA officials say the levees in Natomas are substandard and don't meet the government's criteria of 100-year flood protection.

So, when does the three-foot rule go into effect for new construction in this “fast-growing” region?

New Orleans is Not Unique After All

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, finishing what Katrina started:

The Army Corps of Engineers has identified 146 levees nationwide that it says pose an unacceptable risk of failing in a major flood.

The deficiencies, mostly due to poor maintenance, are forcing communities from Connecticut to California to invest millions of dollars in repairs. If the levees aren't fixed, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could determine that they are no longer adequate flood controls. If that happens, property owners behind the levees would have to buy flood insurance costing hundreds of dollars a year or more.

The substandard levees are being identified under a corps inspection program that has grown more aggressive since Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed levees across the Gulf Coast in August 2005.

I wonder if FEMA will require a “three feet above ground” rule for new construction in these at-risk areas.

Also, notice the revising of events after Katrina:

Thousands of residents who lost property did not have flood insurance because those levees were considered adequate; later reviews found many were not well maintained.

It should say “later reviews found many were not well designed.”

Via Gentilly Girl.