Posted on 09/09/2005 9:15:45 AM PDT by Libloather
KATRINA'S AFTERMATH
A Barrier That Could Have Been
Congress OKd a project to protect New Orleans 40 years ago, but an environmentalist suit halted it. Some say it could have worked.
By Ralph Vartabedian and Peter Pae, Times Staff Writer
September 9, 2005
latimes.com
In the wake of Hurricane Betsy 40 years ago, Congress approved a massive hurricane barrier to protect New Orleans from storm surges that could inundate the city.
But the project, signed into law by President Johnson, was derailed in 1977 by an environmental lawsuit. Now the question is: Could that barrier have protected New Orleans from the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina?
"If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded," said Joseph Towers, the retired chief counsel for the Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans district.
Tower's view is endorsed by a former key senator, along with academic experts, who say a hurricane barrier is the only way to control the powerful storm surges that enter Lake Pontchartrain and threaten the city. Other experts are less sure, saying the barrier would have been no match for Katrina.
The project was stopped in its tracks when an environmental lawsuit won a federal injunction on the grounds that the Army's environmental impact statement was flawed. By the mid-1980s, the Corps of Engineers abandoned the project.
The project faced formidable opposition not only from environmentalists but from regional government officials outside of New Orleans who argued that the barriers would choke commerce and harm marine life in ecologically sensitive Lake Pontchartrain.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
That grim smile is on my face, under the environmental method of land control.
ping
Not really just the lawyers after they get their cut.everyone else will get $10 off their water bill or some such nonsence
The job of these NGOs is to restrict acccess to resources to those who own the tax-exempt, "charitable" foundations that support them. They system operates on a foundation of treaty laws organized by the IUCN and with staff drawn from the NGOs. They use that treaty law and the courts to maintain shortages and thus guarantee a price support system.
I call that enviro-racketeering, tax fraud, manipulation, etc. The problem with busting them is that the NGOs effectively launder the money.
What is it that compells these judges to issue these stop work orders that discourage Federal Agencies from doing their jobs??? It's not Clinton's EO's!!!
Please continue shedding light on the EO's, but there are two fronts on this battlefield and judicial tyranny is the other one!!!
The EO merely protects the NGO from lawsuits so that they can bring these actions more fearlessly.
Please continue shedding light on the EO's, but there are two fronts on this battlefield and judicial tyranny is the other one!!!
Obviously, but that isn't what I was asked to explain, but if you go back and re-read the post, I think you'll see it in there.
I think Greenpeace will have to change their name to BrownPiece
Yeah, but look at all the cool wetlands. Nothing quite like a wild and scenic river...(sarcasm off)
bttt
THANK YOU!!!
I was just in the process of looking for this!
Regards,
"Two years ago the fires that destroyed hundreds of homes in San Diego were fueled by dead underbrush that could not be cleared because the envirofascists had brought lawsuit after lawsuit to prohibit it's removal."
Let's not forget when the enviros wouldn't let them cut fire trails in the great North West and all the fires that ensued...
I wish each one of the politican/morons would HAVE to count out (using paper squares, gravel, whatever) equal to the dollar amount that will be spent on rebuilding NO. And even then I don't think they would understand the cost.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Whether this flood control program would have worked or not is sheer speculation. I am a little dismayed that a 30 year old lawsuit is being used to point fingers here. A watertight dome over the entire city would have been useless if somebody failed to close the door. The best laid plans of mice and men can be undone at Nature's whim. Ignore that at your peril.
From where I sit, preparation was lacking, and as such, the primary reason for the chaos and excessive loss of life that ensued. Perhaps nothing could have stopped the flooding.
They are falling all over themselves to see who can be more generous with taxpayer money.
Is that constitutional ?
"signed into law by President Johnson,"
I was just wondering, LBJ was president from 1963 to 1969, Nixon from 1969 to 1974, Gerald Ford from 1974 to 1977, Jimmy Carter was president from 1977 to 1981.
What happened between 1969 and 1977, perhaps it was caught up in the court system!?
Its gotten to the point where I'm sick of the whole lot of them. This fighting over "It was Bush's fault"; "No it was FEMA's fault"; "No it was Corp of Engineer's fault"; "No it was the Demrats fault" has just been my final straw with the politicians in our great country. They too busy pointing fingers and handing out our hard earned money than to be reasonable, logical, and intelligent.
Not true. It was the blasting off of the fireproofing material on the structural elements that led to the collapse, and asbestos would have been blown off just as readily, if not more so. Here's one take on the matter from a professional:
http://cryptome.org/wtc-junksci.htm
The column, "Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives," by Steven Milloy, was forwarded to me. I appreciate being able to read it. I would like to correct an assumption Mr. Milloy made that asbestos insulation would have prevented the collapse. (I'm a licensed architect practising in NYC.)
The structural insulation used in WTC was just as good fireproofing as the wet asbestos system so that was not the cause of the collapse. What caused it was the blasting away of fireproofing from structural steel of the core and floor structure by impact of the aircraft and explosion of its fuel as well as extremely high heat of the flaming fuel well above the capability of the fireproofing and as the effect of the high heat on the steelwork.
Asbestos would have been not better in resisting this level of heat. Indeed, sprayed-on asbestos might well have been blasted away more readily than other material due to its lightweight, loose-fiber constituency.
All methods of fireproofing systems are rated by the number of hours of fire-resistance they provide, 1-hr, 2-hr, 3-hr and so on. This is true no matter what material is used, asbestos or any other of a variety of fireproofing materials. The rating is set by laboratory testing of samples of materials by accredited testing laboratories, and the results are published in fire-resistance handbooks used by design professionals, building officials and insurance underwriters to comply with building codes.
Asbestos was a wonderful material but turned out to have the fatal flaw of being carcinogenic. Other materials have been found that match asbestos for its excellent qualities but do not have its fatal flaw. "
Prego! It's in there!!! (grin) I wasn't asking just for myself...
Their time is coming, first the forest fires, now this, their ticking time bombs of destruction are starting to explode and the PUBLIC will KNOW.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.