Editorial: Louisiana VIPs Unreasonable, Protest Too Much

Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and others representing that Katrina-trashed state are unreasonable when they charge President George Bush with reneging on his “pledge” to rebuild the entire storm-ravaged region. They protest too much.

Everyone knows that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has not performed as well as we have concluded we could expect. So criticism is justified along those points. But there have been no comparable storms with which to compare that response.

Gov. Blanco and her ilk are trying to hold Bush to a pledge made on September 15 (just days after Katrina struck) to build New Orleans “higher and better.” The Washington Post reported on March 31 that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin had no comment on the matter. But the Post wrote, “… other Louisiana officials cited Bush’s September 15 pledge … and [Donald] Powell’s promise to make the levee system ‘bigger and stronger than it ever has been’ in saying that promises were being broken.” Powell is the presidential advisor for the Gulf Coast recovery efforts.

Bush critics fail to mention that during the weeks following his “pledge,” hordes of engineers swooped down on the area and concluded that the failure of the floodwalls and levees was due, in considerable part, to poor engineering. In plain English, the levee system, between 300 and 400 miles long, was at the time of the inspections in much worse shape than first thought.

No one could have guessed on September 15 that insurance companies were going to circle the wagons and refuse to pay hurricane victims for damage caused by the storm surge.

In December 2005, Congress approved a $3.1 billion levee plan. After Congress authorized $2 billion for the project in February, Bush said another $1.5 billion was needed. Bush’s request is to be considered by the Senate this week.

Powell explained that the cost of rebuilding those levees to federal standards has risen to $9.5 billion—up $6 billion from the earlier estimate of $3.5 billion. He said there might not be enough money to fully protect the entire region. Some places might be left without the protection of levees strong enough to meet requirements of the national flood insurance program.

That New Orleans itself was built in a bowl, subject to flooding if storms got bad enough, has been known for more than a century. The increase in cost figures is not a “monumental miscalculation” (as Blanco describes it) but a return to reality. “This means that just two months before hurricane season, the Corps of Engineers informs us they cannot ensure the minimum safety of southeast Louisiana,” said Blanco. “This is totally unacceptable.”

If Congress were to authorize $50 billion tomorrow, the levees could still not be restored sufficiently before hurricane season begins.

To many, Blanco’s failures involving Louisiana evacuations was totally unacceptable, too, but recovery activities have pushed that issue into the background.

The construction of levees around New Orleans began more than 300 years ago. Generations of engineers, builders, politicians and citizens have gone to their graves since then. The system, we might therefore conclude, is a hodgepodge. It is unlikely that any detailed master plan was being followed. Environmental critics have delayed Corps’ plans to do additional work on levees and—work that might have lessened the damage caused by Katrina. In the aftermath of these delays, federal money was siphoned off for other projects.

We repeat, Blanco and her colleagues protest too much. There is no way to have known during the early days after Katrina struck exactly what caused the levee failures. Comments by Bush and Powell during those dire moments were, we think, intended to show understanding and be encouraging. It is not conceivable that they intentionally overstated. These men and women cannot be held responsible to rebuild the New Orleans region exactly as critics want it to be rebuilt and without adherence to national flood insurance requirements.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)