Chris,
> I think if you read through the ACE report to the senate in 1997, they > argued (and several argued against) that without a complete > reconstructure of upstream levees and a redesign of spillways, there > was very little with the ground given.. outside of massive imminent > domain claims as city projects were built too close to current levees. > > Many argued this was the wrong way to look at it, but four times this > was proposed. > > I do agree with those who say "hey, just because people protested" > that's right, occassionally the government has to do what is > politically unpopular. But let's be honest, with so many groups > protesting, and so many in office in the senate / house on both sides > living and dying off of the goodwill of the people who support those > causes, no one had the testicular fortitude to do the right thing. But you're still referencing the future plans to REDESIGN the entire infrastructure, and I assume there was plenty to argue about on that count. The issue is that the repair, maintenance, and beefing-up of the levees, the very levees that broke through, was STOPPED in 2004, for the first time in 37 years, because of the Bushies massive budget cuts. Vince
