And after making a donation to the relief effort, all I can do is cry. And pray.

I still don't really understand why this is happening - why is there no medical care, no triage of any kind, no plan of emergency that would expect a flood of this sort caused by a levee break? The hurricane hit Monday. That link is to observations on Thursday.<blockquote class="smalltext">...MAKING LANDFALL IN PLAQUEMINES PARISH LOUISIANA JUST SOUTH
OF BURAS WITH 140 MPH WINDS...CATEGORY 4...AT 610 AM CDT ON 29 AUGUST</blockquote>

I don't think anyone really comprehends that the U.S. now has hundreds of thousands of refugees. Like in Africa. Like in wartime.

This is unbelievable, it is like watching the ineptitude of the ex-Soviet government during their Moscow theater and Beslan hostage situations, with the mostly needless loss of life and terrible leadership.

This is unbelievable, it is like watching the ineptitude of the ex-Soviet government during their Moscow theater and Beslan hostage situations,

I keep thinking that this administration has the reputation of running after the facts.

Here's what I don't get: for a couple of years people have been warning about the dangers of a hurricane going towards New Orleans. I cannot understand why nothing was done to strengthen those levees.

My ratings: the _short_ term response was pathetic; the _medium_ term (now) will probably not be rated as not bad: I'm not sure if you all appreciate the scope of what has to be achieved.

But where the real failure is is in _planning_ and _emergency preparedness_. A diaster of this scope is statistically predicable, i.e. it will happen at somepoint somewhere in a big country given time. And the US is scrambling to respond.

Bush created a department of homeland security [under which this sort of diaster must fall] which started as a joke and has pretty well continued to be one. They were too busy looking for adult pornography, looking for excuses to fight the "drug war", and cracking down on what, movie piracy?

I could not have said it better...unless between now and the medium there are running gun fights between the thugs and the National Guard.

I'm not sure if you all appreciate the scope of what has to be achieved.

Too little. However:

But where the real failure is is in _planning_ and _emergency preparedness_.

Isn't that what I said? Listen: As someone with a Dutch civil engineering background (Hey! I did Civil engineering before programming kidnapped me) I just cannot understand why nothing was done to prevent the surge from breaking the levees. I cannot grasp why nothing was done. At all. Money issues? Think of it again, if you see the recovery bill next year.

But to be fair, Arthur, there are few others in the league of Dutch civil engineers in this area.

But to be fair, Arthur, there are few others in the league of Dutch civil engineers in this area.

No: it's not just the engineers: If I remember correctly, there was a long discussion about the bills of the Delta works (hey, the Dutch taxpayers pay!) and the bills of an eventual disaster afterwards (boo, the Dutch taxpayers pay!). Economically, building dams and dikes ended up to be cheaper than losing land and people.

I think we can all agree that it's tragic that DHS funding for New Orleans' levee upgrades was redirected for wartime spending. It's also tragic that the existing levee system was only rated to withstand Cat-3 storms, but understandable because many levee areas have commercial, industrial and residential development in such close proximity that major upgrades might require land expropriation.

Let's keep some perspective here, it's not as if hurricanes only started becoming a major problem after Bush was sworn in. New Orleans has played the odds on hurricane seasons for nothing short of a couple centuries, and on top of it all, the levee system, along with the rest of the city, is constantly sinking. It's not as if the one-time SELA project (or any other major capital infrastructure project) would save the city for all time. Every few years the levees have to grow a little higher and a little wider just to keep out the same amount of water - let alone improve storm surge resistance. You can buy the city some time, but eventually, even 100ft levees will require constant butressing as the city continues to sink.

There no easy answer to such geological activity, and even if no funding had been cut, it's debatable whether the upgraded levees would have been sufficient to withstand the storm surge from a Cat 4 near-miss. In order to stem the tide of sinking, New Orleans, pre-hurricane, needed massive remediation of the surrounding wetlands, rebuilding of barrier islands, a controlled flooding and re-sedimentation plan for the Mississippi delta, and a whole host of other things estimated to cost up to USD $14 billion.

The answer to why it wasn't all done is pretty simple. Who's going to pony up that $14 billion? All Americans? Lousianans? New Orleanans? And what sorts of other federal, state and municipal programs (entitlement, defence, law enforcement, transportation, health) were they prepared to sacrifice to get it?

I doubt very much if any politician would have gotten far by promising no bread and circuses, but plenty of storm surge-absorbing wetlands.

rebuilding of barrier islands, a controlled flooding and re-sedimentation plan for the Mississippi delta, and a whole host of other things estimated to cost up to USD $14 billion.

Compared with the price of rebuilding that's a dime: I read that 26 billion was needed to cover insurance. I also read that rebuilding would take over 100 billions of dollars. Not to mention the loss of lifes. What do you mean, $14 billion?

That, Arthur, is the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. There were no federal, state, or municipal politicians agitating for such USD $14B expenditures pre-Katrina. I'm sure they'd all be happy to do so now, but there were no such Cassandras back then.

That, Arthur, is the luxury of 20/20 hindsight.

No: that's poor reasoning. Listen: it was already known it was an accident waiting to happen. If you know a car is speeding around the corner, sticking your fingers in your ears while crossing the road will cost you dearly.

Arthur, matters of politics and budget are not so clear-cut. You see it clearly because the tragedy has already happened. As a city comptroller, or a state politician, are you going to bankrupt your chances of being elected on the mere chance that a hurricane can wipe out your city?

How exactly do you propose, as a pre-Katrina NOLA politician, to get your electorate to underwrite this mission? Clearly the majority of NOLA's population did not feel the same way, else they would have underwritten $14B expeditures in the blink of an eye, long long ago.

And which administration in New Orleans' 287-year history deserves the opprobrium for this state of affairs, given that hurricanes have been wading ashore in its vicinity since day one? The Chickasaw, Chocktaw, or Natchez first nations for setting there? Sieur de Bienville, who founded it? King Louis XV of France for encouraging immigration to a hurricane-prone area? His cousin, King Charles III of Spain, to whom he gave the colony? Or are we saving it all for the successive American governments, for failing to relocate their citizens and build Cat-5 levees as soon as the Louisiana Purchase was finalised?

At what point did the danger of citywide destruction become well-known, and who exactly was the poor planner here, Arthur?

I think I am with Arthus, Chris. We need woory about not blaming an administration so much as compare the Dutch and New Orleans approach to a large population below sea level. There is no 20/20 hindsight involved at all. Being below sea level <i>is</i> the danger.

Chris crossed.<p>[Ed.: <i>such punnery</i>]

Actually Alan you're correct in stating that apportioning blame is an unworthy effort. My point in goading Arthur was simply that sanctimonious pronouncements from those of us whose government officials are not so corrupt, ineffectual, or simply suprised, is uncalled-for. He claims it was poor reasoning; I claim it is simply politics as usual, where compromises between safety, political will, and economics have always been made, ever since New Orleans was founded.

I don't see anything to compare in the approach. New Orleans would have to have recognised the danger in 1974 in order for the 30-year, $14B levee upgrades, coastal and wetland remediation projects to have been completed today. New Orleans is a mere 278 years old whereas the Dutch have been building dikes and forming waterschappen since the 12th century. Comparing the approaches seems like mere rhetorical cover for thinly-veiled dancing on the graves of the hurricane victims, and that is what I find reprehensible.

I could never claim a Dutchman's view on dyke or levee planning as sanctimonious - especially one who Juan tried to eat personally. Consider an alternative angle . I expect the Isrealis or British would have had better and swifter urban safety stabilization because of their experience in the subject area. It isn't 20/20 hindsight to say that. It simply is. <p>That being what I see I think your last sentence is not appropriate - as no one is dancing on the graves of the dead and nothing was said that could be take as such at all - but I acknowledge what you are concluding. I, however, say that based on the relative indistinguishment I see between almost 300 years and amlost 800 years of handling the problem. So isn't it fair to say that the poor planning is poor reasoning therefore, now, evidently poor politics - keeping in mind what I mean by "politics" is bad policy over say the last five decades and not only, but in part, the last five years or even days? It does not make it cheap hindsight to acknowledge what is now evident as what is now evident was exactly what was warned of.

Alan, I sincerely doubt that the Israelis or British would have a better time of things with the population of New Orleans. The city was a cesspool of corruption, crime and political turpitude long before Katrina ever appeared on weather satellites. They <i>would</i> have a better time of things with their own native population centers of similar size, which is probably what you were thinking.

My last sentence was motivated by the detection of a certain amount of schadenfreude in Arthur's earlier comments, below:

<i>"No: that's poor reasoning. Listen: it was already known it was an accident waiting to happen. If you know a car is speeding around the corner, sticking your fingers in your ears while crossing the road will cost you dearly."</i>

And that is why I asked him whom, exactly, was sticking his fingers in his ears while crossing the road. I think you and I see it as the culmination of bad policy over successive administrations at all levels of government. I believe Arthur names his theoretical "you" as the Bush administration, which is not entirely warranted.

<i>"I keep thinking that this administration has the reputation of running after the facts."</i>

Could the Bush administration do more (and faster, and better) to save trapped NOLA residents? Yes, absolutely. Would any effort short of a 30-year, USD $14B effort have saved New Orleans from Katrina or any other Cat-4 hurricane coming ashore over the city? Likely not, or the political will would have been found to execute it already. So why blame Bush for sticking his fingers in his ears and strolling down the road? That is what I see as dancing on the graves of the dead -- Arthur's characterisation of the event as the fault of a specific political administration, due to a calamity they could scarcely have prevented even if they had visionary foreknowledge of it. And you agreeing with him.

If Bush had directed the Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction the day after he was sworn in, those preparations would not have been sufficient in light of the length (30 years!) and technical complexity of the enterprise.

I am resistant to the idea that Bush bears sole responsibility for this, since hurricanes and hurricane preparation predate his administration by a staggering amount of time. He certainly does bear responsibility for the success or failure of the <i>response</i> effort, but I think the total loss of a low-lying, crime-ridden city of 700,000 (with tens of thousands of non-evacuees remaining in situ) is going to challenge the best-prepared civic and military organisations, even under optimum conditions.

On the strength of your last comment at the Flea (which I agree with in almost all respects), I realise you are not attempting to score cheap points against Bush. I am not sure, however, the same is true of some of the other remarks made in the context of this thread, and that is what I take issue with.

I certainly resist labelling him with sole responsibility as it has been collective and over decades and decades. The scale 14 billion in planning over 30 years, however, is not really that great. That is, say, 666 bucks per person per year over the 30 years. Right now I am paying 2,000 a head into Canadian equalization and PEI runs an operating shortfall annually of about 1,000 bucks per person.

I believe that last year the architect behind the Delta works passed away. Something like a pioneering modeller who carried initial plans for a good deal of years before the disaster, and finally when the disaster struck, his plans were implemented fairly fast. You can't build the Delta works any faster. And I'm pretty sure there have been massive risk calculations beforehand (though the scientist couldn't have been aware of rising sea water levels because of global warming).
So if this terrible disaster will help Bush Corp. to implement disaster plans with more agility and purposeness, and taking science and their warnings more seriously (article from 2001 despite the new date above the article), that is just great, despite the overdueness!
But all in all it's probably more an excercise in morality, and lots of what-ifs and what-if-nots. If anyone believes that Bush' God or his enemies' God did this to America, that's entirely fine with me too.

We co-posted just now. I cannot speak for Arthur other than his general reasonableness in other matters.

FYI Chris - Alfons is Arthur's twin. Arthur is in Nova Scotia, Alfons is in the Netherlands.

A great tribute to the Deltaworks' visionary (Johan van Veen) is put here, in the form of a translation of his seminal work on ebb and tide observations.
A quick overview of his relentless pursuit of pointing at the imminent danger of flooding disasters because of the infamous south western storms, can be found here, in Dutch only unfortunately. If you look around, I'm sure there are some other English sites with references to Van Veen.

Alan, thanks for the FYI.

Alfons, those are fascinating links about the life and work of Mr. van Veen -- thanks for passing it on. Great reading.