Subj : Re: Interesting Flood Article To : alt.tv.farscape From : Nick Date : Thu Sep 08 2005 16:04:30 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape weirdwolf wrote: > Nick wrote in > news:Xns96CB647F34684ndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: > >> Nick wrote: >> >>> weirdwolf wrote: >>> >>>> Nick wrote in >>>> news:Xns96CB5F41C3F0Dndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: >>>> >>>>> weirdwolf wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John I wrote in >>>>>> news:Xns96CB622749FAEoiwhnanri@66.26.32.7: >>>>>> >>>>>>> weirdwolf wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ted >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's about the Hurricane Pam excercise that was supposed >>>>>>> to prepare FEMA and everyone else to respond. Now that they >>>>>>> are in full Rove control the message mode, we will never get >>>>>>> a clear picture of what went wrong and worse: How to fix >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I found it interesting that an article published last October >>>>>> had so many of the details correct of what might happen when >>>>>> we've been told time and again that nobody could have >>>>>> foreseen what actually did happen. >>>>>> Nice to see that the National Geographic at least agrees with >>>>>> me on the >>>>>> loss of coastal swamp/mudflats/reed beds. I mean lets face it >>>>>> I only have the knowledge of a junior school pupil about >>>>>> these things according to some people. >>>>>> Ted >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Did they say how to fix it? >>>> >>>> Did you even bother to read the article? >>>> "Such high stakes compelled a host of unlikely >>>> bedfellowsuscientists, environmental groups, business leaders, >>>> and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersuto forge a radical plan to >>>> protect what's left. Drafted by the Corps a year ago, the >>>> Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project was initially estimated to >>>> cost up to 14 billion dollars over 30 years, almost twice as >>>> much as current efforts to save the Everglades. But the Bush >>>> Administration balked at the price tag, supporting instead a >>>> plan to spend up to two billion dollars over the next ten years >>>> to fund the most promising projects" >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So, that is a no. >>> >> >> I think the oil companies with their record breaking profits >> should be doing some of this funding. >> > > It is a yes, the methods are there, replanting the swamps, > reducing the > levees and unnecessary canals and allowing more run off into the > swamp areas. All this information is contained in the article and > were suggestions I put forward in the post you were so dismissive > of. > What is lacking is the federal funding to actually do the work > that is required. I just don't see how you can do it and keep enough water flowing through the Mississippi river to keep New Orleans open as a major port. I was curious to see specific plans not just a price tag and the statement of having a plan. I didn't notice the specific plan in the article. Just that when they tried some things, like breaching spots on the levee they got hit with a huge law suit. .