Subj : Re: Interesting Flood Article To : alt.tv.farscape From : Tyler Trafford Date : Thu Sep 08 2005 16:08:54 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Nick wrote: > 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. I just heard a poll that 63% of Americans think New Orleans should be rebuilt. Doesn't that seem a bit low? It does to me. -- Tyler Trafford In case of atomic attack, the federal ruling against prayer in schools will be temporarily canceled. .