Subj : Re: Interesting Flood Article To : alt.tv.farscape From : weirdwolf Date : Thu Sep 08 2005 16:30:41 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape Nick wrote in news:Xns96CB66811FF37ndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: > 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. Asking for a specific plan is a lot different from saying "do they know how to fix it" which from the article they obviously do. But just for you , may I suggest perhaps looking at this site. http://lca.gov/ I'm having troubles getting through but they may be due to the fact that I am streaming Pakistani tv so I can watch the cricket. You stagger the amount of water over various times, saving a lot by removing the unnessecary culverts. Well maybe instead of enforcing the selling of private land for the building of marinas and strip malls they should be saying to the landowners "if you don't do this you will be owning a stretch of the Gulf of Mexico." Ted -- Stare too long into the abyss and the abyss looks like a nifty place to hide the bodies .