Subj : Re: Interesting Flood Article To : alt.tv.farscape From : John I Date : Thu Sep 08 2005 16:38:04 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape weirdwolf wrote: > 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. Refuge of last resort for insomniacs. .