Subj : Re: Interesting Flood Article To : alt.tv.farscape From : Nick Date : Thu Sep 08 2005 17:01:53 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 can't get there either. I think this may be a site I intended to link you to last week but couldn't get through then either so I used the elementary school link. .