Hmm the Journal or the City of NO. I guess I will side with the Journal and suspect that the City doesn't really want to confront the facts.
The Nola report in my mind is far more alarming than the WSJ.
In essence it says:
The failures may have been caused by design or structural failures of the updated flood walls while still within the designed load.
If this is the case (and this is a "may" not a surety), then to my mind it is immoral to allow people back into New orleans before the problem is fixed. The probability of a hurricane hitting New Orleans now is no more and no less that it was a week before Katrina.
The difference is that we now suspect that the structures that protect New orleans from flooding are defective -- not that their failure was the result of a monster storm, but that they may not be up to more modest and more likely hurricane.
This is like allowing people to fly on a particular model airliner after one of them had its wing fall off in minor turbulence.