Experts Say Faulty Levees Caused Much of Flooding

Washington Post ^ | Sept. 21, 2005 | Michael Grunwald and Susan B. Glasser

[CobaltBlue]

Louisiana's top hurricane experts have rejected the official explanations for the floodwall collapses that inundated much of New Orleans, concluding that Hurricane Katrina's storm surges were much smaller than authorities have suggested and that the city's flood- protection system should have kept most of the city dry.

With the help of computer models and visual evidence, scientists at Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center have concluded that Katrina's surges did not come close to overtopping those barriers.

* * * * Ivor van Heerden, the Hurricane Center's deputy director, said the real scandal of Katrina is the "catastrophic structural failure" of barriers that should have handled the hurricane with relative ease.

"We are absolutely convinced that those floodwalls were never overtopped," said van Heerden. * * * * Tuesday, researchers showed numerous indications that Katrina's surge was not as tall as the lakefront's protections. They showed a "debris line" that indicates the top height of Katrina's waves was at least four feet below the crest of Lake Pontchartrain's levees. They also pointed out how the breached floodwalls near the lake showed no signs of overtopping -- no splattering of mud, no drip lines and no erosion at their bases. They contended that the pattern of destruction behind the breaches was consistent with a localized "pressure burst," rather than widespread overtopping.

Their model indicates that most of the surge around the lake and its nearby canals was less than 11 feet above sea level, and that none of it should have been greater than 13 feet. The Army Corps's flood-protection system for New Orleans was designed to handle surges of more than 14 feet above sea level.

"This should not have been a big deal for these floodwalls," said oceanographer G. Paul Kemp. There's no way this should have exceeded the capacity."

[bayourant]

First of all its way too early to tell what caused what wether its flood wall runaway barges poor materials etc I really think done of that was the major cause

[Aracelis]

Oh, you're just here to defend Cobalt?

Wow...that's really a leap. Would you possibly consider that I'm advocating common sense? No, I guess not.

[bayourant]

From what I heard of victims accounts of what happen I think nightline might have hit it on the nail tonight

[A Jovial Cad]

I'm not a lawyer, but I have given you my "prescription" for inner peace. What you do with my suggestions is up to you

Either you're unable to grasp the grammatical import and dictionary definitions of the words you type, or you truly think everyone else is unable to.

It's one or the other: either you're an ignoramus, or a jerk. Which?

[Aracelis]

First of all its way too early to tell

Absolutely correct. The final report will tell us much, then we will know how to proceed.

[Aracelis]

It's one or the other: either you're an ignoramus, or a jerk. Which?

Have you quit beating your wife yet?

[bayourant]

The big question will be what caused the 17th canal to break I think the first flooding in new orleans east and st bernard was a combination of bad decsions we made as well as the corp and the "perfect storm"

[A Jovial Cad]

First of all I not sure theres going to be alot to sue for because this cities are bankrupt and the potential clients are huge at there. Not like everyone is going to get a huge windfall here. I think most people want to rebuild and someone will have to fight the insurance companies when they welsh

You're either loaded, or channeling the ghost of William Faulkner. I tend to believe the former.

Sober up, then get back to me. Thanks.

[Aracelis]

The big question will be what caused the 17th canal to break I think the first flooding in new orleans east and st bernard was a combination of bad decsions we made as well as the corp and the "perfect storm"

We will find out. I am very interested because levees have been constructed all along the Mississippi. I do not want to see another disaster of this magnitude (or worse) happening elsewhere.

[A Jovial Cad]

Have you quit beating your wife yet?

Have you? Because we all can plainly see that you're still lying...

[DB]

I'm glad it worked out for you, assuming that was the true situation.

Close friends owned and lived on 60 acres for most of their lives. They were getting old and wanted a simpler life so they sold their property and moved into town.

They sold it to one of the next-door neighbor's kids (shared property line) who also grew up there. They bought at what was then the peak of the market (back around 1990). The seller (our close friends) carried the loan.

A few years go by, real estate prices had dropped about 20%, and the buyer decides to sue saying they paid too much for the property because it was in a "flood zone".

You see, the seller sold it to the neighbor (which happens to also be a Realtor) without using a Realtor themselves and didn't fill out a California Real Estate disclosure form. He didn’t know it was needed or required. He was selling the property to a trusted neighbor that dealt in property that grew up next-door and already knew everything about the property.

The flood claim was that water was flowing into their house when there were heavy rains. The house is a small old block house. The value is the 60 acres of beautiful forest in central California not far from the coast, not the old house. There’s a small creek in front of the house coming down the side of the mountain that the house is on that requires maintenance to keep it cleaned out. They didn’t do it.

They go to court. Our friends don’t want to call the neighbor’s parents or other children or even other neighbors as witnesses to say that it isn’t in a flood zone and that they were fully familiar with the property before they bought it or that its never had a flood problem before.

They assumed justice would be done.

They didn’t want to be rude...

Meanwhile while all this is going on the buyer stopped making payments on the loan the seller carried. A year or so later the judge rules in the plaintiff's favor and reduces the debt the buyer has to repay the seller by hundreds of the thousands of dollars (something like 40% of the total sell) and doesn’t make him pay the missed payments.

Our close friends had to file for bankruptcy and sell many of their possessions so they could keep their house where they retired. The house they built was based on what their retirement income should have been.

Their life was basically ruined. The stress and pain had changed them forever. They aged before our eyes. The husband died about five years later.

Did I mention that the plaintiff’s lawyer is also the sister of the buyer?

So that’s just one more happy court room experience where "justice" was being done that I've been witness to.

So does that "trump" you? I don't know. And I'm not so arrogant to say it does. But I do know that that isn't an uncommon experience. And a prime example of "free lunch" and "justice" which was the subject of my reply to the person making the high minded claims.

[bayourant]

Grea t response. First its very hard to sue a city here. I guess in theory If I won I could get a writ of attachment on a garbage truck but that rarely happens. I have sued cities where they were at fault and sometimes they just dont have the money. Your client sort up the creek. If you havent noticed NOLA is broke are we going sue them all the parishes are broke they have no tax base they are having to have the state pay payroll and the state going to be broke pretty soon unless blanco gets her butt in gear and call a special session and cut wasteful and unnecessary spending

[Aracelis]

Have you? Because we all can plainly see that you're still lying...

ROFLMAO!!! Thanks for the great laugh, I really needed it because I've been dealing with folks like you all day. Have another scotch and soda...it'll help.

[bayourant]

I think it was storm surge myself. The president of st bernard was on and said it was a tidal wave basically coming out of lake borge. I couldnt believe the video right after there was film showing water at the roof of walmart. Thats no levee break

[Aracelis]

So does that "trump" you? I don't know. And I'm not so arrogant to say it does. But I do know that that isn't an uncommon experience. And a prime example of "free lunch" and "justice" which was the subject of my reply to the person making the high minded claims.

There are jerks everywhere, so the advice of "Let the buyer beware" is still applicable. If ya ain't happy with one, consult another.

[bayourant]

I know god doesnt everyone have horror stories of their encounters with the police does that make all policemn bad no of course not. Do people have horrible encounters with car salesmen yes does that make all car salesmen bad no I mean good gosh oh I guess Our soon to be snew chief judge of the supreme court is bad too since he is a lawyer

[DB]

"Much better to be ripped off by a federal contractor, I understand."

You'd have a point if the plaintiffs had paid for the "federal contractor" to perform.

But the fact is, you are affectively suing the people who paid the federal bill and now are demanding more. The taxpayer.

[bayourant]

well good night usually I am in the mood to defend against such rants but I spent all night trying to convince my buddies not to cancel plane tickets and travel plans for our big tailgate at lsu. Hopefully rita wont make a idiot of me. Geaux tigers

[DB]

It was the seller not the buyer that got screwed.

It was the courts via lawyers that caused the actual damage to the seller.

The buyer was just looking for easy money. He should have been shown the door. But instead the courts took it from an innocent party and gave it to the buyer by force of law causing serious harm.

[visualops]

Did a barge or some other heavy floating object hit the levee wall and damage it?

That did in fact happen. I may not have time to find the articles, if I do I'll post back.