Talk:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies (New Orleans)

Reason for creation?

I understand that this article may have been created in response to the criticism that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies was becoming too NOLA centric. If so, that is a good idea. At the same time, as this article increases in scope, the NOLA issues in the other article should become more summarized.

Coatrack

As this article stabilizes, please ensure that it is not just a coatrack for bashing the Corps of Engineers but genuinely represents a neutral point of view on the subject. As such, it should discuss some or all of the following:

• why there are controversies
• alternate points of view
• background on how the various controversies got to where they are today
• statistics that represent both sides of the topic
• the 50+ year history of events and decisions that brought us to today
• involvement from state and local officials and prominent people in addition to the issues with the Corps of Engineers
• financial considerations
• planning considerations

and so forth.

The problems in New Orleans are real. However, they are not solely the fault of the Corps of Engineers. This article needs to avoid being just an attack vehicle on the Corps of Engineers. This article can provide valuable insight to people wanting to learn about the hows and whys of the Katrina disaster; however, in order to do so, it must, in accordance with WP:NPOV remain balanced and present all sides of the problem. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I read a late 1990s Corps of Engineering report to FEMA about New Orleans. They predicted Katrina. Since the French owned New Orleans in late 17th century every engineering report has recommended MOVING New Orleans 50+ miles north over any levees etc as safer and cheaper in the long run. Defeated by traditions and populace and current expense versus indeterminate future costs.

Also all Corp plans are ultimately limited by funding. Its a given X dollars do the best you can situation. Internally to government the Corp has always said that protecting New Orleans against Cat 4 and Cat 5 Hurricanes was impractical. Further solid Cat 3 protection was not economically practical due to construction costs of over $1 Trillion dollars and annual maintenance of potentially as high as $150B. Well now we have spent $750B in new construction but not sure how much ongoing maintenance is taken out of that. 

The Corp internal reports still say Katrina disaster will most probably happen again even with new levees. One problems is that even if levees hold and are not over topped... lifting forces by storm surges will likely cause hydraulic blowouts behind the levees. Remember New Orleans floats on a thick soil mat over the main part of the Mississippi River flowing underground. Remember New Orleans sits in a bowl in that soil mat over 60 feet below sea level at some points and getting deeper every year as building weights increase.70.114.136.69 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion copied from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies

Main Articles, Expansion Articles, Summaries, etc.

I would like to discuss the editing of this (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies)article, as well as editing of the related article that is solely focused on New Orleans controversies. Just to clarify: the article on New Orleans controversies is meant to allow an expansion of the issues related to New Orleans, not for the removal of New Orleans issues from the main article on civil works controversies. The New Orleans controversies are significant to the subject of civil works controversies. I would even say that the New Orleans issues are the most visibly emblematic of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies, as demonstrated by the fact that even the overview is mainly focused on New Orleans. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of an additional article as I understand it is two-fold: (1) to allow an expansion of a portion of the current article's topic and (2) allow summarization of the topic in the initial article so that it does not become too cumbersome. As noted above, this article seems/seemed Flood control and NOLA centric whereas there are a lot of controversies nationwide. For example, this article is an expansion of information that is summarized in the United States Army Corps of Engineers article which contains a summary of what is here.

When I first started editing this article, there was nothing about beach nourishment, water supply, environmental regulation, etc. And, while they aren't flattering for the Corps, I added them in because there are a LOT of controversies. And many of those were around a long time before Katrina. Katrina by its sheer size and impact brought the flood control issue and New Orleans to the forefront.

So, having an article on New Orleans is great because it helps to make this article less NOLA centric as well as allowing a summary (rather than detail) here. Anyone who wants more info on NO can follow through to that article. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

When summarizing and moving information from this main article to the sub-article on New Orleans, please make sure to keep your edits WP:NPOV. Removing only the negative details about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not WP:NPOV. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to balance what I moved, but I did expect you and/or Sheldonville to rebalance if I overedited. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Overview

That brings me to my next point, which is that the overview (now entitled “background”) still needs work. An “overview” is supposed to provide an brief synopsis or summary of what is to come in the main body of the article. The current overview/“background” does not accomplish that. It discusses two subjects – one that revisits the idea of earmarks pork spending (which is mentioned in the introductory paragraph right above the overview), and one that discusses New Orleans. Furthermore, this detail about New Orleans is not even a general introduction to the main controversies currently surrounding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the New Orleans vicinity, but rather it is a reference to a past decision-making process that is barely discussed in this article. I created a section about that past controversy in the spin-off article on New Orleans. The detail from that debate should be moved there, and expanded with more information about the context of those quotations. If you wish to provide background, please do in the subject heading of the controversy to which you wish to provide context. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here: (1) The introduction to an article (the stuff before the TOC) is the really same thing as an overview of the article, and (2) There is a need for some background that is necessary for understanding all of the controversies that the Corps is involved in.

You mention above that the intro/overview to this article is mainly focused on New Orleans. Concerning flood control, Sacramento CA (and other places around the nation) is having some of the same issues as NO; NO is at the forefront only because disaster hit there first. I believe that the reason that this article's overview is mainly focused on NO is because it was written by someone deeply affected by the events in NO. However, the intro should NOT be mainly about NO and so it should be edited accordingly. This would, I think, be an incremental improvement to the article. That is not to say that NO should not be mentioned at all in the intro because most people currently associate NO with USACE controversy. When disaster eventually hits Sacramento, it will become the whip to beat USACE with then. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

Lastly, in response to your (Don'tKnowItAtAll's) previous discussion post, two things: 1. I would suggest that you consult legal counsel on the general notion of conflict of interest if you are confused as to why this is important part of this article. Problems arise when the proper measures are not taken to avoid, or at least fully disclose, all potential conflicts of interest. This is standard legal procedure in most all professions, meant as a safeguard to the integrity and credibility of the parties involved. The conflict of interest questions in the studies mentioned are an integral part of the controversy, and a recurring theme among the peer reviews. This makes the issue of conflict of interest one of the most important part of the controversies page - anything but a red herring. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I wholely agree that real (and sometimes perceived) conflicts of interest are a problem. What I was trying to say is that

• overall composition of investigating bodies is important,
• former employees may or may not have allegiance to their former employer,
• that the foremost experts in a topic may well, in fact, be employees of an agency under investigation and may have been on a panel just for that reason and not because they are going to guide the discussion,
• etc.

My comment about red herrings was not about conflict of interest (because it IS important) but rather concerning the statistical interpretation of participants, findings, etc. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

2. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was the agency responsible for building the levees, by federal mandate. It is the Corps that is responsible for the design and construction of any project is authorized by congressional appropriation – the standard cost-sharing procedures do not alter that responsibility. Once the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity flood protection project was authorized, it was the responsibility of the Corps to design and construct the flood protection as specified in the appropriations bill. Failure to design and build adequate structures cannot be blamed on anyone else. While there are some noble individuals who have been forthright in admitting fault, those who wish to shirk blame for past mistakes are doomed to repeat them in the future. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is where we start to disagree. The Corps builds things at the direction, and within the parameters established by, Congress. Congress is influenced by their constituents. And Congress often -- despite authorizing a project -- will limit appropriations therefor so that they can play both sides. As LTG Heiberg's "blame it on me" letter to the media indicated, there was significant local opposition, litigation, etc., in NO to what the Corps had proposed/designed. At the same time, as a history of the projects' development shows, as problems became known -- sometimes based on new information -- there was consultation with the locals as to how to proceed. In most cases, the overall consensus was to continue marching on because it would otherwise jeopardize the future of the projects.

And, that also includes issues about funding. Cost sharing procedures are ABSOLUTELY part and parcel of the process. The Corps is legally -- and constitutionally -- prohibited from moving a project forward (or spending any funds outside of actual appropriations) if the funding mandates imposed by Congress are not met. This includes local participation.

And, in many cases, while the projects were deficient based on updated understanding of the needs, doing something was almost always better than doing nothing or going back to the drawing board. Incremental improvement provides incremental protection.

You would be right in saying, however, that does not -- nor should not -- absolve deficient construction. You would also be right in saying that actual bad engineering is not excusable. But you also have to look at the information and knowledge AVAILABLE at the time the work was proceeding (and not what is known in 2005-8) in order to classify something as bad engineering.

So, it is disengenuous to say that the sole responsibility for the Katrina disaster lies with USACE. It lies with every single person involved in every single decision over the last 60 years. Much of that, by default, does in fact go to the Corps. So, I wholely agree with you that those "who wish to shirk blame for past mistakes are doomed to repeat them in the future". We -- you, me, Congress, Corps, other Federal, state, and local officials, and special interest groups like 'Save Our Wetlands' -- can never morally let another disaster like this happen. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's Keep working on this

Let's keep working on this, while discussing it here, or better yet, on the discussion page for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies (New Orleans). NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I will copy this discussion to the other article. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)