Talk:Hurricane preparedness in New Orleans/Archive 1

older discussion for Talk:Hurricane preparedness for New Orleans

Removed duplicate information

Under the wetlands loss section, I deleted:

"Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune (June 8, 2004): "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us." [1]"

This was already set forth in the section addressing funding of levees.

Whitfield Larrabee 01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of article move proposal

Merge with Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans to form something like New Orleans' preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. Rd232 19:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. This article is far too specific. There is obvious this article came from Hurricane Katrina. The coverage of the hurricane is already excessive; let's not fuel that. It should be merged to form an article like Hurricane risk for New Orleans. By the way, the predictions link is not supposed to be on Hurricane Katrina specifically. joturner 20:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Not to mention the potential for political POV in light of recent blogging efforts. DDerby | Talk 20:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Too specific, and the title is almost outright POV. --Interiot 21:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• This article is exclusively POV. As such, it should stay separate from an academic article (although that article is rather spotty as well). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkarp (talk • contribs) 02:18, 3 September 2005.
  • POV articles should not be kept apart from good or academic articles. Rather, their POV should be neutralized. For this one, the best way to do that is by merging. DDerby | Talk 02:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, in either case the name of the article is just weird. If anything, it should be "Hurricane preparedness of New Orleans", I would think. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of funding documentation

2005

Army Corps request: $22.5 million Bush request: $3.9 million Approved by Congress: $5.7 million

Others argue that it is common for projects like these to be underfunded and even had the remaining 25% of funding requests (1) been filled, it would not have helped New Orleans withstand a category 4 hurricane.

(1) Numerical quantity of funding requests or percentage of funds received out of funds requested? They received less than 25% of what they asked for, it seems. I can't find this figure from the quote above mentioned in any of the links.

Also, why are the projects commonly underfunded, and who is underfunding them? A source should provide more of an explanation.

Let's get the POV/ bias/ slant out of the article.

The following section introduces an editorial slant that is not substantiated and that I believe should be modified.

"Critics of the Bush administration claim that the failure of the levy system may have been the result of federal funding cuts for hurricane and flood control projects due to the cost of the Iraq war. This is generally considered to be inaccurate, as there were no plans or proposals in the near term to redesign the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project’s levees to withstand a hurricane greater than a category three, and no credible sources claim that even had all projects proposed by SELA been fully funded it would have prevented the massive flooding in New Orleans." The statement, "this is generally considered to be inaccurate" sets forth the editor's point of view with no source. The statement "no credible sources" is also a point of view editorial comment. I am aware of sources that I believe to be credible that do make such claims. For these reasons, I am going to modify this section to eliminate these opinion references by the editor.

Whitfield Larrabee 01:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, someone beat me to it.

Whitfield Larrabee 01:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans had plenty of budget to fix the levees themselves if they thought they were important. They also had been warned in published scientific studies that a signficant part of the population did not have private transportation, and thus could not evacacuate despite the adequate warning of the hurricanes coming. There was no pre-hurricane evacuation plan by the municipality for these people. Then of course, there is the question of whether the people would have taken advantage of the warning. Many who could have left stayed. One aspect of liberal bias is to make the totalitarian assumption that the highest level of government is reponsible for all planning. Most of the responsibility has to on the the individuals who liberals label as "victims". Did these individual have plans for getting out of the city in time, had they saved money for such a contigency, etc.--Silverback 08:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Elements of truth, but you're introducing your own bias there (blame the victims for being too poor to be able to get out). Also, bringing in political labels like "liberal" to this debate is an excellent way to start pointless acrimonious argument which diverts time and energy from improving the article. As an experienced Wikipedian, you should know better. Rd232 08:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot of liberal bias is so insidious, that you get even supposedly conservative commentators looking to the blaming the federal government, when its response has been quicker than all the preplanning called for.--Silverback 09:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

A lot of conservative bias is so insidious, that people believe that the only bias out there is liberal. Be careful how much of your own POV baggage you bring with you, please. --Dhartung | Talk 11:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Although I tend to be "liberal" myself, much of what you say is true. It is up to the local community and local city to plan for these things, as they are closest to the situation, and are most familiar with the problems. I live in Switzerland and the responsibility always goes me, my family, my community, my city, my state, my country. All have a part to play. Everyone is responsible. I think the same is true in the States, which was modelled along Swiss lines in the beginning. In this case, I think the City level is largely to be held responsible. To put it at the Federal level, ie the planning, is plain stupid. This is a local issue. Once this disaster happened, and it is too big for the City, then the others can become involved too. Leistung 14:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget that there was forty years to plan for this disaster. How can this article just blame the current administration. Also, I am surprised that the article does not mention costal restoration.

Nobody should blame Bush for the hurricane. What should happen is that Bush should be blamed for a completely incompetent recovery. As I watch the news currently, I am in shock that 2,000 people are STILL in the Superdome after the conditions inside the building look worse than third-world. Five days for food and water. Harry Connick Jr. got into New Orleans. Water couldn't. Great job, guys.--Y2Kevbug11 12:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

This article is not about the recovery, which was mainly caused by the lack of communication between the different groups on the ground. But, this article is not about this. It's about the 40+ years we had to solve this problem, but didn't.

Chronological order

Does anyone else think that these reports about hurricane risk should be put in chronological order? It would thus be easier to determine how far back this all goes.

I had the exact same thought, and I did so just now. I also reorganized each item to put the date at the beginning of each one, and specified some of the dates. Nightscream 9.4.05. 8:58pm EST.

Bush Quote

As I said, the only reason for featuring this obviously uniformed quote is to gain partisan advantage. It violates NPOV to include it in this article. At least move it to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina and let it be hammered on over there. If there is fault, it lies with the staff that didn't properly brief the President. He can't be expected to personally master the underlying causes for every potential disaster in advance, or nothing except CYA would be accomplished.--Kbk 17:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Further, on August 28, before Katrina struck, check this:

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.[2]--Kbk 20:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

international perspective nee policy reversal in 2003

Beyond wondering what it is doing in the international perspective section, what is the evidence of a policy "reversal" in 2003 rather than mere budgeting issues? --Silverback 10:47, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Silverback. I guess you are referring to the table on the right hand side of the International perspective section. This has probably slipped down, due to various edits. I managed to move it up a bit. Is all OK now? Leistung 15:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Levee augmentation funding section considerations

Thank you user User:TDC for pointing out the need for greater neutrality in reporting some of the facts regarding previous levy augmentation funding. I have attempted to rewrite this section to present only facts. I also attempted to rewrite the sentence questioning General Schrock's estimate of the 200 year long effectiveness of the levees to hopefully be more NPOV and encyclopedic, per your suggestion. It now only represents documented facts and the obvious questions that these facts raise.

In so far as I know, General Schrock is now the only person in any position of authority that might have reason to know, who claims that he feels that there were no funding problems with the levees that might have caused the problems we now have. Based on his apparently illogical rationale as discussed in this section, it would seem to me that it may be too early to assume as you have stated that no credible sources claim that even had all projects proposed by SELA been fully funded it would have prevented the massive flooding in New Orleans. Apparently several local officials would dispute General Schrock's assessment, so I think it may be too early to make any such generalisations. It seems to me that perhaps we will all have to await the findings of a commission to better know this for sure.

As noted above, the idea that it is generally viewed that (the Bush asministration was not at fault in the area of levee funding) is seen by more than one Wiki editor as also being a statement that is not fully NPOV, and might do better if it had some documentation to back it up.

Should you have any further documentation to prove any of these assertions, perhaps then these assertions would work better.

Take care,

-Scott P. 04:54:58, 2005-09-07 (UTC)

Dear user 214.13.4.151,

          Thanks for your recent edits to the 'Levee funding issues' section of the article. I must say, however, that your statement that 'most experts agree that.... (essentially that the funding cuts under the Bush administration had no impact on the extent of the current crises in New Orleans),' does not appear to have any documentation, so I have tried to express your view with what documented facts are currently available. If you might be able to provide any documentation to this effect, I would appreciate it. As per your suggestion, I have attempted to reword this section to fairly incorporate reasonable questions about how much of the current crisis might be the result of previous administrations vs: the current administration.

Thanks again,

-Scott P. 02:08:06, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

Aerial foto of 37th - 39th street levee needs better description

The link to the arial photograph of the Levee breach does not show a satelite photo of the 17th Street area. It appears to be of the 37-39th Street Area, possibly another area where the levee was breached. For this reason, it seems to me to be misleading. The material that seems incorrect and objectionable to me states: "However, it should be noted that aerial photographs place this breach in a part of the canal levee that is wholly separate from the construction area.[26]" clicking on the link, there is a map function that shows the area of the city at issue. I do not see any indication that the link shows the 17th Street area. Thus is appears that the sentence does not reference the area of canal identified in the preceding sentence. I will hold off on modifying this to see of anyone has any comment on this issue.

Whitfield Larrabee 16:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As I see no comment concerning the seemingly incorrect claim concerning the aerial photo, apparently no-one objects to my evaluation of this claim. Accordingly, I am going to delete the link to the photo and the claim that the photo shows the breach in the area of the 17th Street Canal.

Whitfield Larrabee 03:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete "An international perspective?

This connection on some Dutch commentary not only doesn't fit in this article concerning New Orleans preparedness, it is confusing to read. Only since 1953 were the Dutch tackling the problem of flooding? It's just strange, that some guy says he's surprised at what happened with the levee system in New Orleans and in the paragraph there's a decription of a catastrophe in which twice as many people died ... in a Western country. Also, there is more news coming out about what exactly did happen in New Orleans. As far as I've read, only floodwalls were broken, which for some engineers may have been caused by faulty design or construction. Or from putting the pumps on too early. Anyway, this section of the article is confusing. Whyerd 16:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It has been deleted.

NOLA Emergency plan now offline

I find it quite interesting that the NOLA emergency response plan is no longer available for public viewing on their website.

Has anyone stopped to consider the Rule and Laws in the US Constitution on this matter at all???

Has anyone stopped to consider the Rule and Laws in the US constitution on this matter at all??? Last heard this is the final word on the matter of where responsibility for theses kinds of things lays?

If as is stated and was contended here, the federal government has in anyway the responsible for handling and/or managing the local response, relief, or whatever else of a natural disaster. Then it must be specially stated into the US Constitution of this, for practical proposes, not only of that responsibility but also the powers and rights necessary to carry out this responsibility.

Under the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, often called the States rights amendments, it further clarifies this definition with this text:

" Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"

This means anything not specifically delegated to the United States (the US federal government) and not prohibited by it to the state are reserved to the states such as said.

If the US federal government is to in any way be held reasonable for what happened in New Orleans, Louisiana before or after the natural disaster, show me exactly where in this document it I’ve them the authority, reasonability, and capability to do just that. I hate to say it, but this is pretty new to me, up to this point, Natural disaster has primarily if not almost entirely been the responsibility of the State and Local government to deal with, possibly with the specifically requested help of certain parts of the federal government.

US Constitution Transcript: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

in the Homeland security act bill: it reasserts this basic fact of legal and practical reality in its assumption pages, as it assumes that the governed and/or local officials of such state will all be carrying out their dudes and responsibility thus enabling them to help. Help which holds its legal bases primarily and pretty much only in the fact the congress has the power to tax and chooses the method of spending those funds. As well as in this part of the US Constitution:

" Article. IV: Section. 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

"

This part of the Constitution is very important as is other parts in what is not said, as it required of the federal government to have the permission and the request of the State’s government and actual legal authorities in such events, effecting preventing and/or reducing the possibility of 2 things from happing: 1. The federal government gaining the effective power that would be necessary to make it self a dictatorship, over the entire USA and thus a dictatorship over all together. 2. Federal forces coming into conflict with State forces during an emergency.

Again homeland Security re-emphases this stuff: just look at its actual wording: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0569.xml

http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf

and this is a good reason for that too, This cant be change, this is part of the nature of the USA, it cant be changed, with out actual making this country a federal dictatorship or subject their of. This is part of the piratical nature of the United States System that helps keep it safe and secure!

The Homeland security act nor the patriot act despite what frantic paranoid freak liberals have said, cant change this and of course hasn’t changed this! This is still first and foremost a state and local government responsibility! And it is so intrinsically rooted into our system it cant be removed! Do any responsibility or component state governor or mayor this should go with out saying quite frankly! Because historically it is so vitally important! I’m not trying to blame the victim here, But define who is the victim, is it the people down in Louisiana and New Orleans who’s own Political leaders dropped the ball, or is the people in Washington DC, and the rest of us Americans, several thousands miles away who never actually had the ball legally to start with? But for whom the people of that state are placing the blame for dropping anyway? We will help But we cannot help if your own leaders don’t do their job and let us help!! This American is not willing to scarifies our Democracy and Republic so you can simply elect incompetent and politically partisan State and local Leadership.

If you don’t believe me, you will be the one who will die the next time this happens and it will, again and again, and again until your leaders step up to the plate and elect leaders who will do their jobs. In my mind that s unfortunately the simple yet unavoidable truth. Presidents do not deal with natural disasters, even thou some past president in the past have gone out of their way to have arrogantly clamed the credit for the responds to there of. it was fundamentally wrong and untrue then just as it is still fundamentally wrong and untrue now. The differences is, now people have died as a result of it. Presidents thou FEMA can usual help provide resources to states and local community Upon request, and if possible. But they can not and can never control the situation, the legal authority to do so is beyond federal power in general in the united states of America as illustrated by the United States Constitution. It always was and still is the state and local government that run that show ultimately!

This is why nether Mississippi nor Alabama, nor Texas had nearly as poor a responses. Despite having, the entire resources of the United States being stretched thin.

---

I also don’t understand the commits about being a few days late in accepting foreign aid, as its going to take a few days for that aid to get there anyway I don’t get how that’s relevant at all?

This page is no place for your political rant nor to debate it but having lived through Katrina, I have to say a couple of things back. First is I am sick to death of being bashed. I hate to tell you this but we--with no help from your precious little frat boy in the Oval Office--moved upwards of a million people out of harm's way. Some 85% of New Orleans itself was emptied. You show me just one US city in history that has successfully evacuated 85% of a metropolitan area with barely two days notice (Katrina shifted tracks, I was here, I know when we knew we were in serous trouble). You don't actually have to tell me, I'll tell you: NO ONE has done what we did. It was the single most successful evacuation of a US metropolitan area in history. Period. And you did not help. The Hurricane Pam exercize projected deaths of up to 60,000 in a disaster like this. The total for both Katrina and Rita is about 1,300 deaths. Our local officials should be given medals for saving tens of thousands of lives. Not spit on every other day.

And this idea of the Union not owing us anything is interesting. If that's true, why do we owe you? Billions of dollars flow into the treasury from oil leases off our coast. In exchange, we got defective levees that caused the near total destruction of one of our cities. So you're telling me we have to sit here, pump and refine your oil, let you suck billions out of leases off our coast, but keep our mouths shut and not ask for help in the face of the biggest natural disaster in US history? Is that your idea of the Union? We get to fill your gas tank but if our local resources are overwhelmed by a massive natural disaster, we're on our own? What? We're a colonial possession or something now?

Mississippi did what better? Planned ahead and had Katrina hit an area that's mostly casinos and the beach houses of the wealthy with insurance? I'll tell you one thing they do better, they suck down the federal money better. They're getting nearly half the money coming out of Washington. We had 90% of the damage. They're so "independent" they need half the money. And to do what? There are small, poor communities along their coasts that nobody's paying any attention to.

Texas? Don't make me laugh. They tried moving less than half their population and it was a fiasco. They only thing that saved Perry was Rita turned. If she'd barrelled up the ship channel, you'd be seeing a disaster that'd make ours look like a picnic.

Mark K. Bilbo 00:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

---

---

me: I also don’t understand the commits about being a few days late in accepting foreign aid, as its going to take a few days for that aid to get there anyway I don’t get how that’s relevant at all?

---

This page is no place for your political rant nor to debate it

---

Me: For give me, I’m not debating you I’m stating the Hard Core fact of US law's and how the US system works.

Yeah, right. I'll take you seriously on issues of Constitutional law after you learn to spell.

the Federal government is NOT responsible for being the first responder to Natural Disasters never has been, and Never should be!

Utterly, ignorantly, totally, irrelevant. This is not--and never has been--an issue of "first response." It is not that the state, parishes, and cities told the feds "oh no, things are fine, we got it under control." It is the case that even before Katrina made landfall, our local officials were saying--repeatedly--we would be totally overwhelmed.

What part of "biggest natural disaster in US history" is giving you so much trouble?

Yes I have lived thou Many Natural disasters myself too, Including But not limited to Hurricanes! The US federal government does not and cannot control theses things Like it or not! It’s simply Not legal, nor is it practical! They can help If a specific request is made of them AND if it is possible, but they can not take command and control legally!! Its not in the US Constitution!

Specific requests were made and accepeted. Then the feds failed. That's the truth. And who wants their "command and control" in the first place? They can't even deliver ice. FEMA spent days ordering trucks of ice around the country, in no coherent pattern, never managing to order the trucks to Louisiana, until they finally delivered big batches of it in the Northeast. Nobody asked them to take control. But some help would have been nice. The Coast Guard managed to rescue thousands of people without being "in control." They just showed up and rescued people. Weird huh?

---

but having lived through Katrina, I have to say a couple of things back. First is I am sick to death of being bashed. I hate to tell you this but we--with no help from your precious little frat boy in the Oval Office--moved upwards of a million people out of harm's way. Some 85% of New Orleans itself was emptied. You show me just one US city in history that has successfully evacuated 85% of a metropolitan area with barely two days notice (Katrina shifted tracks, I was here, I know when we knew we were in serous trouble). You don't actually have to tell me, I'll tell you: NO ONE has done what we did. It was the single most successful evacuation of a US metropolitan area in history.

---

Me: Actual I think Houston, Texas did a lot better, you didn’t have 2 days warning you had more like a week,

Katrina was projected to strike the Florida panhandle until Friday before landfall. The track projecting a strike on New Orleans was issued 11pm Eastern on that Friday. Katrina made landfall about 7am Eastern on Monday. It was 56 hours before landfall that Katrina was expected to strike New Orleans. That comes to about two days total of evacuation time in that several hours before landfall, you have to stop evacuation because it becomes dangerous to be outside.

And far as "a week" goes, you really showed your ignorance then. One week before, Katrina didn't even exist. On the 23rd, she was tropical depression twelve.

Don't make me laugh saying Houston did better. They didn't even have contra-flow. They had no evacuation plan. They didn't even try to phase the evacuation. It was a fiasco and they were only trying to move less than half their population. If Rita had powered up the ship channel, there'd be Texans floating in the Gulf from here to Cozumel.

your governor and Mary just refused to evacuated until the last 2 day, despite your “"frat" boy in the oval office” personal calling them on the request of the national weather center to see if he(Your “Frat” boy in the Oval office”) could get Louisiana State and local officials to evacuate sooner. Something they personal has so far been unable to get done.

Again, abysmal ignorance or outright lies. By the time Bush called anybody, we were at least a day into our evacuation plan. The track shifted Friday night about 10pm our time. That is to say we all went to bed thinking Katrina was going to follow Ivan's track. Still, the extreme low lying areas were already evacuating. Saturday morning, we all woke up to the press conference held by the mayors and parish presidents to invoke the next phase of the evacuation plan. The major metro evacuation started.

Max Mayflied of the NWS called SATURDAY NIGHT. He called Blanco, Nagin, and Bush to warn them that he believed that Katrina was going to be "the big one" everyone had feared. The evacuation was already in progress. Bush's entire contribution was to call to say "get those people out of there." Well, we were. And, mind you, requests were made for help during the evacuation. Which requests were turned down. Wasn't that a lot of help? Bush called to say "do what you're doing already, we're not helping you, I gotta go play a guitar now, buh-bye!"

Estimates are that a population of almost 470,000 was reduced to 70,000. You show me another city that has evacuated 85% of its population with two days warning. Otherwise, shut up.

You should learn some history, the last time and only time prior to Katrina a major city was evacuated was during the US Civil war, and I doubt very much, they did it in just 2 days.

As I said, most successful evacuation in US history. No other metro area has evacuated such a percentage in such a short period of time. Had we not worked on our evacuation plan and system the last couple of years, tens of thousands more could have been stranded. Hell, if we hadn't overhauled the system after Ivan, tens of thousands more would have been stranded.

I’m not trying to “bash you”, I’m just telling you the truth, and while your pardoned agenda is determined to blame anyone but the people you elected for your problem, that’s not going to save your life next time, because anyone out side of the state of Louisiana, does not have the Legal authority to do what You needed to do to save your own life’s.

You're not telling "the truth" about anything. You're being lied to or lying yourself or just making things up.

And to be quite frank with you I TOO have had it with you blaming everyone except the people with the legal authority to make things happen(Your State and Local governments) in this.

I know you don’t want to believed or hear anything that mite sound along the lines of not blaming the man whom you call “your “Frat” boy in the Oval office”, But as I have shown you in my post Read the Constitution, read the Homeland security document, READ THE LAWS!!! If you don’t understand this, quite frankly you’re risking your own life at your own expense while living in a hurricane zone!

I'm quite aware of the laws. The Stafford Act was invoked before landfall. That actually made the federal government legally liable for a good percentage of the disaster relief effort. You've shown me nothing. The feds were legally authorized before landfall to provide assistance. The relevant law was invoked while Katrina was still in the Gulf.

Correction: New Orleans didn’t have 1 week, but more like half a week,

Less than 56 hours. In fact, just about 48. "Landfall" is when the eyewall hits land. The outer bands hit hours before that. It wasn't long after midnight Sunday, you could no longer safely drive in the area and people who were still in the city needed to shelter, not try to get out.

and I am not intending to stay that the evacuations and all other aspects given the circumstance. Did perform as well as could possibly have been expected to any reasonable person, I think they all did, but none the less many people for some reason do insist that their was some “massive failure” and this “massive failure” was on behalf of the US federal government, and I’m telling you here, Legally, that’s Not possible! As Dealing with Natural disasters Technical and legally is Not a federal government issue.

If it's not "legally possible" why was it legally possible? The US Coast Guard actually showed up to rescue people while FEMA was trying to figure out where the state of Louisiana was. What? Did they "break the law" saving all those lives? Are you going to have the Coast Guard prosecuted?

If it wasn't "legally possible," why was it that after the national shock at what was being seen on the news, the feds finally showed up? Did CNN coverage of the disaster make the laws change as if by magic?

If it wasn't "legally possible," why was FEMA making promises? They did indeed promise to evacuate the people at the Dome. They kept telling local officials huge trains of hundreds of busses were "on the way." The buses just didn't show up. Until, that is, the news media embarrassed the crap out of the administration. Then, magically, things started to happen.

As a result of this fact which, as I have shown, you can look up yourself by noticing that the US constitution Contains NO powers or responsibility are given to US Federal government, in the area of Natural disaster, or indeed even dealing with domestic problems beyond insurrection, foreign invasion, interstate relation, and other such very limited issues specifically mentioned in the same document.

Natural disaster are Not one of them!

Well then you need to go tell Congress they didn't have the authority to pass the Stafford act and didn't have the legal authority to create FEMA and didn't have the legal authority to assist states with a Bush for governor.

That is the big difference you know: we failed to plan ahead and elect a Bush for governor.

And the reason is despite the fact that the destroyed area may span several states, it doesn’t change the fact that the problem is by nature local and domestic, in terms of civil disorder, property destruction, evacuations, all involving the citizen of individual states and of the United States, and Not being caused by that of a foreign state. A hurricane is Not a foreign nation, it is not a person, nor is it a problem that current technology has enabled us to deal with in a matter of addressing it abroad.

FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency), incase you didn’t know, is basically just a checkbook and administrative origination, that serves the governors and sometimes local leaders in each state as an access point to various federal and/or national resources, at their request.

Except it couldn't even do that.

It does not have the power to conduct rescue operations, enforce laws, executed evacuation, remove debris, ect… The only thing FEMA was created to do, was to help the state coordinate things like the American red Cross, and various federal resources, primarily just the federal government using its power to write checks, and help pay for the after mass whether we the people of the USA think that’s a good idea or not. In addition, FEMA does this Not on its own, but as a tool, which the State government and local governments uses. That’s the only way it can be done legally under this Constitution! A federal declaration of emergency by the President authorizes FEMA, and other federal agencies to be able to provide theses services to the State at the State’s request!

And they failed to do that.

The federal government legal cant on its own set into play a vast independently operated command and control network, and have any effect unless the state and local government authorities who have the actual legal rights to uses it!

Apparently, on their own, they can't even instruct trucks carrying ice to "go to Louisiana."

Lets be clear here, I don’t want the federal government to do what your demanding it be responsible for doing, because I know if the federal government had that power to do just that, the US federal government would effetely have the power of the state government and could in theory make it self a dictatorship.

That's pretty funny given that the White House spent the second half of that week trying to figure out how to get around Posse Comitatus so they could send in federal troops and seize control of New Orleans. It was only after being embarrassed on national and international news that they bothered to deliver food, water, medical supplies, and such as they had previously promised. Until then, FEMA spent most of its time turning away private corporate help. Such as when Tenet tried to evacuate patients and staff from Baptist. FEMA turned the helicopters away. FEMA spent most of its time enforcing contracts rather than coordinating aid.

Oh and doing org charts. Lots of org charts. And looking for good restaurants in Baton Rouge.

Finally, speaking of your tax dollars at work, you know it's costing you, the tax payer, about $130 per square foot to put those cheap blue plastic tarps up on roofs right? It's costing you, the tax payer, three or four thousand dollars per house to put cheap tarps up because there are contractors hiring contractors hiring contractors hiring contractors and lots of executives making bonuses. Oh and those cheap trailers? You're spending millions of tax dollars on trailers that are being parked in huge lots because regulations forbid FEMA from using the trailers FEMA ordered. Oh and a lot of those billions you hear about are going to Mississippi which took one tenth the damage but needs those casinos rebuilt and they planned ahead and elected a Republican governor. Mark K. Bilbo 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"That's pretty funny given that the White House spent the second half of that week trying to figure out how to get around Posse Comitatus so they could send in federal troops and seize control of New Orleans."

Ok lets stick to the truth here and how the American system actually works. the president cant get around Posse Comitatus. what normally is suppose to happen is the state Governor has to take control of the troops, and request reassignment of federal forces to their command, if necessary from the President and do it him or herself. (Note: This makes the assumption there are available federal forces that can be reassigned.) That never happened in Katrina in regards to the state of Louisiana. The governor there had no idea what she was doing and she refused Homeland Securities offer to take over for her and tell her what she needed to do from the get go. (So did the other Governors that were made the same offer.)

The President only has to spend a week or anytime trying to figure out if there is anything he can do, if the Governor of such state refuses to cooperate and or do her job such as the governor of Louisiana was, in this particle incident, in regards to the city of new Orleans. Why is something of a question you will have to figure out on your own, all I can tell you is from what I know there was an election feud between them in the last governors race. I of course have No way to read her mind and their fore have no idea what actually was going on in her head when she made these calls.

In any event Legally this leaves the President with very few if no legal options. Remember the US Constitution gives him No legal responsibility nor power in this matter either. This is purely a State and Local matter as far as the US Constitution is concerned.

The President is already extremely limited in what he is allowed to do under the US Constitution and existing US law as I described and listed above. The only thing he can do then, if he feels he has to help, is have his staff franticly look for some loophole in the law, either Constitutional or legally that would allow him to uses in this particular circumstances to do what he thinks needs to be done.

" It was only after being embarrassed on national and international news that they bothered to deliver food, water, medical supplies, and such as they had previously promised. Until then, FEMA spent most of its time turning away private corporate help. Such as when Tenet tried to evacuate patients and staff from Baptist. FEMA turned the helicopters away. FEMA spent most of its time enforcing contracts rather than coordinating aid. "

I am afraid that is not true, FEMA does not have the authority to turn helicopter away. Nor does it legally have the authority to turn private aid away. FEMA does not even have any kind of control on evacuations period. All FEMA does is by power of their administrators social influences try to direct humanitarian aid organizations such as the Red cross, and the Salvation army. As well as write out checks after the fact to help, pay for this aid. FEMA does not have any legal authority to direct any kind of rescue effort nor can they turn away such rescue efforts. Whoever told you that has to be lying, as that is simply not with in their powers. Those powers belong to the state and local government, and possibly the FAA. I am aware of the Red Cross trying to truck aid into the city, and specifically the super dome, but that aid was blocked by the Louisiana department of Homeland security (State) under the orders from their director and ultimately the governor that they wanted the people to get out of the city not give them any reason to stay. Unfortunately the mayor did not share this plain, or at least had a different idea of it, as he was “waiting for help to get out of the city” while the governor was not letting anything go into the city in that term as she wanted him to get out. Perhaps a miss-commutation between them took place?

"Oh and doing org charts. Lots of org charts. And looking for good restaurants in Baton Rouge. Finally, speaking of your tax dollars at work, you know it's costing you, the tax payer, about $130 per square foot to put those cheap blue plastic tarps up on roofs right? It's costing you, the tax payer, three or four thousand dollars per house to put cheap tarps up because there are contractors hiring contractors hiring contractors hiring contractors and lots of executives making bonuses. Oh and those cheap trailers? You're spending millions of tax dollars on trailers that are being parked in huge lots because regulations forbid FEMA from using the trailers FEMA ordered.

Oh and a lot of those billions you hear about are going to Mississippi which took one tenth the damage but needs those casinos rebuilt and they planned ahead and elected a Republican governor. Mark K. Bilbo 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_preparedness_for_New_Orleans" "

To expect an effect and cheep solution from a large government being asked to rush to perform services not ordinarily asked of it, is like expecting an Elephant to leave no footprints in the mud as it walks across it. Your expectations here are quite frankly unreality. PS why don’t you save us some money and buy the tarp your self, assuming you can find someone who will sell you massive supply’s in a very short time frame. But if you want to expect that of government, that is your business, all I can tell you is you’re asking to be disappointed every time. You want to save a buck, realize their political and if you ask them to give you 300 thousands blue tarps, with in a few days or even a month it wont be cheep. Which is why your always, always, always better off doing it yourself.

-sorry for the political remark, although everything you say here seems to be to be an attempt to politically attack something that is completely Not related to the actual issue and constitutional reasonability’s their of at hand?

Indeed it would seem to me that this entire article is little more than an attempt to “pin the tail on the Donky” and the fact that that practically donkey has nothing to do with the problem legally in regards to US law and practice, doesn’t seem to matter at all to anyone here?

How is it that people expect to learn from the Katrina catastrophe if they don’t bother to read and find out who actually is reasonable for what and when, and what actually is suppose to happen when and how?

It seems to me everything went just fine considering what was happing of a city that is mostly under sea level. Certainly, by past experiences should have been far, far worse. Yes their can always be improvement, and lessens learned is always possible, but what we are talking about here are things like being more insistent. Having US aid pre position such as the FEMA trailers in Arkansas are actually for.

A lot of things can be done in preparation for what mite happen again, it doesn’t necessarily mean that, they will or could have made a difference, or should have been done. For example, while putting the trailers in Arkansas you are moving them up close to a hurricane zone, as so you can get them and other aid to the survivors faster, but on the other hand you are risking their being destroyed by other storms. The same is true of the position and pre position of other resources. In the end it is always possible for you no matter how irrelevant your roll is to improve the way you responded, if you really look into it.

I for one do not see any gain in looking exclusively in to 1 level of government whose roll is the weakest and not even legally connected, to the problems that cost life’s. As being even wise in trying to determine a solution, or how to improve. If there was a failure, that cost life’s, then such failure should be looked into where the reasonability roots from. Not where it does not. That is of course assuming you are not trying to save life’s next time, but rather simply on a political witch hunt, for one particular man regardless of the limit of his or her roll.

As such this situation regarding Katrina makes me feel ill, in that so much energy is being diverted into putting blame where it can do the least possible amount of good, and so little where it can do the most good. It is as if people are putting politics above human life, and it is that about this whole matter, which makes me feel ill.

---

You are a liar.

End of discussion. Mark K. Bilbo 18:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)