When the Levee Breaks . . .

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Design Flaws and Instant Karma

On the cheap and on the fly, a cluster of malfunctions for all . . . .

<Ain't Pretty>

The massive failures of levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, which flooded the city and caused hundreds of deaths, resulted from flaws at almost every level in the conception, design, construction and maintenance of the region's flood-control system, according to the preliminary findings of investigators.

The Army Corps of Engineers, local levee boards in Louisiana and other agencies failed to grasp warning signs over the last decade that the levees were not as strong as expected, reflecting a cultural mind-set that did not pay enough attention to public safety, according to Robert Bea, an engineering professor at UC Berkeley who is part of a National Science Foundation investigating team.

The team is one of three high-level technical groups investigating the floods that began Aug. 29. A written preliminary report is to be released next week and then presented to a Senate hearing. Although the investigators' work is far from over, some important points have emerged:

? At least two, and possibly three, of the breaches that took down storm walls in the city during the hurricane resulted from design flaws involving weak soil conditions, according to Raymond Seed, a UC Berkeley engineering professor who is leading the investigating team.

? Levees also failed because they were designed and built in the late 1980s and 1990s without adequate safety margins, said Bea, a civil engineering expert. The safety margins, intended to give levees an extra measure of strength, were set far lower than the protective margins typically used for such critical projects as bridges, hospitals and dams.

? The overall architecture of the city's flood-control system, some of which dates back more than 100 years, has created unnecessary vulnerabilities. The long drainage canals that extend into New Orleans from Lake Pontchartrain "are inviting the enemy into the city's backyard," Bea said. The canals should be replaced by underground culverts and pumping stations located on the lake's edge, investigators said.

? Maintenance practices also were lax. The triggering event in the catastrophic failure of the 17th Street Canal may have been the fall of a large oak tree planted at the base of the levee, investigators said.

High winds during the hurricane may have knocked down the tree, causing a large root ball to heave up and undermine the foundation of the levee, according to photographic analysis and eyewitness accounts. The tree's falling started a chain reaction that took out several hundred feet of flood wall. A similar scenario may have played out on the London Avenue Canal.

"It was like uncorking a bottle," Bea said.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also is investigating the levee failures, led by Paul Mlakar, a senior research scientist at the corps' engineering research and development center. Mlakar said his team also was examining whether the oak tree triggered the failure.

"It is a hypothesis that we are looking at," Mlakar said.

Mlakar said he was not ready to release any of his group's early thinking, although he does not take issue with the work done by the National Science Foundation investigators. A third team, organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers, has said little about its work.

Other poor maintenance practices were found along miles of other levees, where burrowing animals created large tunnels that undermined already weak foundations. Maintenance and inspection are the responsibility of local levee boards.

Levee board officials in New Orleans and neighboring Jefferson Parish insisted Friday that the flood walls in their regions were well-maintained before Katrina struck. And they reacted skeptically to the notion that trees growing near the flood walls might have contributed to the breaches during Katrina's violent storm surges.

Orleans Levee District Commissioner Allen H. Borne Jr. said that along the 17th Street levee, maintenance crews kept the barriers and the grounds nearby free of harmful vegetation.

"There were no trees on the levees anywhere," Bourne said.

He also said he doubted reports that nutria, a species of large rodent, might have undermined the levees by digging trenches beneath them. He acknowledged that the animals had been sighted on occasion near the levees, "but only a few here and there, not in the hundreds."

A surge of water estimated at 24 feet ? about 10 feet higher than at the levees along the city's eastern flank ? swept into New Orleans from a bay on the Gulf of Mexico, Seed said, and caused most of the flooding in the city. He said that surge from Lake Borgne resulted in the breaches on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal ? known in New Orleans as the industrial canal.

The industrial canal breaches occurred first, about 9 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day Katrina hit. The second breach occurred at the 17th Street Canal about 4 p.m. The London Avenue levee did not fail until about midnight.

The storm surge swept over the top of the industrial canal and eroded its foundation. But the water was more than two feet below the tops of the walls on the 17th Street and London Avenue canals, Seed said. As a result, the loads were well-within the wall's design, he said.

"The wall sections were designed to carry water to a higher level than we saw," he said. "The wall should not have failed."

Construction defects also may have played a role. Analysis of concrete samples from the 17th Street Canal shows that the levee fractured in ways that suggest the material was substandard.

The defects in design and construction might have been offset had the Corps of Engineers used higher safety margins. In basic terms, the walls were weak and unsafe, Bea said.

Once it calculated the maximum loads a hurricane could impose on the levees and walls, the corps applied a margin of safety 30% higher than the maximum load, according to guidelines published in 2002 and throughout other Army engineering documents.

Such a margin is far below the level engineers typically set for highway bridges, dams, offshore oil platforms and other public structures, Bea said.

A more typical approach would have doubled the wall strength over the maximum expected loads. Such a margin of safety is used for two reasons: uncertainly about the loads and the strength of the wall's construction. "This margin of safety was incredibly low," Bea said.

Engineering expert Ron Hamburger said most engineers for decades had used a more sophisticated design approach called probabilistic design analysis, a field pioneered in part by Bea. This method tries to estimate the probability of failure over time.

Public safety structures now are designed to last an estimated 10,000 years without failure. By contrast, the New Orleans levees may have been designed to withstand 50 to 100 years of natural forces, Bea said.

Beyond the immediate causes of the levee failures, Seed said, investigators are finding that the flood protection system in New Orleans is overseen by a tangle of local, state, multi-state and federal organizations that do not work in a coordinated way.

Along a single levee in one section of New Orleans, Seed said, investigators have found seven overlapping lines of government and private authority, including road agencies, levee boards, railroads and the Corps of Engineers. Such confusion has led to designs that don't always make sense, he said.

"They should rethink the entire flood protection system of New Orleans," Seed said. "It is a real hodgepodge of authority. If there was a coordinated effort, more could be done with less money."

In addition to examining the levee breaches, investigators are looking into whether railroad companies failed to shore up gaps in storm walls where tracks pass through. Those gaps are unprotected and are supposed to be plugged with sandbags during a hurricane. Preliminary evidence suggests they were left open, allowing water to pass unobstructed into the 9th Ward.

The Army Corps and local officials had warning signs that the levee system had shortcomings.

In the case of the soil defects, at least two contractors had warned that the soil conditions were weaker than the corps realized.

But the federal officials failed to heed the warning signs, Bea said, citing a culture that has the same flaws that investigators found in NASA after the Columbia space shuttle accident.

Bea said the corps had "normalized deviance," meaning the corps had accepted as normal deviations that should have warned of impending disaster.

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
That article contradicts itself. First it tells us that state and federal officials had "warning signs" but then attempts to place the blame entirely on the federal government?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That's not hijacking, that's backing it up :D

He backs his stories up about as well as you do, Dave :D :laugh: :p

Yep our Tin Foil Hat Club is pretty tight, the righties haven't been able to penetrate the Tin Foil no matter how high you guys turn up the Brainwashing waves. :D
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Anyone with questions about what happened in NOLA can read the private e-mails of the only FEMA official there at THIS LINK.

They're pretty damning, IMO. I can't see how anyone could ever hope to defend or even attempt to deflect blame from the feds on Katrina. This was really a catastrophic failure on the part of the Bush administration and it happened because of the rampant cronyism and criminal incompetence of the people that George W. Bush brought you.



 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: BBond
They're pretty damning, IMO. I can't see how anyone could ever hope to defend or even attempt to deflect blame from the feds on Katrina. This was really a catastrophic failure on the part of the Bush administration and it happened because of the rampant cronyism and criminal incompetence of the people that George W. Bush brought you.

As usual you attempt to put 100% of the blame on the Feds when the State and Local government deserve at least 50%, if not more.

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This article is much ado about nothing. Everyone knows that when a city is below sea level it is vulnerable to a tidal serge. It was stupid to expect a city below sea level to be safe and it is stupid to blame someone else for you living there. It is even stupider to blame the federal government. Stupid is as stupid does. These areas are basically an island surrounded by water with a levy all the way around it. it is stupid to live in such a place.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BBond
They're pretty damning, IMO. I can't see how anyone could ever hope to defend or even attempt to deflect blame from the feds on Katrina. This was really a catastrophic failure on the part of the Bush administration and it happened because of the rampant cronyism and criminal incompetence of the people that George W. Bush brought you.

As usual you attempt to put 100% of the blame on the Feds when the State and Local government deserve at least 50%, if not more.

The feds were responsible the moment the emergency was declared. How can you expect the city to rescue itself when it's just been through a hurricane and a flood? How can you expect the state to handle a catastrophe that affected the most of the Gulf Coast?

When the emergency was declared, ON AUGUST 27, the feds knew they were needed but the failed to respond, even to their own official at the scene, for five days.

How can you or anyone possibly defend that?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BBond
They're pretty damning, IMO. I can't see how anyone could ever hope to defend or even attempt to deflect blame from the feds on Katrina. This was really a catastrophic failure on the part of the Bush administration and it happened because of the rampant cronyism and criminal incompetence of the people that George W. Bush brought you.

As usual you attempt to put 100% of the blame on the Feds when the State and Local government deserve at least 50%, if not more.

The feds were responsible the moment the emergency was declared. How can you expect the city to rescue itself when it's just been through a hurricane and a flood? How can you expect the state to handle a catastrophe that affected the most of the Gulf Coast?

When the emergency was declared, ON AUGUST 27, the feds knew they were needed but the failed to respond, even to their own official at the scene, for five days.

How can you or anyone possibly defend that?



The fed has never been a first responder. State and local are first responders.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BBond
They're pretty damning, IMO. I can't see how anyone could ever hope to defend or even attempt to deflect blame from the feds on Katrina. This was really a catastrophic failure on the part of the Bush administration and it happened because of the rampant cronyism and criminal incompetence of the people that George W. Bush brought you.

As usual you attempt to put 100% of the blame on the Feds when the State and Local government deserve at least 50%, if not more.

The feds were responsible the moment the emergency was declared. How can you expect the city to rescue itself when it's just been through a hurricane and a flood? How can you expect the state to handle a catastrophe that affected the most of the Gulf Coast?

When the emergency was declared, ON AUGUST 27, the feds knew they were needed but the failed to respond, even to their own official at the scene, for five days.

How can you or anyone possibly defend that?



The fed has never been a first responder. State and local are first responders.

And since the first responders were totally inundated by Hurricane Katrina and requesting federal assistance for FIVE DAYS the feds were supposed to respond.

Are you actually trying to say that the federal government shouldn't react in cases of national emergency? Are you excusing their lack of action? Then tell me this, if the feds weren't in charge, why did they refuse to allow others to provide aid? If the feds weren't in charge and had no responsibility, why did they refuse to let rescue volunteers, doctors, WalMart supply trucks, volunteer firefighters, and volunteer morticians in?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BBond
They're pretty damning, IMO. I can't see how anyone could ever hope to defend or even attempt to deflect blame from the feds on Katrina. This was really a catastrophic failure on the part of the Bush administration and it happened because of the rampant cronyism and criminal incompetence of the people that George W. Bush brought you.

As usual you attempt to put 100% of the blame on the Feds when the State and Local government deserve at least 50%, if not more.

The feds were responsible the moment the emergency was declared. How can you expect the city to rescue itself when it's just been through a hurricane and a flood? How can you expect the state to handle a catastrophe that affected the most of the Gulf Coast?

When the emergency was declared, ON AUGUST 27, the feds knew they were needed but the failed to respond, even to their own official at the scene, for five days.

How can you or anyone possibly defend that?



The fed has never been a first responder. State and local are first responders.

And since the first responders were totally inundated by Hurricane Katrina and requesting federal assistance for FIVE DAYS the feds were supposed to respond.

Are you actually trying to say that the federal government shouldn't react in cases of national emergency? Are you excusing their lack of action? Then tell me this, if the feds weren't in charge, why did they refuse to allow others to provide aid? If the feds weren't in charge and had no responsibility, why did they refuse to let rescue volunteers, doctors, WalMart supply trucks, volunteer firefighters, and volunteer morticians in?

As I recall it was the state goverment that was refusing to allow aid in. It was not until FEMA was created in the 1970 that the fed was involved with such natural diasters.

FEMA without a doubt had trouble responding to katrina, but the state and local goverment had a complete lack of leadership as well.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison


As I recall it was the state goverment that was refusing to allow aid in. It was not until FEMA was created in the 1970 that the fed was involved with such natural diasters.

State governments as well as city government and the people who were on my TV set begging for water, food, and rescue weren't refusing to allow aid in. FEMA was.

And I'd like to remind you that this is 2005, thirty-five years since 1970. And that FEMA was running like a finely tuned machine under Clinton when Bush turned it into a repository of incompetent cronies and destroyed its ability to respond.

Blowing several hundred billion dollars on an unwinnable war in Iraq did little to help matters either.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison


As I recall it was the state goverment that was refusing to allow aid in. It was not until FEMA was created in the 1970 that the fed was involved with such natural diasters.

State governments as well as city government and the people who were on my TV set begging for water, food, and rescue weren't refusing to allow aid in. FEMA was.
And where was the state and local goverment on this? Why was the superdome not better stocked? Why did the state not utilize the 8000 school buses that exist inside the state? Why did teh state not evac NO to baton rouge where the situation was better?

There was much the state and local could have done without the aid of the fed.
And I'd like to remind you that this is 2005, thirty-five years since 1970. And that FEMA was running like a finely tuned machine under Clinton when Bush turned it into a repository of incompetent cronies and destroyed its ability to respond.

Blowing several hundred billion dollars on an unwinnable war in Iraq did little to help matters either.


Clinton's fema also had more than one occasion where is was very slow to respond.
 

slyedog

Senior member
Jan 12, 2001
934
0
0
bush built the levees and starved the people of NO? not the feds fault, only the fault of bush? what a fool this bbond is.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Anyone with questions about what happened in NOLA can read the private e-mails of the only FEMA official there at THIS LINK.

They're pretty damning, IMO. I can't see how anyone could ever hope to defend or even attempt to deflect blame from the feds on Katrina. This was really a catastrophic failure on the part of the Bush administration and it happened because of the rampant cronyism and criminal incompetence of the people that George W. Bush brought you.

Lets see. How does this logic go? Swimmer disobeys "No Swimming" signs. Goes way out. Realizes he/she is drowning. Calls for lifeguard. Lifeguard swims out and valiently saves said DS swimmer. Swimmer blames lifeguard for being sooo slooow. All lifeguards fault. Sort of like Democratic Louisiana leadership completely failing and then whining about how slow FEMA was.

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: slyedog
bush built the levees and starved the people of NO? not the feds fault, only the fault of bush? what a fool this bbond is.

Interesting that Bond criticizes Bush for "invoking 9/11" yet every time a thread like this comes up (or most anything else) he resorts to the old "...the war in Iraq hasn't helped..."

We aren't discussing the war in this thread, Bond. Get your head out of your arse.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: charrison


As I recall it was the state goverment that was refusing to allow aid in. It was not until FEMA was created in the 1970 that the fed was involved with such natural diasters.

State governments as well as city government and the people who were on my TV set begging for water, food, and rescue weren't refusing to allow aid in. FEMA was.

And I'd like to remind you that this is 2005, thirty-five years since 1970. And that FEMA was running like a finely tuned machine under Clinton when Bush turned it into a repository of incompetent cronies and destroyed its ability to respond.

Blowing several hundred billion dollars on an unwinnable war in Iraq did little to help matters either.
FEMA was running like a finely tuned machine under Clinton?

Way to revise history.

FEMA Criticism

The Hurricane Floyd disaster was followed by what was judged by many to be a very slow Federal response. Fully three weeks after the storm hit Jesse Jackson complained to FEMA Director James Lee Witt on his CNN program Both Sides Now, "It seemed there was preparation for Hurricane Floyd, but then came Flood Floyd. Bridges are overwhelmed, levees are overwhelmed, whole towns under water . . . [it's] an awesome scene of tragedy. So there's a great misery index in North Carolina." Witt responded, "We're starting to move the camper trailers in, It's been so wet it's been difficult to get things in there, but now it's going to be moving very quickly. And I think you're going to see a -- I think the people there will see a big difference over within this next weekend!"
A hurricane and a flood followed by a slow FEMA response. Doesn't that sound familiar?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
All of our city, state, and of course our federal governments are as inept as they are corrupt. If this surprises anyone, then happy 10th birthday to you.