L.A. Times Dishonestly Portrays Contents of Video in Which Bush Is Warned About Katrina
The L.A. Times web site is trumpeting a story titled Bush Is Warned on Katrina in Video. I suspect that this will be Page One in the print edition this morning. The story dishonestly reports the facts to try to make President Bush seem like a liar:
The edited video, released by Associated Press, shows Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, briefing state and federal officials — including Chertoff and Michael D. Brown, then director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency — on Aug. 28. Bush was at his Texas ranch and participated by videophone.
Mayfield tells the officials he wants “to make it absolutely clear to everyone that there is potential for large loss of life … in the coastal areas from the storm surge,” and emphasizes that there is a “very, very grave concern” about the ability of the levees that separated Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans to stand up against the storm.
On Sept. 1, Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning America”: “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”
The part of the quotation I have bolded is dishonest in the extreme. It is designed to suggest that Bush was warned beforehand that the levees might be breached — and therefore lied when he said that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.
But the “very, very grave concern” referred to in the video is not whether the levees would “stand up against the storm” (i.e. whether or not they would be breached), but whether they would be topped. Let’s go to the transcript, which (inconveniently for The Times) dispels the dark suggestion that BushLied™. You can read what Mayfield actually said at page 6 of the transcript:
I don’t think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levies [sic] will be topped or not, but that’s obviously a very, very grave concern.
(My emphasis.)
Whether levees were going to “stand up against the storm” — in other words, whether they are going to be breached — is a very different question from whether levees are going to be overtopped by flooding. As John Hinderaker and Dafydd ab Hugh have already observed about the AP story on the video, there is a big difference between the levees being overtopped and the levees breaking. Let me quote Dafydd on the related AP story:
[T]he video footage shows no such warning, either inside or outside the meeting, that Katrina might “breach levees.”
The video shows one person . . . warning that people could be in danger if the levees were “overtopped.” Overtopping is not breaching, as common sense and English as our primary language should tell us.
The distinction is critical, because Bush never said nobody anticipated that the levees might be overtopped. He said nobody anticipated the breach of the levees — a much more serious event.
As I have already said, I believe some people did indeed anticipate the breach of the levees beforehand. I was not pleased with Bush’s statement when he made it.
But this video adds nothing to the story. And the L.A. Times (and the AP) have to completely distort what is said in the video to make it sound like news.
Far from showing us that Bush lied, today’s story tells us that L.A. Times editors and reporters are willing to lie to their readers.
UPDATE: Dafydd’s inaccurate reference to Max Mayfield as a “TV weatherman” in one of the above quotes has been removed with ellipses. I never meant to endorse that part of the quote, but I think it’s better to simply remove it entirely to make that clear.
UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit, Mickey Kaus, Jeff Goldstein, Pajamas Media, and others who have linked the post.
UPDATE x3: Thanks also to Lucianne Goldberg for the link.
UPDATE x4 [3-3-06]: A debate is raging in the comments concerning the distinction between overtopping and breaching, with lefties straining hard to equate the two, but failing. I’m no expert in this area, but from the materials I have seen, it appears to me that overtopping can (but need not) cause an eventual breach, depending on the circumstances. This does not mean that overtopping is the same as breaching — they are different concepts with different consequences, again depending on the particular circumstances of the flooding event. Reinforcing the point is the star of the video discussed above, Max Mayfield, in this NBC report from yesterday:
Today, Mayfield told NBC News that he warned only that the levees might be topped, not breached, and that on the many conference calls he monitored, “Nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened.”
Thanks to commenter MayBee for the link.
UPDATE x5: Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for linking this post.
I’d like to note a New York Times story from September 2:
[O]n Thursday, disaster experts and frustrated officials said a crucial shortcoming may have been the failure to predict that the levees keeping Lake Pontchartrain out of the city would be breached, not just overflow.
. . . .
“We knew if it was going to be a Category 5, some levees and some flood walls would be overtopped,” [Army Corps of Engineers deputy district engineer Greg Breerwood] said. “We never did think they would actually be breached.”
Just more support for the proposition that the L.A. Times’s characterization is garbage. Under any rational reading, a failure to “stand up” means breaching — but that’s not what Bush was warned about.
Even the AP is no longer pretending that breaching and overtopping are the same thing . . .
The Katrina kerfuffle, part deux
The blogosphere is abuzz this morning regarding the story about a ’secure’ (hah!) goverment tape as well as seven days of transcripts obtained by the AP show disaster officials warning the President and Homeland Security head honcho Michae…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 3/2/2006 @ 6:21 am
The “Bush Knew” Conspiracy And Other Thoughts
I saw this last night and decided to look at it some more before commenting. At first you think “well, that’s pretty damning”. But with the media, the number one rule is always “what you see isn’t always exactly what you get”. Let’s just say …
Trackback by Iowa Voice — 3/2/2006 @ 6:46 am
Memo to the slavering ‘gotcha’ gang
Breached is not synonymous with topped. Too bad about, you know, transcripts. See: Patterico Powerline Dafydd ab Hugh…
Trackback by Darleen's Place — 3/2/2006 @ 7:19 am
[...] It ought not be a surprise that the media are going to look for stories they can use to trash President Bush. As Sis noted, Powerline and Wizbang and Patterico and Dafydd ab Hugh all do good jobs explaining why this story is a non-story; I certainly don’t need to try to do it further. [...]
Pingback by Common Sense Political Thought » Blog Archive » Promoting fluff, while ignoring news — 3/2/2006 @ 7:30 am
I still fail to see why Bush was playing air guitar in San Diego on the morning New Orleans was drowning though.
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 7:56 am
I still fail to see why Ray Nagin was playing at whatever he was playing at on the morning unused New Orleans buses were drowning.
Comment by Laura — 3/2/2006 @ 8:06 am
Because Nagin is an idiot. So what’s your excuse for Bush?
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 8:19 am
What is wrong with the media? Why are they so sloppy and loose with their facts? And why is “getting” the President so much more important to them than doing something in depth and useful that can help the country? Is that too naive of me? I have now come to believe that the greatest danger our country faces is the loss of a truly legitimate press.
Comment by Florence Schmieg — 3/2/2006 @ 8:21 am
“But the “very, very grave concern” referred to in the video is not whether the levees would “stand up against the storm” (i.e. whether or not they would be breached), but whether they would be topped.”
Were the levees stretched? You know, like the point you’re trying to make?
“The video shows one person — a TV weatherman, not a person in the presidential emergency briefing, as AP tries to make it appear — warning that people could be in danger if the levees were “overtopped.””
“TV weatherman” is dishonest. That is a person in the briefing. Its the director of the national hurricane center. Did Daffy or hindraker watch the video? The guy is identified! [I think that's a good point, Actus. I never meant to endorse that part of Dafydd's quote; I quoted him for the distinction between overtopping and breaching levees. Still, I think I need to make that clear. Accordingly, I have removed that portion from the quote with ellipses and done an update to explain what I have done. The link is still there to Dafydd's piece for anyone who wants to see his original quote and criticize him on that basis. -- Patterico]
You people are pathetic.
Comment by actus — 3/2/2006 @ 8:24 am
The levies didn’t break because of how the president ‘felt’ about their security. It was a big storm. Those in the media attempting to link the president actions with the outcome seem to believe that our president has superhuman abilities. Activities that happened after the storm are another matter, but here too we find people expert at composing words incapable of understanding what it goes in to a massive rebuilding effort. They seem to believe that it largely consists of national dialogues.
Comment by Menlo Bob — 3/2/2006 @ 8:27 am
Is there anyone in America with a TV who wasn’t warned the Hurricane was on the way and NOLA’s levees were at risk? I recall several days of dire predictions and constant warnings.
Democrats Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco obstructed federal efforts to prepare for the impending storm. They failed to implement the disaster plan, and left the dependent poor to fend for themselves. NOLA’s misery is a product of Democrat control of local and state government. Those unused school buses sitting in the flooded parking lot reveal the truth.
Katrina is a clear example of the Democrat Party’s towering incompetence, and proof the MSM will go to any length to blame GWB for Democrat failures.
Comment by Black Jack — 3/2/2006 @ 8:49 am
The original point is the human habitation and gross overdevelopment of one of the most delicate pieces of land on this continent.
The secondary point is the thorough local and state corruption which allowed that mess to take place over decades of time.
Talk to natives in the Gulf, they don’t blame Bush. They see the thing for what it really is. Decades of human folly just begging for fiasco, not unlike building homes on the slopes of Pompeii.
Houston is what it is because of Galveston 1900, when that particular jewel of the future was hurricaned out of economic contention. Houston became the inland Plan B.
Time for New Orleans’ Plan B, not New Orleans redux.
Comment by Laura — 3/2/2006 @ 8:50 am
“Still, I think I need to make that clear. Accordingly, I have removed that portion from the quote with ellipses and done an update to explain what I have done. The link is still there to Dafydd’s piece for anyone who wants to see his original quote and criticize him on that basis. ”
In order to make clear, you remove the fact that he makes a mistake and then leave it as ‘one person’ rather than ‘the director of the hurricane center.’ Great work.
[How did I remove the fact that he made a mistake? Did you read my update? I said he made an inaccurate reference to the guy as a "TV weatherman" -- and the rest of my post already makes it clear who the one person is. Please don't try to mislead my readers. Thanks. -- Patterico]
Comment by actus — 3/2/2006 @ 9:14 am
You’re talking to a native of the Gulf. No one here blames Bush for the hurricane, nor even the levees failure (completely preventable btw). Most people around here do view Bush as an idiot however.
Hell-forget the days after the storm. If you think Bush is effectively managing your FEMA tax dollars right this very minute, you are grossly mistaken.
Blue roofs, cruise ships, debris contracts, hotel rooms-it’s one fiscal horror story after another.
As for your point on Pompeii-whatever. It is what it is. Galveston is still there with plenty of federally flood insured property right on the beach. And Houston itself is quite capable of being wiped out by a hurricane. The next season is less than 100 days away, and New Orleans still has no levee protection whatsoever. Should be fun.
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 9:16 am
btw, Martin, you fail to make the distinctions between levels of government - local, State and Federal. Feds are last, exactly as it should be.
If you want your top-level Government to think-and-do everything for you, there are definitely countries where you can go to live. China, North Korea, Cuba et al. By all means check it out. Yeah, they’ll be there for you when your rice paddies overflow with chems and sewage and your back is permanently bent from labor.
Enjoy.
Comment by Laura — 3/2/2006 @ 9:31 am
The Federal government is still mismanaging the Katrina disaster… and the buck stops where? Not with the LA Times.
Comment by D'Orly — 3/2/2006 @ 9:42 am
“If you want your top-level Government to think-and-do everything for you, there are definitely countries where you can go to live. China, North Korea, Cuba et al.”
Cuba is actually quite competent in handling hurricanes.
Comment by actus — 3/2/2006 @ 9:44 am
Nice non sequitur, you brainless cow. I deal in reality, however.
Are the local or state governments in charge of FEMA? Hint stupid, the answer is no. Yet FEMA is on the ground right now in Louisiana and Mississippi, still failing miserably-(unless their mandate is to waste money, in which case it’s a smashing success)
Did you know FEMA actually trucked ice to Portland Maine in the days after the hurricane?
Did you know that right NOW the federal government is prosecuting the Sheriff of Forrest County Mississippi for commandeering a FEMA ice truck in the days after the hurricane that FEMA had told to go north and await instructions?
[Martin, please tone it down. -- Patterico]
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 9:44 am
Right, Laura. It’s all the fault of socialists, lefties and commies - the South is rife with them, after all.
Comment by D'Orly — 3/2/2006 @ 9:49 am
I saw the video. Has it been edited to show Bush in the worst light possible? And what was he supposed to do about the levees anyway?
Federal contracts for any type of construction work take months to prepare and then the selection process to find the General Contractor will take many more months. It isn’t something that can happen in an instant.
Wouldn’t it be better to eliminate the city to insure such a diaster could never be repeated? The Occupational Health and Safety Act should also come into play here. There is a serious threat to workers and others in the city at the end of the Mississippi River. Eliminate the hazards. It’s Federal law.
Comment by Joe — 3/2/2006 @ 9:53 am
Patterico-I said Bush is mismanaging FEMA and the woman told me to go live in North Korea. But I apologize. To cows. For the comparison.
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 9:53 am
Actus wrote:
That’s true: by having nothing of value, they have prevented having hurricanes destroy anything of value.
Comment by Dana — 3/2/2006 @ 10:07 am
Joe - by the same logic, one could argue that the infiill portions of the San Francisco Bay Area should be eliminated due to earthquake hazards, or that the below-sea-level farmlands of the delta should be abandoned due to levee failure risk.
Neither of those is going to happen, and eliminating New Orleans isn’t going to happen, either; so the use of that idea as a rhetorical device is somewhat misleading. Like it or not, people live - in large numbers - in places which, absent modern technology, would not be safe for them; and, in general, our society expects government to provide the means to make those areas safe for habitation.
What happened after Hurricane Katrina was a massive failure at all levels of government, which revealed an ongoing failure at all levels of government. Neither the City of New Orleans, nor the State of Louisiana, nor the Federal Government, were adequately prepared for the event (despite it being repeatedly listed as one of the most likely large-scale disasters to happen). They weren’t prepared because almost nobody took the risk seriously.
I find this haunting, because it has a strong parallel in the risks that I face as an urban Californian. Almost nobody takes earthquake risk seriously; few people have supplies to last them for a long interruption in power, water, and gas; and many do not have or are unable to get earthquake insurance. Most of us expect that when the “big one” finally comes, the state and federal governments will step in to manage the crisis. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that it is an error to do that.
I’m also more annoyed at the federal government than the State of Louisiana on this one because I view the Bush Administration to have made dealing with terrorism its raison d’etre … and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina demonstrates that in the event of a large-scale terrorist attack, the federal government won’t be ready. I understand that they’re focusing on prevention, not reaction … but not being prepared to react strikes me as being foolhardy in the extreme.
Comment by aphrael — 3/2/2006 @ 10:08 am
Oh, I dunno, but I have an inkling that it might have a leetle bit to do with the fact that Bush is not the friggin’ mayor of New Friggin’ Orleans.
Comment by Xrlq — 3/2/2006 @ 10:09 am
XRLQ - hey, here’s an idea! Lets get some competent authority to declare New Orleans to have a nonfunctional government and place it under federal receivership for a decade or two ….
Comment by aphrael — 3/2/2006 @ 10:12 am
Let’s see:
Logical conclusion: it’s all George Bush’s fault!
Comment by Dana — 3/2/2006 @ 10:18 am
Aphrael-you are so right. The scariest thing part of that whole damn thing was the loss of a sense of order. No power. No phones. No cell phones. No chance of 911. No government response on any level for three entire days. And this after a hurricane whose approach could be seen on radar days in advance, and whose exact moment of landfall was known.
With an earthquake or terrorist attack that gives no warning, well I hope we all do better…
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 10:22 am
Martin: with all due respect, it seems entirely predictable that in a large-scale disaster there would be no power, no phones, no cell phones, no 911. That’s what it means to be in a large-scale disaster.
That said, the level of the government response was underwhelming. At the end of the day, nobody stepped forward and took charge and made things happen - nobody led. And without that leadership the normal bureaucratic infighting took place instead.
Comment by aphrael — 3/2/2006 @ 10:24 am
Aphrael wrote:
Well, it certainly raises the question of why the taxpayers who don’t live in areas that are subject to disasters of such proportion ought to subsidize the risk for those who do choose to live in such risky areas. Why ought I to be taxed because “many (who) do not have or are unable to get earthquake insurance” have chosenj to live in an area prone to earthquakes? Why should I be taxed because someone else decides to run a stupid risk?
Comment by Dana — 3/2/2006 @ 10:25 am
Aphrael-you missed my point. Of course it’s entirely predictable.
That’s why it shouldn’t take three entire days to get some relief into the disaster area!
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 10:29 am
The fact that the “director of the hurricane center” (as opposed to a TV weatherman) characterized the potential danger as overtopping, not breaching, enforces Patterico’s point.
Comment by eddie haskell — 3/2/2006 @ 10:32 am
Martin - I think you are overstating. There was relief in the disaster area. What is not clear is the extent to which the relief available was less than the amount of relief which could have been available given the infrastructure at the time.
One of the interesting things about the way people respond to this is that there is a group which is predisposed to believe that the federal government did everything in its power to deal with the situation, and there is a different group which is predisposed to believe that the federal government did nothing to deal with the situation, and that both of those groups seem to be operating inconsistently with their general beliefs regarding the efficacy of the federal government. It’s a stunning example of how people’s view of individual figureheads influence their view of large bureaucracies.
I think the truth lies somewhere in between. The federal government did not do nothing; it also did not do enough. The reasons for that are complex, and attempts by both sides to sound-bite them and lay all of the blame on particular individuals (Bush, say some; Nagin, say others) are entirely missing the point.
Comment by aphrael — 3/2/2006 @ 10:35 am
Dana - perhaps we’re starting from different assumptions; if I follow the logic you imply in your post, I end up at the libertarian no-state solution, because taxation is never justified if it provides a greater benefit to someone other than the person taxed than to the person being taxed.
I believe us to be members of a political community, and if the community votes to tax itself for a particular purpose, absent some particular reason to believe that purpose to be illigitimate, I believe the tax to be a legitimate one.
Note that this applies only to taxes imposed through the normal legislative or initiative process; taxes imposed by judges drive me up the wall.
Comment by aphrael — 3/2/2006 @ 10:37 am
Dana - also, with particular respect to earthquakes, since the overwhelming majority of Californians live in areas which have earthquake risk, and since there are well-known problems with the earthquake insurance market, expecting the state of California to socialize that risk is not unreasonable. Everyone has the risk, but only a few will bear the costs at any given time, absent some form of socialization.
That doesn’t per se justify California expecting the federal government to step in and help.
Comment by aphrael — 3/2/2006 @ 10:39 am
24 hours before Rita struck the National Weather Service had it making landfall directly on Houston/Galveston - and local weather boobs were forecasting a 22′ storm surge putting my house under water. Guess what? It didn’t even fooking rain here. That is utterly normal. As anyone that has lived on the gulf coast for any significant length of time knows they are never able to accurately forecast where these storms will make landfall or how strong they will be when they do so.
More people died in the Rita evacuation than had died in the three previous largest Houston area storm events - as documented on the Houston Chronicle science blog. Some things just aren’t under human control.
Comment by Dwilkers — 3/2/2006 @ 10:41 am
No I didn’t. Do you suppose if the MSM weren’t spending all their time playing “get Bush,” we might know about stuff like that? (But I guess “getting” some idiot federal prosecutor doesn’t yield a big enough scalp.)
Comment by Old Grouch — 3/2/2006 @ 10:47 am
Here you go Old Crouch. I don’t know if the Laurel MS TV station is MSM, but they’re on top of it:
McGee hearing delayed; supporters rally
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 11:01 am
Even after the Communist shot puter from the Farm has passed his legacy carries on. Another reason I don’t regret ending my subscription 18 years ago. LAT still prints propaganda as “news”. The good thing is they have seen their mark share drop for almost 2 decades and unlike the front page article on “Big O”. He did not turn it into a big $ maker he turned it into a money loser - Which is how and why the Trib took it over years ago. Bio O’s grandfather mad the LAT a big money maker while he was still on the track team at the Farm. A second example of the LAT printing propaganda as “news” in this one comment.
If the LAT is your onlu source of “news” you have no idea of what is actually going on.
Comment by Rod Stanton — 3/2/2006 @ 11:58 am
“That’s true: by having nothing of value, they have prevented having hurricanes destroy anything of value. ”
Lives too.
Comment by actus — 3/2/2006 @ 12:07 pm
Whats wrong with the media? too many things to mention.
But there is a solution coming:
http://www.makethenewsbetter.com
Comment by jj — 3/2/2006 @ 12:10 pm
Martin
#1 - FEMA is there for AFTER the event. With money. It has no helicopters, troops, buses, trucks, etc. Disaster preparedness and evacuation is the sole responsibility of locals..including “Chocolate City” Nagin and “I won’t give up power” Blanco.
2 - I absolutely love the people who expected the US military to parachute into the Louisanna capitol and take over when Blanco blinked - the same people who constantly think GWB is already a dictator!
3 - I live in SoCal…native Angeleno. And we have always been told to be prepared to be on our own for 3-7 days. When my girls were in school, each school year as parents we had to provide an emergency pack per child (water, snacks, bandaids, etc) that was stored in each classroom (returned to us at end of school year).
But what the heck…the whole “the government owes ME” schtick that is part and parcel of the Left’s raison d’etre is so engrained that the full failure of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY evidenced by Katrina (and I’ll also include the unconscionable MSM coverage that was so breathless in spreading rumors of murder, shootings, lootings that a lot of rescue personnel hesistated in entering the area) still hasn’t be breached.
Comment by Darleen — 3/2/2006 @ 12:42 pm
[...] Check it out. [...]
Pingback by Rathergate.com » The media screwed Michael Brown — 3/2/2006 @ 12:55 pm
I keep wondering, by what measure people are using to consider the hurricane response a “failure”
A city of 1.5 million…
Evacuated 1.2 million before the storm…
The response rescued 70,000 people in the week after the storm…
1077 people died in Louisiana…
We should thank God that things went that well.
Comment by Keith, Indy — 3/2/2006 @ 1:17 pm
Darleen dear-if you check this comment thread the only thing I criticized Bush for after the hurricane is strumming an air guitar in San Diego the same day the hurricane was killing people throughout the Gulf Coast and mismanaging FEMA right now.
I do not believe the government owes me crap. In fact, if they weren’t pissing so much money away down here, maybe I would owe them less.
Comment by Martin — 3/2/2006 @ 1:24 pm
Darleen - I expected the US to parachute in and take over when the city government failed. I think that a short-term emergency takeover is necessary and proper during crises, and that the only things that are required are that (a) power be handed back over to the local government as soon as the immediate crisis has passed, and that (b) normal rules regarding things the state can’t do continue to be enforced.
But then, left-wing as I am, I don’t think Bush is a dictator, so at least in some respect I stand in opposition to your claim.
Comment by aphrael — 3/2/2006 @ 1:31 pm
[...] Check it out. [...]
Pingback by Mark A. Kilmer » The Vid/Transcript and Katrina Preparation — 3/2/2006 @ 1:38 pm
“Disaster preparedness and evacuation is the sole responsibility of locals..including “Chocolate City” Nagin and “I won’t give up power” Blanco.”
This is a lesson of federalism I don’t understand. Why is it the job of a mayor to move his city to somoene else’s city? the job of a government to move people from their state to another state? It seems to me the best place to put the coordination is in the hands of the governmental unit that oversees both the source and destination of the evacuation.
Comment by actus — 3/2/2006 @ 2:02 pm
Re (Re)Thinking Katrina
Patterico looks closely at the LA Times' portrayal of Bush's actions in light of the new "Katrina Tapes":The L.A. Times web site is trumpeting a story titled "Bush Is Warned on Katrina in Video." I suspect that this will b…
Trackback by protein wisdom — 3/2/2006 @ 2:07 pm
‘NOTHER EXAMPLE OF LEFTIES USING CONFLATION TO DELIBERATELY MISLEAD.
I WISH THEY SOLD TV’S AND NEWSPAPERS WITH CONFLATION ALARM - BECASUE THIS IS THE FAVORITE TACTIC OF THE LEFTIST MSM. TAKE THE PORTS DEAL KERFUFFLE - THEY CONFLATE “PORTS AND SOVEREIGNITY AND SECURITY” WITH A CONATINER TERMINAL OPERATION DEAL INVOLVING ABOUT 25 CONTAINER TERMINALS IN 6 PORTS WITH 830 TERMINALS.
IF THEY HAD A REAL CASE OR A RAL PLATFORM I THINK THEY WOULD USE IT.
SO ALL THEY HAVE REALLY PROVED - ONCE AGAIN - IS THAT THEY ARE INTELLECTUALLY AND MORALLY BANKRUPT.
Comment by reliapundit — 3/2/2006 @ 2:11 pm
Issues abound with this for sure. Some things leap out at me, though, regarding order of business and just how you go through the matters associated with stationing, logistics, etc., relative to any situation/requirement of this magnitude.
The order of business goes from local to federal, and the feds are there to provide assistance, not provide command and control of the situation. That responsibility belongs at local levels (includes state). The President did in fact declare disaster area early (NOLA), even though Katrina did divert from original predicted path (landfall west of NOLA, for example). Second, the President cannot simply (in peacetime or for peacetime activities - this event falls into that category) activate the National Guards from the states. In these type events, that responsibility belongs to each governor, which is fully in line with the US Constitution. That The respective governors can then offer their forces up for assistance. However, in the case of the LA ARNG, Gov Blanco (not the Pres) had full responsibility to activate and chose to delay that effort. Once other states’ governors offer up the assistance, it is still up to the affected locale to determine when and where to use these assets. They canb request that the Pres federalize their troops, and then all can fall under the same chain of command. However, they are still going to look for direction from someone such as Gov Blanco. Of course, they - military - can and will make recommendations for appropriate stationing and use.
As to logistics/stationing, it would have likely proven fruitless for units, personnel, FEMA organizational assets, etc. to be placed in the direct path and at the immediate coastal area as those asses would have faced destruction and or other manner of loss. While the storm is moving and after the storm passed it would then be appropriate to evaluate and ascertain where best to move support elements. Some of the issues associated with that include cleared routes, washed out bridges, unstable bridges, etc, especially for heavy vehicles. That simply doesn’t happen in the blink of an eye; it takes time and physical efforts (including use of air assets). Safe routes of travel/march are critical for effective support. Again, so much of the priority of effort for this has to come from the local level (states in this case), and it will be based on available or lack of available communications means. Maybe one lesson to learn from this is to have available cell phones and other communications means capable of satellite coverage. Those won’t rely on cell towers that may have been lost in affected areas. Also, movement of supplies into affected areas (and that means ALL of the affected area) after an event of this magnitude will take more time than many believe would be the case. That is one of the reasons that taking personal responsibility to ensure you can be self sufficient for 72-96 hours (as is always recommended under every disaster plan recommendations I have seen) is paramount. AND New Orleans was not the only place affected, as others have pointed out. In fact, the National Guard was in NOLA in significant #s within 3 days, as opposed to 5 days for Hurricane Andrew in Homestead area in FL in 1992 (which didn’t have the significant flooding problems as NOLA did). So there was some progress there.
Also, it would have been great to be able to use air assets to drop in supplies, etc. but the air assets were being used (in a very busy and potentially very dangerous air space control environment) to rescue people. A good many people personally decided to remain in their homes, despite warnings. That is their fault, even though good people worked very hard to work as quickly as possible to bring relief.
I think that blame does exist on all levels, but when lookinfg at this we must all be very aware that this was the worst natural disaster to hit this ountry and over a very large area. That means that it will take time - and a lot of it - to get things back to a real semblance of normalcy. The key now is to look at what we can glean from this as real lessons learned and work as quickly as possible to incorporate/implement changes into our operating environments. There will be tough roads ahead on doing that, unfortunately.
Sorry for the long post, but I hope this can help to the understanding of various issues/matters associated with this event - at least from one person’s perspective.
Comment by MikeW — 3/2/2006 @ 2:21 pm
Yep, I’m convinced. When Bush got this news, he should have stood up and canceled the Hurricane. What a jerk!
Comment by Defense Guy — 3/2/2006 @ 2:24 pm
Actus:
Actus, let’s get a couple of things straight.
First, I was not being “dishonest” in misidentifying Max Mayfield as a TV weatherman; I simply made a mistake. Like most leftists, you have a very, very difficult time understanding the distinction… when someone to your right makes the mistake, that is. (There are of course no enemies to the left.)
I watched the video once. I was listening to hear if anyone warns, in that video, that the levees might be breached — as AP promised they had. I missed the identification of Mayfield (who would have been just a name to me anyway, since I’m not a meteorologist); he was clearly on a separate video, and I leapt to an erroneous conclusion.
As soon as Patterico informed me about the mistake (rather, as soon as I read his comment), I corrected it… and unlike the L.A. Times, when I make a correction, I note that I made a correction, and even what I had erroneously said in the first place, in the very article in question.
So don’t again accuse me of dishonesty, lest you see your own reputation — such as it is — detereorate.
Second, you could as easily have commented on Big Lizards yourself. Patterico supplied the link. You know how to click on the Comments button (it works just like here).
Instead, you made your snarky claim (that I was being “dishonest,” which evidently nullifies the points somehow) on another blog; one that I read, of course, but not where it would do any good — since I don’t normally read comments on other blogs.
Were it not for the fact that Patterico was nice enough to leave a comment to me himself, I wouldn’t have found out.
Was it your hope that I wouldn’t discover the mistake, wouldn’t make the correction… and that you could therefore claim for days that I was still being “dishonest?” Without, of course, me finding out about it or being able to respond?
Isn’t that rather — dare I suggest it — dishonest?
Third, you nitwit, what the heck difference does it make to my argument whether Max Mayfield is the director of the National Hurricane Center or a TV weatherman? Are you completely deranged?
Why on earth would I have deliberately tried to mislead people as to Mayfield’s job — which is what you suggest by calling me “dishonest?” It doesn’t weaken my argument that Mayfield gave his warning about overtopping in the briefing.
My two points are (1) nobody is shown “warning” Bush that the levees could break, which makes absolute hash out of AP’s claim that Bush lied when he said he wasn’t warned the levees could break; and (2) suppose he had been warned… what was he supposed to do about it? Do you have an answer, Actus?
Should Bush have declared martial law and taken over from the governor and the mayor — before the hurricane even hit?
Can you sit there, with your hat on, and convince us that if Bush had done such a thing, a couple of days before landfall, you wouldn’t have been the very first in line to scream that he was a tyrannical dictator, King George the First, and had to be impeached immediately?
So the next time you want to call me a liar, please be adult about it: come to my blog and do it where at least I have a good chance of seeing it and making any necessary corrections… instead of running off to tell on me, like a tattling little child.
Crimeny.
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd — 3/2/2006 @ 2:55 pm
acthole manages to defecate on yet another comment thread. Surprised??
Comment by rls — 3/2/2006 @ 3:38 pm
“First, I was not being “dishonest” in misidentifying Max Mayfield as a TV weatherman; I simply made a mistake”
I shouldn’t have assumed that you saw the video you were criticizing. Sorry.
“I missed the identification of Mayfield (who would have been just a name to me anyway, since I’m not a meteorologist); he was clearly on a separate video, and I leapt to an erroneous conclusion.”
His ID was on the AP video.
“Instead, you made your snarky claim (that I was being “dishonest,” which evidently nullifies the points somehow) on another blog; one that I read, of course, but not where it would do any good — since I don’t normally read comments on other blogs.”
You read the comments here. And your blog requires registration. Besides, Patterico needs correcting too, he shouldn’t just repeat your inaccuracies.
“Third, you nitwit, what the heck difference does it make to my argument whether Max Mayfield is the director of the National Hurricane Center or a TV weatherman?”
You really can’t tell? Its because dubya wouldn’t be hearing from a weatherman, but a would from Mayfield.
“(2) suppose he had been warned… what was he supposed to do about it? Do you have an answer, Actus?”
I don’t think there’s much that could have been done about levees being breached. Dubya said he was doing everything possible, and I don’t think he’s lying.
But I don’t see this fascination with topped/breached. The two go together for me.
Comment by actus — 3/2/2006 @ 4:16 pm
MikeW - no need to apologize; that was a fantastic, thoughtful, informative comment.
Comment by aphrael — 3/2/2006 @ 4:18 pm
About The Katrina Teleconferencing Videos
All that video undermines the claim that the Administration didn’t take the hurricane threat seriously. There’s videotape from sessions over the course of six days. Sounds like they took it quite seriously.
Trackback by A Blog For All — 3/2/2006 @ 5:19 pm
Aphrael wrote:
This is a different situation, Mr A. The people of New Orleans, and the people of, as you described it, “urban California,” have taken on an excessive risk. Why ought the people who have chosen to live in areas which do not have excessive risks associated with them to have to subsidize the risk-takers?
Comment by Dana — 3/2/2006 @ 5:31 pm
Aphrael also wrote:
It makes some sense (assuming that socializing anything makes sense), to assume that if the entire population is at an elevated risk of a particular thing, such risk can be spread across the jurisdiction. But, as you said, that sure doesn’t justify California expecting the feds tro step in.
Comment by Dana — 3/2/2006 @ 5:34 pm
Daffyd: “I simply made a mistake”
You expect to be granted slack that you’re not willing to grant to others. You have no problem calling the reporters liars, even though you are very far from being in a position to prove that.
Aside from that, your “overtop” vs. “breach” analysis is all wet. See here, 3/2, 1:42 pm.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/2/2006 @ 5:55 pm
Leave it to liberals not to know the difference between making a mistake and deliberately lying.
Comment by sharon — 3/2/2006 @ 6:04 pm
Bush and gang are the exemplar of lies. As are the majority (Republicans) in Congress. If you don’t know that, where have you been? Oh, FOX, that explains it. LOL
Comment by blubonnet — 3/2/2006 @ 6:25 pm
actus sez
That, ladies and gents, is the essential actus. A young’un who doesn’t want to grow up, a young’un pining for Nanny in D.C. to control All.Things essential to undisturbed lotus eating.
Comment by Darleen — 3/2/2006 @ 6:30 pm
“That, ladies and gents, is the essential actus. A young’un who doesn’t want to grow up, a young’un pining for Nanny in D.C. to control All.Things essential to undisturbed lotus eating.”
Not DC control all. It seems to me to be a state level thing to move people from one city to another. A federal thing to move people from one state to another. That’s the governmental unit that would encompass both the destination and departure.
Makes the most sense to set it up that way. That’s not, however, how we do it in america.
Comment by actus — 3/2/2006 @ 6:38 pm
I suggest you go into your upstairs bathroom, put the plug in and turn on the tap. Wait an hour. Does it really matter to the state of your house that the bathtub has not been “breached” at this point?
Normally, there would be a significant difference between overtopping and breaching. But for New Orleans, the assumption was that overtopping caused by a storm surge would mean that the bowl would fill. And usually breaches would occur as well.
Comment by Agnana — 3/2/2006 @ 6:39 pm
Hey Actus, lemme try to clear up the whole “topped/breached” thingee for you.
If the Hoover Dam is “topped” (i.e., water flows over the top of it), that is obviously an undesirable situation, and people nearby might seem some flooding.
If the Hoover Dam is “breached,” (i.e., has a big frickin’ hole punched in it), then anything within 20 miles is going to be devasted as if the hand of God himself had done it.
Do you get it?
Comment by Joey — 3/2/2006 @ 6:40 pm
Martin, sweetheart
the only thing I criticized Bush for after the hurricane is strumming an air guitar in San Diego the same day the hurricane was killing people throughout the Gulf Coast
Damn that Bush. He was visiting soldiers when people were dying. I bet when he got back to the White House, he kissed Laura and hugged the twins when people were dying. I bet he even had a nice dinner, a warm shower, and slept on clean sheets when people were dying.
I bet even Jhimmi Carter enjoyed a moment or two of happiness in the White House during the Iranian hostage crisis.
Since when have we demanded our Presidents to wear hairshirts and engage in endless rounds of self-flagellation?
Comment by Darleen — 3/2/2006 @ 6:42 pm
Actus,
It’s the difference between reaching the highest top of the mountain, and falling off the edge of the very same highest point.
When you are so far to the left though, nuances such as those can be tricky to detect.
Comment by Alexandra — 3/2/2006 @ 6:47 pm
Alexandra: “When you are so far to the left though, nuances such as those can be tricky to detect.”
When you’re so far to the right, it becomes hard to comprehend simple facts.
You’re missing the fact that once the levies were “overtopped,” it was inevitable that they would fail completely. Anyone with a clue knew this. Why do you think Mayfield said overtopping was a “very, very grave concern?” It was a “very, very grave concern” because it would be quickly followed by complete failure. This has to do with very simple features of how the levees were constructed. This is what was predicted (by Mayfield and many others), and this is precisely what happened.
The longer version of this argument, with extensive documentation, is here, 3/2, 1:42 pm.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/2/2006 @ 7:45 pm
Katrina struck Aug 29, and Blanco tells Bush
‘Course, some would have it that it was up to Bush to ignore LA’s own governor and have had the 101st Airborne drag her out of office in chains.
Or maybe GW should have stood at the coast and done a Moses and stopped Katrina right there and then.
Comment by Darleen — 3/2/2006 @ 8:12 pm
I sense another “sixteen words” moment here. What President Bush actually said wasn’t a lie; so rather than admit that the President didn’t lie, the Bush haters are going to insist that he meant something other than what he actually said, and that what he meant was a lie. And the more deranged (or dishonest) among them will insist that he actually said what he didn’t say, because they want to strengthen their claim of lying. The less deranged will try to attack the credibility of those who point out the flaw in their logic, so as to distract us from that flaw.
Same playbook, different period. All we need now is a former FEMA field agent to send her husband on a fact-finding mission to New Orleans so he can write a false but inflammatory NY Times OpEd about it, and we’ve got the perfect analogue to the sixteen words.
Comment by Martin L. Shoemaker — 3/2/2006 @ 8:16 pm
Lately I seem to be agreeing with commenter #26 on this site whatever the subject may be or whoever he/she may be. Should I be concerned?
As for FEMA vs. New Orleans — FEMA was designed for America, not Bangladesh. New Orleans was a dysfunctional city to begin with. “Greed, incompetence and corruption” could be its motto as well as the motto of the whole state. We should have just let it die. Whatever its value as a port, the money we are spending rebuilding it could build ten ports elsewhere on the Gulf.
Comment by nk — 3/2/2006 @ 8:39 pm
Martin: “What President Bush actually said wasn’t a lie”
Your unsubstantiated declaration is a waste of innocent electrons if you’re not willing to lift a finger to present any substantive counterargument to the evidence presented here (3/2, 1:42 pm).
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/2/2006 @ 8:42 pm
Oh I get it. Its just that when the hoover dam gets topped, I start worried about it getting breached. These things aren’t designed for that.
Comment by actus — 3/2/2006 @ 10:11 pm
Reading the comments on Patterico’s and Captain Ed’s posts regarding this subject, I’m amazed at the angry,visceral reaction regarding a relatively simple subject. Overtopped and breached are not the same thing. Seems simple enough, yet judging by the comments, it is blasphemy. It is a typical response when someone questions a liberal “known fact”, i.e Bush is a moron who was asleep at the switch (or worse, didn’t care due to the racial makeup of the city) and let Katrina happen.
Note to the left, the angry ranting doesn’t work. Sure it’s fun, annoys conservatives and gets the base riled up, but it doesn’t win votes and it does drive away moderates. All you have to do is look at the 2000 (Gore losing despite peace and prosperity), 2002 (GOP picking up seats although the incumbent president almost always looses seats in the midterm) and 2004 (Zogby’s guarantee of a Kerry win) elections. I had been concerned about 2006, where frankly, the Republicans deserve to lose due to the corruption and out of control spending. But look at the alternative.
Comment by Jeff C — 3/2/2006 @ 10:33 pm
jeff: “Overtopped and breached are not the same thing”
It’s not a question of claiming that they’re precisely the same thing. It’s a question of understanding that the latter inevitably follows the former.
Jumping off a building, and striking the ground at high speed, are not precisely the same thing (the former doesn’t hurt at all, while the latter hurts a lot). However, the latter inevitably follows the former.
Nevertheless, our host says this: “Bush never said nobody anticipated that the levees might be overtopped. He said nobody anticipated the breach of the levees — a much more serious event.”
That’s nonsense.
Imagine if I interrupt John Hinderaker’s 5-week vacation to tell him that his pal Scott Johnson is about to jump off the roof. Hinderaker yawns and resumes his vacation. Later, Hinderaker tries to gloss over the warning I gave him. He says “no one anticipated that Johnson was going to strike the ground at high speed, ending his life.”
I then speak up to let people know that I warned Hinderaker. People then understand that Hinderaker’s statement (”no one anticipated that Johnson was going to strike the ground at high speed, ending his life”) is simply a lie.
But then Patterico chimes in, defending Hinderaker. Patterico says this: “Hinderaker never said nobody anticipated that Patterico might jump off the roof. Hinderaker merely said nobody anticipated that Johnson would strike the ground at high speed, ending his life — a much more serious event.”
Now in addition to understanding that Hinderaker is a liar, everyone understands that Patterico has an irrational inclination to defend a liar.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/2/2006 @ 11:29 pm
It’s a question of understanding that the latter inevitably follows the former.
We’re at inevitably now?
Inevitably?
Don’t you mean possibly?
Comment by MayBee — 3/3/2006 @ 12:24 am
Breaching inevitably follows topping like gravity leads to falling? I can’t find any proof of that, and I looked pretty hard. And some string of hyotheticals in some blog comment, with no real facts and citations, doesn’t sway me as proof.
If you have the proof, you might want to share it with the folks at factcheck.org (not exactly fans of the President) who concluded (emphasis added):
As I predicted above, they spun it in the most negative way they could; but they still grudgingly concluded that the President spoke the truth. So like me, they seem to have found no proof that breaching follows topping as night follows day.
But if you have proof that I and they both missed, you should also share it with the Federation of American Scientists (again, not exactly fans of the President) who in one of their Congressional Research Services Reports (link is PDF) declared (emphasis added):
So apparently a lot of people who put a lot of thought into it do not believe that topping equals breaching.
While I think they’re much more partisan than they’ll admit, I think factcheck.org drew a nice distinction between anticipated (”in the sense that they believed it was a likely event”) and possible (”Another scenario is that some part of the levee would fail”). If you want to fault the President for lack of imagination in not seeing the possibility… Well, I’ll still want to see your evidence that he didn’t see it, but I’m open to the possibility. (Hint: start with that factcheck.org article, as they strive mightily to make that case.) But if you want to say he lied when he said no one anticipated a breach and cite as proof people who anticipated a topping, you’re going to have to convince factcheck.org and FAS if you want to convince me.
Topping may sometimes lead to breaching, but it is by no means inevitable.
Comment by Martin L. Shoemaker — 3/3/2006 @ 12:53 am
maybee: “Don’t you mean possibly?”
No, I don’t mean “possibly.” I said “inevitably” because I mean “inevitably.” And I mean “inevitably” because there is ample proof to support “inevitably.”
Here are some examples of such proof, which I’m borrowing from a post elsewhere, that I’ve already cited.
This FEMA document (pdf) describes a different part of the country, but it clearly explains that overtopping leads to breaching: “A major flood under existing conditions would overtop Forest Lake Dam and Lake Katherine Dam. The high water velocities would erode the downstream faces of both dams causing them to fail.”
Please note the word that is used: “would.” Not “could.”
From the WSJ, discussing Katrina: “The first concern was that it would overtop in some ways. In other words, the water is going to start coming over the top and then begin to erode the levee. You normally don’t find out the cause until much later, because all of a sudden it starts. The levee starts to unravel, and the minute you have water going over the top, it begins to carry away the earth that’s there … Once a levee break starts, it is extremely difficult to stop it in its initial stages, and as it is now, to close it back up.” (Emphasis added.)
Notice the complete absence of qualifiers. No “might.” No “could.” No “maybe.” Just simple cause and effect: once A happens, B follows. That’s what “inevitably” means.
The following is from a hydrology textbook (pdf): “Highhazard dams (dams whose failure would result in loss of lives and widespread property damage) are required, by modern standards, to contain 100 percent of a PMF [Probable Maximum Flood] without water overtopping (spilling over) the dam. A dam overtopped would quickly erode and eventually breach (fail).” (Emphasis added.)
Again, “would,” not “could.”
If I jump off a tall building, I will not “possibly” strike the ground and end my life. I will “inevitably” do so. The above citations indicate that a similar analysis holds when a levee is overtopped during a severe storm.
Martin: “Breaching inevitably follows topping like gravity leads to falling? I can’t find any proof of that, and I looked pretty hard”
Since you “looked pretty hard,” it’s hard to understand why you didn’t notice the above citations, which are only a click or two away from messages I’ve posted here.
“factcheck.org”
Their source is Breerwood. I discuss him extensively here.
“Breaches represent a structural failure, which is distinct from overtopping of levees and floodwalls which happens when their design is exceeded.”
I have no problem with this statement, and it doesn’t prove much, one way or another. Jumping off the building is also “distinct from” striking the ground. It’s also true that a breach can be the result of various causes (not just overtopping), and I think that is correctly implied by the statement you cited. However, I still maintain that overtopping leads to breaching, and your citation says nothing to deny that.
“it was expected that some water would flow over the levees and floodwalls based on Katrina’s forecasted strength.”
Likewise, I have no problem with this. It’s a true statement, and it’s a statement which says nothing to deny another true statement: as this water “would flow over the levees and floodwalls,” it would weaken those structures, which would inevitably fail.
By the way, this report that you like quotes COE as follows: “it’s believed that the force of the water overtopped the floodwall and scoured the structure from behind and then moved the levee wall horizontally.” In other words, it’s yet another source indicating that overtopping leads to greater failures.
By the way, I don’t intend to make a claim that is so extreme that it is absurd. If the water is one millimeter below the top of the wall, on a perfectly calm, glassy day, and a duck swims by, and splashes an ounce of water over the wall, I am not going to claim that this is overtopping that will “inevitably” knock the wall over. On the other hand, the citations I’ve offered indicate that substantial overtopping, during an actual storm severe enough to make the water that high to begin with, does inevitably cause walls to tip over.
“If you want to fault the President for lack of imagination in not seeing the possibility”
As I’ve said several times in various places, my main focus (at the moment) is not what Bush did (or didn’t do) on Sunday. It’s what he did on Thursday: lie.
“if you want to say he lied when he said no one anticipated a breach and cite as proof people who anticipated a topping … ”
All I really need to cite is Mayfield, because Mayfield clearly felt that “topping” was a matter of “very, very grave concern.” There would be no reason for Mayfield to feel this way, unless he agreed with the various other experts I’ve cited, who claim that once overtopping begins, breaching is hard to avoid.
“Topping may sometimes lead to breaching, but it is by no means inevitable.”
If you claim that only a weak connection exists between topping and breaching, please explain why Mayfield expressed the idea that topping was a matter of “very, very grave concern.”
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/3/2006 @ 2:22 am
Have a cup of coffee and fill it to the top. Then you will be changing your outfit before you go to work. I can’t believe I have to, or anyone has to make this simple point.
Bush has lied and lied and lied about so many things, why even give him a benefit of a doubt about anything. He is not worthy of it. Lying men and women into an unncecesarry illegal war, and there are those of you still trying to defend his “honor”.
And whether you think taxes are something you should have to pay or not, it’s what most of those folks down in New Orleans were doing, expecting the United part of the United States to be part of the mind set. Unity is a beautiful thing. “You are all on your own, even if we destroy the economy with outsourcing and corporate robbery of employees and stockholders”
is what I’m hearing from the rightwingers, which whether you are acknowledging it or not is pro-corporate. Don’t you realize that it takes money to make money. Many are born into poverty, and dysfunctional homes and don’t really have a chance to escape it. Taxes help all to have an equal opportunity to escape(education, adequate medical care, etc.) it if it isn’t all spent on defense. Basically, FEMA was gutted because it was spent on the illegal war in Iraq. Michael Brown acknowledged that not enough funding existed to make FEMA functional. Fidel Castro cleared everyone in time for the devastating hurricanes.
Comment by blubonnet — 3/3/2006 @ 2:23 am
“Bush and gang are the exemplar of lies.”
Only if you are stupid enough not to understand the difference between mistakes and lies, as most Democrats seem not to be able to make this distinction.
“As are the majority (Republicans) in Congress.”
Don’t forget all those “honest” Democrats. The ones who lied that they didn’t know what they were doing authorizing Bush to go to war, etc., etc.
“If you don’t know that, where have you been? Oh, FOX, that explains it. LOL”
Better than using that lying MSM like CBS which is, I’m sure your paragon of virtue.
“And whether you think taxes are something you should have to pay or not, it’s what most of those folks down in New Orleans were doing, expecting the United part of the United States to be part of the mind set.”
Given the high crime and unemployment rate, the only taxes most of them were paying were for unemployment.
“Unity is a beautiful thing.”
Or an ugly one if it is a mob.
““You are all on your own, even if we destroy the economy with outsourcing and corporate robbery of employees and stockholders”
is what I’m hearing from the rightwingers, which whether you are acknowledging it or not is pro-corporate.”
Yes, expecting adults to take care of themselves instead of having the feds wipe one’s butt must be a pro-corporate stance. I mean, not that NO wasn’t warned days ahead of time about the coming storm. Not that the state and local officials were more concerned with liability. Not that residents decided that hurricane predictions are faulty at best and decided to stay home. Nope. Must be those “lying” Bush people.
“Don’t you realize that it takes money to make money.”
It also takes hard work to make money.
“Many are born into poverty, and dysfunctional homes and don’t really have a chance to escape it.”
This is weak-willed and wrong. Many are also born into poverty but escape it through their own decision-making. It’s pathetic to whine that because some people make poor choices and refuse to take responsibility for themselves that everyone else is required to make them comfortable.
“Taxes help all to have an equal opportunity to escape(education, adequate medical care, etc.) it if it isn’t all spent on defense.”
Wrong. Taxes are an unequal redistribution of hard-earned money from producers to non-producers by (sometimes) well meaning bureaucrats who always think they know better how to spend one’s money. And if taxes help “all to have an equal opportunity,” then why are liberal leeches still whining they haven’t taken enough?
“Basically, FEMA was gutted because it was spent on the illegal war in Iraq.”
Setting aside the silly and idiotic notion of an “illegal war in Iraq” (barf), FEMA was not gutted and it responded to Katrina with the same speed it responds to every disaster. Ask Florida.
“Michael Brown acknowledged that not enough funding existed to make FEMA functional.”
And here I thought you liberals said he was incompetent. Brown has also said that the primary responsibility for evacuation and the immediate response to the hurricane was at the local and state level, but I guess you get to forget that part of his statements.
“Fidel Castro cleared everyone in time for the devastating hurricanes.”
Does this mean he cleared the jail of all those political dissidents and librarians he locks up in his “free” country? Hey, they have a high literacy rate, so to hell with freedom, right?
Comment by sharon — 3/3/2006 @ 3:51 am
esquire- don’t use Mayfield’s words, because this is what he said:
I have no idea what the ‘these particular conditions’ might be in your first example about ANOTHER levee.
Your WSJ quote is a direct answer to the question:
What were the primary reasons for the levee breaches in New Orleans?
If we knew that, it wouldn’t have breached.
So the question assumes a breach, assumes a certain outcome and asks how that outcome came about. That in no way means every time a levee overtops it breaches, it means if a levee has breached it possibly starts with an overtopping.
You have it exactly backwards.
Once we know it happened, we know that something led to it.
It’s only inevitable under the right conditions, and the conditions are obviously 100% there if it happened.
SO to use a hypothetical like yours:
Someone dies in a car accident, and we know their car skidded on wet pavement. We know the wet pavement made their car skid and caused their death.
Does that mean everytime someone drives in the rain their car will skid- or everytime a car skids on wet pavement they will die? Is it inevitable?
As for whether they thought the NO levees would top without breaching? It isn’t hypothetical. They did think it:
They thought they had topping but not breeching.
Comment by MayBee — 3/3/2006 @ 3:51 am
Esquirerumson:
You say that overtopping “inevitably” causes breaching.
The Federation of American Scientists disagrees.
Can you please tell us your civil-engineering credentials that make you an expert on the structural engineering of New Orleans’ levees?
I would appreciate knowing what degrees in CE you have, where you earned them, what work you have done on the structural integrity of levees and dams, and specifically, what studies you have led on the levee system in New Orleans.
Please include at least a representative sample of your publications in refereed journals of civil engineering and hydrology.
Thanks,
Dafydd
Comment by Dafydd — 3/3/2006 @ 4:48 am
“The first part of creating a mass movement is the mythic idea.. We put the myth out there that America was in chaos. America was not in chaos. … When 100,000 people marched on the Pentagon in 1967, we put out the myth that America was divided in two. America was not divided in two. But we put the myth out there and what happened, by ’69, ’70, America was divided in two.” - Jerry Rubin
(What liberal media?
/ s)
Comment by . — 3/3/2006 @ 6:08 am
“illegal war”
“Bush lies”
“Castro is wonderful”
blubonnet is really one of those autogenerated Leftist talking-point bots, right?
Comment by Darleen — 3/3/2006 @ 6:39 am
Umm, maybe because, even without a breach, topping will flood low-lying lands and put a lot of people at risk?
Forget it. You’re proving my point again. The President didn’t say what you wanted him to say, so you’re just going to mischaracterize what he said so as to make it a lie. You’re going to argue from specific to general, you’re going to quote out of context, you’re going to quote selectively, and you’re going to attack the character of anyone who disagrees with you, because that’s what it takes to maintain your delusion.
Comment by Martin L. Shoemaker — 3/3/2006 @ 6:54 am
Commenters might find this article, written one year prior to Katrina, interesting.
http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/nov04/nov04c.html
I live on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. In past years, we have witnessed the levees on the south shore overtopping during severe storms and I don’t recall levee breaching as a resulting.
As one who is living through this history, I’d like to add: finger-pointing , namecalling and blaming is NOT getting us anywhere. It doesn’t further the solutions; it only extends the length of time to gain political points and posturing.
Meanwhile, we down here are taking it day by day and working toward rebuilding a better city. I am sorry if some people think New Orleans is filled with nothing but corrupt leaders, welfare slackers, criminals and partyers. Some of us actually work.
ReNew Orleans
Comment by Chris Teague — 3/3/2006 @ 7:01 am
sharon, if you for one minute expect to participate in a rational, facts-oriented, logical argument with blu, think again. I commend your attempt at civil discourse but if you expect a serious intellectual exchange, well … blu prefers unsubstantiated allegations, conspiracy theories, inuendo and ad hominem to logical analysis of facts.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 3/3/2006 @ 7:04 am
Good luck, Chris Teague.
Comment by MayBee — 3/3/2006 @ 7:18 am
maybee: “Nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened”
I would be glad to describe how I interpret those words, but first I’d appreciate you letting us know where you found them. I looked around, and found them nowhere.
“I have no idea what the ‘these particular conditions’ might be in your first example about ANOTHER levee.”
I think you mean “existing conditions” (see #78, paragraph #4). It doesn’t hurt your credibility when you quote carelessly.
Aside from that, you don’t need to know anything about the “existing conditions.” Here’s the quote: “A major flood under existing conditions would overtop Forest Lake Dam and Lake Katherine Dam. The high water velocities would erode the downstream faces of both dams causing them to fail.”
The writer is indicating that “existing conditions,” if there is a flood, would lead to overtopping. Then it is overtopping that would cause failure. The writer does not say “overtopping, under existing conditions, would lead to failure.” That is a different statement from what is actually said, which amounts to this: “existing conditions could lead to overtopping. Once there is overtopping, there will be failure.”
In other words, the “existing conditions” would be relevant if we were having an argument about whether or not overtopping is likely to occur. We’re not. We’re having an argument about the likelihood that overtopping will lead to breaching.
Anyway, the point of this citation is not to suggest that the two situations are identical in every way. The point of this citation is to indicate that it is commonly understood that overtopping leads to failure.
“It’s only inevitable under the right conditions, and the conditions are obviously 100% there if it happened.”
I think you’re confused. Your statement implies that 100% of the time that a levee is breached, the cause was overtopping. No one is claiming that (until you, inexplicably, just now). In other words, you’re the one that has it “exactly backwards.”
“Does that mean everytime someone drives in the rain their car will skid- or everytime a car skids on wet pavement they will die?”
Of course not. But your analogy is silly. For you to say “everytime someone drives in the rain their car will skid” is the equivalent of me saying “every time it rains, the levee will be overtopped.” Obviously I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is more like this: once your car is in a real skid (i.e., once a levee is overtopped in a substantive, non-trivial manner) it is reasonable to predict that your car will come to a stop only upon striking a solid object. In other words, there is a powerful causal relationship between A (skidding) and B (striking a solid object).
Our host is suggesting that it’s “dishonest in the extreme” to acknowledge this powerful causal relationship. That’s nonsense, and it’s dishonest in the extreme.
Here’s another analogy. Let’s say I have a huge party, and I make sure that every single guest is extremely drunk before I hand them the car keys and send them home. Can I be sure someone will die? Of course not. But if someone dies, a rational, honest person would not pretend to be surprised (and a pretense of surprise is the essence of Bush’s “no one” anticipated remark). A rational personal would not deny the powerful causal relationship between A and B. It would be “dishonest in the extreme” to deny that relationship. Trouble is, denying that causal relationship is exactly what the usual gang of Bush cultists is doing.
“We have not breached the levee at this point in time.” (Emphasis added.)
No one is claiming that overtopping causes breaching instantly. Yes, overtopping can occur without breaching, but not for long.
My gravity example is a little extreme because it implies instantaneity. My key point is not instantaneity, it’s inevitability.
Here’s a different example, at the other extreme of the time scale. If you smoke 10 packs a day, this will kill you. You can say “look at me, I’m not dead yet” (which is similar to Blanco saying “at this point in time”), but you will be dead, soon enough. My point is the inevitability.
If you suddenly quit, will you still die? Maybe not. If the overtopping suddenly stopped, for some magical reason, would breaching still occur? Maybe not. But the problem with overtopping is that once it starts, there is a very natural tendency (barring a miracle) for it to keep going.
“they thought they had topping but not breeching.”
This is a separate point, but we now know that Blanco was simply wrong. By the way, I have never claimed that Blanco (or Nagin, for that matter) is anything other than an idiot.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/3/2006 @ 7:23 am
Daffyd: “The Federation of American Scientists disagrees.”
Making a sweeping statement without lifting a finger to cite specifics is highly typical for you. If you’re referring to the material mentioned in #77, I addressed it in #78.
“tell us your civil-engineering credentials”
Comprehending the very simple language in the numerous citations I’ve provided doesn’t require “civil-engineering credentials.” It does require common sense, however, and your impairment in that area is obvious.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/3/2006 @ 7:24 am
martin: “maybe because, even without a breach, topping will flood low-lying lands and put a lot of people at risk?”
Sorry, I don’t buy it. I would appreciate a reference to any authority who suggested (before, during or after) that if the levees had been only overtopped, but not breached, that this would have “put a lot of people at risk,” and been a matter of “very, very grave concern.”
If levees somehow manage to not be breached, but are only overtopped, that means, by definition, that the water available for flooding is relatively limited, and there is a natural tendency for the flooding to stop. This is because once water runs over the wall, the water level behind the wall drops to the level of the wall, which means that water is no longer running over the wall. That’s what happens in the imaginary world that our host et al inhabit, where overtopping and breaching are entirely unrelated phenomena.
In the real world, these phenomena have a causal relationship, which means that the first substantial flow of water over the wall immediately begins to erode and scour the dirt at the base of the wall, which immediately begins to weaken the wall. As the wall tilts, moves and cracks, more water begins to run under, through, and over it. In other words, there is a self-perpetuating process. In the real world, there is a natural tendency for the flooding to accelerate, once the threshold of overtopping has been reached.
“you’re just going to mischaracterize what he said … You’re going to argue from specific to general, you’re going to quote out of context, you’re going to quote selectively”
English translation: “I can’t counter you with facts, so I’m going to make a bunch of vague accusations without lifting a finger to substantiate them.”
In other words, that laundry list of accusations doesn’t mean much if you can’t be bothered to provide a single example.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/3/2006 @ 7:46 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11643327/
It doesn’t hurt your credibility when you quote carelessly.
Thanks. That means a lot coming from you.
What I’m saying is more like this: once your car is in a real skid …it is reasonable to predict that your car will come to a stop only upon striking a solid object. In other words, there is a powerful causal relationship between A (skidding) and B (striking a solid object).
And your reasonable prediction about the car is again a poor prediction. A skidding car can stop due to friction from the brakes, from the pavement, loss of momentum, coming across a dry patch…any number of things other than a solid object can make your car stop. The skidding car MAY lead to striking a solid object, but there is no inevitability and not even a definite probability.
No one is claiming that overtopping causes breaching instantly. Yes, overtopping can occur without breaching, but not for long.
Careful, that term ‘no one’ will turn you into a liar. So not instantly but not for long. Sounds very sciency.
Comment by MayBee — 3/3/2006 @ 7:49 am
Speaking of “dishonest in the extreme,” it is indeed dishonest in the extreme that the righty bloggers making a giant fuss about this overtop/breach nonsense (Hinderaker, Ed Morrisey, our host and many others) do not drop even the slightest hint that there is undeniably a powerful causal relationship between overtopping and breaching.
Even if one asserts that the relationship is not perfect 100% inevitability, no rational, well-informed person can pretend that there is not a powerful causal relationship. Yet all the people I mentioned drop not even the slightest clue that there is any causal relationship whatsoever. This would be like talking about drunk driving and wrecked cars, and pretending that there is no relationship, and that the former does not inevitably lead, sooner or later, to the latter. And especially in the absence of updates and corrections on this point, the conclusion is inescapable: these people intend to mislead, not inform.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/3/2006 @ 7:59 am
maybee, thanks for the Mayfield citation. That’s helpful. Here’s my interpretation: Mayfield has come to his senses and remembered that Bush, ultimately, is the person who signs his paycheck. And maybe he had some help remembering this, in the form of a phone call from someone who got a phone call from someone who got a phone call from Rove.
Mayfield still needs to explain why overtopping, in the absence of breaching, would be a matter of “very, very grave concern.”
“Nobody talked about the possibility of a levee breach or failure until after it happened.”
Maybe no one mentioned it explicitly because it was so obvious. “People only talked about the fact that Harry was about to jump off the roof. No one was talking about the fact that he was going to strike the ground at high speed, ending his life. That latter reality was only discussed after it happened.”
“That means a lot coming from you.”
You quoted carelessly. I proved it. Now you are suggesting that I have done the same. Proof, please.
“The skidding car MAY lead to striking a solid object, but there is no inevitability and not even a definite probability.”
No analogy is perfect. The likelihood of any outcome is a continuum, from 0% to 100%. As I’ve pointed out, our host et al are acting as if the causal relationship between overtopping and breaching is 0%. In other words, they’re acting as if the phenomena are entirely separate and independent. That’s utter nonsense.
“Careful, that term ‘no one’ will turn you into a liar.”
Only if you can find someone who seriously claims that “overtopping causes breaching instantly.” I’ll be waiting patiently.
Anyway, that wouldn’t prove I’m a liar. It would only prove I made a mistake. To prove I’m a liar, you’d have to show that an authority has said to me that “overtopping causes breaching instantly.”
Bush didn’t just make a mistake. Bush lied. The difference is that Mayfield did not just make a statement. Mayfield made a statement to Bush.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/3/2006 @ 8:18 am
Overtopping can and sometimes does cause breaching, however, it isn’t the inevitable or even most likely result. That depends on the specifics.
NOLA’s problems were well known and long ignored, by municipal authorities and by state government. Anyone aware of the situation knew that eventually a storm would cause the levee system to fail.
Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco gambled that once again NO would dodge Katrina’s bullet. They fiddled while NO flooded.
Comment by Black Jack — 3/3/2006 @ 8:52 am
esquirerumson:
That’s nonsense … who has no relationship with common sense. A twenty foot high flood wall would be overtopped if the water level goes above twenty feet. But the overtopping would stop the instant the water level falls below twenty feet. It would NOT keep going. That’s simple science (and common sense) - not a miracle.
But it’s obvious that you’re a master of conflation and lies of omission. It is undoubtedly true that overtopping can lead to a breach. But you consistently neglect some pertinent factors - because they do not support your argument; time and the volume of water flowing over the flood wall.
Given enough time, even a CAT 1 hurricane can cause a breach in a CAT 5 levee, without the levees being overtopped even once. The CAT 1 hurricane may have to rage for a long time but eventually, it would breach any levee.
Secondly, a specific volume of water per unit inch/meter/etc. is necessary to be flowing consistently over the levee for overtopping to result in a breach within a particular amount of time. i.e. for levee A to be breached in one hour as a direct result of overtopping, an average of X feet of water must be flowing over its ramparts within that period of time.
Capiche?
Furthermore, just because a CAT 3 levee is not designed to prevent overtopping in a CAT 5 hurricane does NOT mean it would be breached in a CAT 5 hurricane. Overtopping and Breaching may have a relationship but they are two distinct things.
Levee A could be made of the toughest of materials, be three hundred feet thick and have foundations going 100 feet into the ground. But if it is just twenty feet high, then it would be overtopped if the water level rises to twenty-five feet. But for the levee to be breached as a result of this overtopping could easily mean that the water level has to remain above twenty feet for years.
Let me take the time to note here that the New Orleans levees that failed were certified as CAT 3 levees but have since been determined to have been chock-full of design and construction errors, i.e. shallow foundations, inferior materials, etc.
Either way, even if it would take less than ten minutes for a CAT 4 hurricane to overtop a CAT 3 levee, it may take two years for a CAT 5 to breach that same levee.
In other words, esquirenumbskull, for you to be taken seriously, you have to prove that it was considered even a remote possibility prior to its making landfall that Katrina (in terms of its strength and longevity) met the conditions necessary to not only overtop the New Orleans’ levees concerned, but to breach them.
Don’t hurt yourself, okay?
Comment by Martin A. Knight — 3/3/2006 @ 9:20 am
[...] Oh, do go and read Patterico, but then save some time for the comments thread at Jeff’s place, since 1) that’s where my title for this post came from, and 2) it’s great sport watching those who are personally invested in believing in “correct think,” at least as foisted by the media, sullenly lower their heads and push along, undeterred by fact, logic or reason. [...]
Pingback by Neptunus Lex » Topping in a time of breaches — 3/3/2006 @ 9:25 am
Oh My God ! IF the amount of energy being spent pointing fingers was channelled into rebuilding the hurricane devastated areas - they would be rebuilt and done! As a Californian with a multi-mulit generational familial historical outlook - a devasting earthquake does not frighten me. It is the panic-y response by all the “urban” californians who will be running around like over-sized infants whining and pointing to their open mouths. My neighbors and I will take care of one another - as we have in the past and will in the future. Loot or make trouble and we will shoot you dead.
Katrina was an example of local government collapsing. So by all means keep supporting it so as to “hurt” a national government you don’t particularlly like. Local government to Feds: “You can’t tell us what to do! You aren’t our “masters”!!” Local government after their own collapse “Help me, help me! Why aren’t you telling me what to do!! Damn you, I say take over our lives you distant and uncaring Federal government!!” On a strictly governing level - this whole debacle has been HILARIOUS!!!
Comment by Californio — 3/3/2006 @ 10:42 am
jack: “Overtopping can and sometimes does cause breaching, however, it isn’t the inevitable or even most likely result. That depends on the specifics.”
Baumy’s words are sufficient to show that given the “specifics” of this situation, there was a very powerful causal relationship between topping and breaching. If you think you can apply some other intepretation to his words, you should show us how you do that.
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/3/2006 @ 10:50 am
mak: “A twenty foot high flood wall would be overtopped if the water level goes above twenty feet. But the overtopping would stop the instant the water level falls below twenty feet. It would NOT keep going.”
Baumy addresses this exact point (and the point is also addressed in various other resources I’ve cited). He was asked why there was no “concrete apron over the earthen part, to guard against that [scouring and erosion].” In the presence of a concrete apron, or other similar measures, you’d be right. The overflow would bounce off the apron and the dirt below would be protected from scouring and erosion, and the wall would remain stable. But for various reasons (cost, presumably), there was no such apron. Therefore it was essential to avoid overtopping.
“It is undoubtedly true that overtopping can lead to a breach.”
It’s nice that you’re willing to make that grudging acknowledgement. It’s a shame that the various righty bloggers I’ve mentioned lack the intellectual honesty to take even that small step. On the contrary: they imply that overtopping and breaching are totally independent, and that the former does not lead to the latter. That’s “dishonest in the extreme.”
“Given enough time, even a CAT 1 hurricane can cause a breach in a CAT 5 levee, without the levees being overtopped even once. The CAT 1 hurricane may have to rage for a long time but eventually, it would breach any levee.”
First of all, it’s not clear why this statement matters, or how it undermines any assertion I’ve made. Secondly, I doubt it. In the absence of proof on this point, your casual speculaton (masquerading as a factual statement) is not impressive.
Please explain why your statement is true, or show proof that there is some authority who shares your belief.
“a specific volume of water per unit inch/meter/etc. is necessary to be flowing consistently over the levee for overtopping to result in a breach”
That statement is obviously true, and I have no problem with that statement. I realize magnitude matters, which is why I pointed out that a duck splashing is not going to wreck a levee. But the kind of overtopping that occurs in a major storm will.
“just because a CAT 3 levee is not designed to prevent overtopping in a CAT 5 hurricane does NOT mean it would be breached in a CAT 5 hurricane”
The primary issue is not regarding CAT 3 vs CAT 5. The primary issue is whether or not overtopping occurs (which of course is more likely in a more severe storm). Once overtopping occurs, breaching is just a matter of time, and perhaps a very short period of time.
“Overtopping and Breaching may have a relationship but they are two distinct things.”
I have acknowledged that they are “two distinct things.” The problem is that people who get all their information from Hinderaker and Morrisey have no way of knowing that these two distinct things “have a relationship.”
Incidentally, your reluctance to get friendly with the truth is revealed in your phrase “may have a relationship.” That’s like saying cigarettes and lung cancer “may have a relationship.” No one who’s not on the Philip Morris payroll talks that way.
“Levee A could be made of the toughest of materials … But for the levee to be breached as a result of this overtopping could easily mean that the water level has to remain above twenty feet for years.”
It is indeed possible to design a levee that can sustain overtopping (I again remind you to look at Baumy’s transcript, in particular the portion where he is asked about a concrete apron), and not be breached. But such levees mostly exist only in some imaginary world. What you have offered is not a description of the actual levees that were protecting NO.
“the New Orleans levees that failed were certified as CAT 3 levees but have since been determined to have been chock-full of design and construction errors, i.e. shallow foundations, inferior materials, etc.”
I have no argument with that assertion, just as I have no argument with the assertion that Blanco and Nagin are idiots.
It is indeed very important to understand that these levees were fragile. Baumy essentially admitted that they were explicitly designed to sustain no overtopping whatsoever.
“even if it would take less than ten minutes for a CAT 4 hurricane to overtop a CAT 3 levee, it may take two years for a CAT 5 to breach that same levee.”
Again, you’re making a point about some theoretical levee existing in an imaginary world, where the levee is designed to resist overtopping indefinitely. You’ve indicated yourself that such a levee is exactly what NO did not have.
“prove that it was considered even a remote possibility … that Katrina … [could] not only overtop the New Orleans’ levees concerned, but to breach them.”
Baumy has essentially told us that these levees were designed to resist no overtopping whatsoever. That’s precisely why Mayfield treated topping as a matter of “very, very grave concern.” What else do you need to know?
Let me remind of just one the citations I’ve referenced (directly or indirectly). Long before before the storm, COE said that “overtopping of a levee could be catastrophic.” Why would overtopping be considered “catastrophic” unless it was understood that it would lead to breaching?
Comment by esquirerumson — 3/3/2006 @ 10:53 am
Dana - re. #57, my apologies. I took your previous comment as a libertarian-style “it is illegitimate for the government to be doing this”, not as a “it is legitimate for the government ot be doing this, but I think it is a wrong choice for it to do so.” I’m prone to that particular overreaction.
I don’t have a good answer for your question. My instinctive response boils down along the following lines:
a) for certain of these high-risk cities, the country’s economy as a whole benefits from the city being there, and so the risk will be assumed by people who don’t live there but derive economic benefits, whether or not the state steps in to help socialize the risk. (New Orleans is a good example of this; while it is less important than it used to be, a port at the conjunction of the Mississippi and the Gulf was for a long time essential to our economy).
b) there is a degree to which rational people discount high-value tiny-frequency risks. If i’m killed by a falling meteor, I lose everything — but the likelihood is so tiny that I don’t worry about it. I suspect that for most people, the risk of total destruction of the town they live in falls into the category of “so unlikely that I’m not going to worry about it”.
To the extent that the latter is true, state involvement is the only way to go — the state becomes, at that point, the only actor involved which is capable of hedging that risk. I am aware that this carries with it a “moral hazard” that state hedging of the risk will encourage more people to live there than otherwise might. But, fundamentally, that’s no different than the state trucking water hundreds of miles around for the benefit of the people who live at the destination; and that’s a well-accepted province of state action.
Comment by aphrael — 3/3/2006 @ 10:57 am
esquirerumson, et al,
I’m a civil engineer/hydrologist, though I don’t have a specialty in soils. (I’m not a PE yet either, though I’m taking the test this April).
I read through the arguments you linked to provided by egbooth.
IMO, I believe he was basin his opinions on early analysis (and at one point, quoted the analysts saying, “we believe” - as opposed to “we know”.)
The most recent analysis I have seen (the best coverage seems to be in the Times-Picayune), says that the levees were never overtopped. What happened, in the case of at least one levee breach, was that during the design phase, drawings representing the soil types were improperly transferred from the boring logs to the design drawings. This resulted in the footings of the wall being placed at an inadequate depth (they should have been placed deeper).
What happened next is the soils beneath the levee, over time, became saturated. In their saturated state, they were unable to support the loading the levee wall placed on the soil. The soil went into a state of liquefaction - essentially quicksand - where it acts as a liquid instead of a solid.
When the soils could no longer structurally support the wall, the wall coll