en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/609837 Comments by stormineaux http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=10979#IDComment29936919 Continued, Part 2 of 2 - So what do you think would have happened to that development when Katrina hit? We know that in actuality the levees broke and the area began to flood at 6:30 AM on August 29, 2005 (as per Times Picayune’s “Flash Flood” depiction), and that it flooded completely. However, the area in question was a wildlife refuge, not a densely packed suburb. That scenario has only two fictional elements – the first is that the area was not developed, and the second is that the Louisiana Congressional delegation did not succeed in exempting the area from NEPA. In actuality, I-10 was constructed with two exits which dead-ended in marsh, so I-10 was planned with the notion that New Orleans East would be residentially developed. The city was in favor of the developing the area, and the coastal program could not regulate the project as long as it was confined to the area within the levee system. So as it turned out, in this case it is very likely that NEPA and the federal regulatory agencies which followed that law saved countless lives. Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:45:46 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=10979#IDComment29936919 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=10979#IDComment29936834 Part 1 of 2 - You have good reason to be concerned. You cannot prove what didn’t happen, but here is a plausible fictional scenario. In the late 1980s, a vast residential development was constructed in New Orleans East. The City Planning and the Regional Planning Commissions had supported it. The state coastal program did not require a permit for it because the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act had been crafted specifically to exempt it. The Louisiana Congressional delegation had inserted a provision to exempt the project area from NEPA requirements into an unrelated highway development bill, and the Corps had no choice but to determine that the proposed development was non-jurisdictional. As a consequence, the vast area, which was entirely below sea level, was developed with residences from levee to levee. Fri, 7 Aug 2009 13:44:50 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=10979#IDComment29936834 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=10505#IDComment29129338 Very good information! This calls for another question: When did the federal government learn that constricting the mouth of the Mississippi River with jetties to facilitate navigation would drastically reduce the amount of sediment available to the delta? The reason that this question is pertinent is because many folks in this nation hold to the opinion that we deserve our sinking delta because we wanted the levees and benefitted from them. We wanted improved navigation, too, but almost everyone in the US benefits economically from the navigation improvements at the mouth of the River. When the federal policy of Mississippi River management is discussed, the policies of flood control and navigation should both be considerd. The Corps has expertly managed to make these issues seem to be separate for many years, but we can't let the structure of the Corps' budget process continue to define what can and should be done to protect and restore our coast. Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:19:28 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=10505#IDComment29129338 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=10603#IDComment28923300 To anonymous: Corp's money? By that would you be referring to the money the American people have provided to Congress to address the flood protection needs of Louisiana? Perhaps a more efficient use of said funding could be accomplished by a single purpose civilian public works agency, instead of a military agency with multiple priorities. Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:32:27 +0000 http://lacoastpost.com/blog/?p=10603#IDComment28923300