Katrina: Forget everything you thought you knew

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Katrina: Forget everything you thought you knew
The Examiner

Kevin Aylward: Katrina: Forget everything you thought you knew Kevin Aylward, The Examiner Aug 31, 2006

WASHINGTON - If you’ve only gotten your news about Hurricane Katrina from the mainstream media, everything you think you know about Katrina flooding New Orleans is probably wrong. On this first anniversary of the tragedy, while the networks congratulate themselves on their often wildly inaccurate reporting in the days following Katrina, there’s a far more important story not being told.

We’ve all heard the story: In the early morning hours of Aug 29, 2005, the Category 4 Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, overwhelming the New Orleans levee system and flooding the city. That story is, frankly, an urban legend.

In the year since Katrina, we’ve learned that the storm was a Category 1 by the time she hit New Orleans. We’ve also learned that the primary levee breach — the one that caused 70 percent of the flooding in the city — was not caused by the storm surge but by poor engineering.

After months of dissembling and obfuscation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — the designers of the levee system — the Corps was forced to admit what all the outside experts were saying; critical engineering mistakes caused the walls that were supposed to protect the city to collapse before they were overtopped by the storm surge. And on the east side of the city, the flooding was largely caused by a shipping channel the Corps dug three decades earlier.

The Great Flood of New Orleans was not a natural disaster but a man made one.

What was not really told to the public however is how quickly the floodwalls in the city collapsed — how high the water got up the walls before they failed. This is an important question to a city rebuilding — $250 billion in infrastructure. It is commonly assumed by the public that the water must have been quite high.

A newly released video, taken by New Orleans firefighters as the 17th Street Canal floodwall was actually in the process of breaking during Katrina, shockingly, seems to dispute that.

The video, taken while the damage in the floodwall is still limited to meters and not city blocks shows the water in the canal at near normal levels. (The wall fell over a period of about two hours.)

The real importance of the video comes from looking not at the breach itself, but at the wall of the canal where the water appears to be less than 1 meter above normal. City planners were hoping that only 2.5 meters of water would enter the canal.

Months after the storm, it was reported that water had been seeping underneath the levee for almost a year near the break. Homeowners in the area reported it, but the report never got into the right hands.

Engineers had not properly accounted for the soil conditions in the area and the pilings supporting the wall were not long enough, allowing water to come under the levee.

Poor soils in the area, engineering blunders, bureaucratic snafus, but only a little water conspired to wash out the foundation of the floodwall and produce the majority of New Orleans’ flooding.

Surprisingly, the video gives us every indication that New Orleans was doomed with or without Katrina. The amount of water in the canal was not unusual and, in fact, that wall had held far more water on previous occasions; that was before it was undermined for the better part of a year.

All this leads to the even more shocking conclusion that Hurricane Katrina probably saved 50,000 lives.

That levee was doomed. While Katrina was the last straw, it was destined to fail. Studies done before the storm indicated that if a major hurricane overwhelmed the city’s levees, as many as 100,000 people would die as a result.

If the levee had failed without warning, there would have been no evacuation, no preparation, no state/federal support, no Coast Guardsmen in helicopters etc. If you think Katrina was bad with governmental preparations, consider an event half that size without it.

To be sure, while this single floodwall accounted for the majority of the flooding in New Orleans, the story does not end there. Even without the 17th street canal wall failing, there would have been significant flooding especially to the east side of the city and the Gulf Coast would have been hammered either way.

But the story of the flooding in New Orleans that the media is telling is largely wrong.

The Great Flood of New Orleans was not a natural disaster. It was an engineering disaster bound to happen sooner or later.

Kevin Aylward is President of Wizbang, LLC and publisher of Wizbang. Examiner

http://www.examiner.com/a-254236~Kevin_ ... _knew.html





Don't shot the messager

[Dionne]

So.....I guess all the gulf water that was pushed into Lake Ponchartrain by Katrina had nothing to do with the flooding?

The over topping of the levees and resulting foundation errosion on the dry side is all a lie?

No doubt the canal was a huge engineering error.

But to suggest that NOLA flooded without the assistance of Katrina is just a syndicated columnist trying to sell his story.

[sunny]

But to suggest that NOLA flooded without the assistance of Katrina is just a syndicated columnist trying to sell his story.

You've got it. Amazing how everyone knows everything, ain't it? You'd think by now people would be tired of this sort of thng.

[Lindaloo]

If you look at this article with an open mind, this writer is actually correct in alot of ways. Some of the flooding was from over the top flooding. Pontchartrain was storm related flooding. The 9th Ward and other places is poor engineering. The 17th street canal has been bowing for quite a while. So, Katrina or no Katrina, those areas were doomed anyway. Thanks to Katrina, maybe they will be properly structured to prevent this type of flooding in the future.

[Lindaloo]

So.....I guess all the gulf water that was pushed into Lake Ponchartrain by Katrina had nothing to do with the flooding?

The over topping of the levees and resulting foundation errosion on the dry side is all a lie?

No doubt the canal was a huge engineering error.

But to suggest that NOLA flooded without the assistance of Katrina is just a syndicated columnist trying to sell his story.

Your reply amazes me because of how you make statements regarding building codes, etc.

[sunny]

Yes, the levees were in poor condition. No doubt. Speculation is that Geroges weakened the levees in 1998. Katrina finished them off.

[Lindaloo]

I agree Cindy. And of course, that article failed to mention Georges.

[NFLDART]

Lets just make sure its done right this time

[Audrey2Katrina]

In the year since Katrina, we’ve learned that the storm was a Category 1 by the time she hit New Orleans.

This is PATENTLY misleading, and if ANYTHING is an "urban legend" THIS IS!

The storm was still Category three when it slammed into extreme SE La./Miss upon its third landfall the so-called Category 1 happens to be the alleged level of winds experienced by DOWNTOWN New Orleans as it passed... the storm itself was still EVERY bit of a three, and records indicate it was actually INTENSIFYING as it moved ashore for the first few minutes--and if anything that storm surge was most definitely an ENORMOUS surge--just ask the folks along Mississippi's Gulf Coast who were struck by that "Category 1" hurricane! What Drivel!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

And on the east side of the city, the flooding was largely caused by a shipping channel the Corps dug three decades earlier.

This much is PARTLY true. In the first place, they began digging it nearly FIVE decades ago, (another indication of poor investigative work) when they began building the accursed MRGO which showed its horrific potential when Betsy flooded about 40% of the city area in 1965.

On the other hand, there are photographs taken by a Michoud worker located right along that dreadful conduit showing that "category 1" surge EASILY overtopping the levees, and it's THAT water that completely swamped New Orleans East, and led to the influx of water that caused the MASSIVE flooding in both St. Bernard AND in the Lower Ninth. Yes, part of it was indirectly "man-made" inasmuch as had this revolting hurricane corridor NEVER been built, a LOT of property and lives would have been spared. But the fact remains that it WAS built, and it "funneled" in an astronomical surge force that overtopped MRGO, and created enormous pressures at the Industrial Canal which also breached in Betsy in approximately the same areas and THIS is where a HUGE chunk of the devastating flooding came from. The article IMO is just sensationalizing tragedy--something I am sick to my stomach of seeing/hearing. It's yet another effort at exploiting human misery to sell news. That a large portion of the tragedy might have been avoided is beyond dispute--I've said as much COUNTLESS times--but this is just going several steps too far in oversimplifying a much more complex problem. Yes, it was a catastrophe-in-waiting, but equally yes: take Katrina OUT of the picture and it doesn't happen!

Linda, you bring a valid point in that Katrina did expose these weaknesses for what they were, and had the writer focused more on that, and less on what I see as trivializing what Katrina's role was, it would have been an excellent piece of journalistic investigation. As it stands as written, I see little more than speculative sensationalistic exploitation of the worst kind. God knows we've heard enough of the blame-game, and I for one am sick of the trivialization game some are playing. The MRGO levees actually held, they were quite simply overtopped by that allegedly Cat 1 (beyond ridiculous surge). He also didn't nearly go enough into the loss of wetland buffers the area has gone through. It was Lake BORGNE, not Lake Pontchartrain, that rushed into St. Bernard Parish, where in Chalmette alone, BILLIONS of dollars of damage was done--BY KATRINA!

The Great Flood of New Orleans was not a natural disaster but a man made one.

Poorly worded... the so-called "Great Flood of New Orleans" most definitely was a "Natural Disaster" as a "natural" entity brought it about, this kind of semantic wriggling enfuriates me. As far as "man-made"... I would agree inasmuch as it was definitely a "man-made scenario" that a very "natural" event could wreak havoc with--and Katrina did just that. This kind of oversimplification by playing with the word "natural" is tantamont to saying the Johnstown flood wasn't a "natural" disaster because of a poorly constructed dam, or that the San Francisco disaster wasn't "natural" because it was built on what was known to be an active fault line, or that even the Galveston tragedy wasn't "Natural" because at the time it was well known that the area was only barely above sea-level and on a barrier island at that--to trivialize these with semantics like claiming they were "man made disasters" is over the edge--again, IMO.

the story of the flooding in New Orleans that the media is telling is largely wrong.

Perhaps so... including that from THIS particular article's writer. One would think, reading this that the overwhelming majority of New Orleans' flooding came from the 17th street canal--and while that accounted for a lot--with catastrophic results in the Lakeview area, I find it odd that this guy was anything but a "wiz" at disseminating ALL the facts, including that there were at least SEVEN levee breaches and/or overtoppings, and that those of the combined London Avenue Canal, the Industrial Canal, and the ICW and MRGO account for a VASTLY larger volume of water entering the city's environs than did the 17th street breach. This is what is known in propaganda circles as "selective omission" and it can be frighteningly effective to those who buy into it.

Yes the 17th St. Canal was a calamity waiting to happen, but his suggested, and oversimplistic view that it was at normal, to even "below" some normal levels when it breached is beyond acceptable IMO. He needs to bone up a just a tad more on physics, learning a little more about where the pressure is at its max, and the forces pushing that water. It goes well beyond where the water levels are simply "sitting" at the time of the breach--but to the forces PUSHING that water, and that was decidedly something we know as KATRINA. The massive forces being exerted in all directions along that levee were being exacerbated by an outside force...not simply by sitting in there at any level--this goes beyond dishonest--it's downright unethical IMO.

Hurricane Katrina probably saved 50,000 lives.

THIS is what I mean by "sell sell sell" sensationalistic journalism. Is it a possibility--only in the most extreme stretches of the imagination IMO. I, for one, have absolutely NO intention of falling down and thanking Katrina for this revelation. In the first place, HAD the hypothetical breach alluded to taken place under normal placid conditions, it is HIGHLY unlikely that without the massive pressure of a Cat 1 storm continuously forcing untold millions of tons of water per second into the thing it would have been remotely as catastrophic. Finally, while we're speculating, we can also speculate on the possibility that given more time there just MIGHT have been some pressure from those much more affluent (aka influential) folks in Lakeview to have something done about the "leakage" and the entire scenario avoided altogether!

Bottom line. The article, while making SOME valid points, is an object lesson in yellow journalism at its worst IMHO. It's taking a human catastrophe into a realm beyond speculation to make people already dealing with horror after horror, and exploiting those concerns by dragging them into the realm of "hey this is the real deal--if...if...if..." to only rub salt into an open wound.

I find what MIGHT have been a much better worded bit of investigative journalism into that which is beyond repugnant!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Okay, I just had to do a little "investigative" research of my own... and this "Paul" guy, IMHO is just another conspiracy case running around with his own bias/ax to grind. This "Wizbang" is a blog with a lot of "opinions" being flaunted about as if they were gospel. T'ain't so! I find this "Paul" to have an arrogance that is as colossal as his speculative conspiracy, and am thankful to at least ONE intelligent blogger with the courage to post the following under the abbreviated cite of his "article" (and I use that term VERY loosely):

The IPET report Paul's clamboring for everybody to read states that the levees met the design specification, but not the design intent. That would seem to have something to do with liability.

As would the contributory causes to the failure cited by the IPET such as the failure to close the gate at CSX, possible upkeep issues due to the presence of trees on the levee, et cetera, et cetera.

To read the IPET report and come to the conclusion that 'the Corps was at fault, and they admitted it' is lunacy.

The statement by the Corps of Engineers that they 'caused the flood' is so heavily ammended when considered as a statement in full that Paul's editorial decision to excise the rest of the statement is notable.

So, we're left with Paul, being both an engineer and - apparently - Erin Brockovich, moving around the scene, taking pictures and coming up with his own explanations that the there would have been a spontaneous failure even if there wasn't a hurricane ... because ....

well, Paul's not looked into the matter in terms of what testing regiments were going to be used on the levees what sort of early indicators there would be of a potential levee failure, whether or not funding and resources would be allocated in the event of a potential breach to either shore-up the section or evacuate the people.

Also, Paul WILDLY overestimates the speed with which a spontaneous breach would fill New Orleans killing a potential total of 50,000 people, given that the breach would presumably not take place after 14" of rain fell, there wouldn't be 60+ mph winds to contend with, and all paths leading out of the affected area would be open.

Which might, you know, affect the outcome casualty-wise.

The data Paul's collected personally through photography is admirable and the source material he cites is worth reading, if only to get all the caveats and alternative explanation Paul finds too burdensome to include.

A quick case in point is the the clock that reads 8:57 ... Paul *neglects to consider* that the clock could have been shaken off the wall before 9:00 the night before or that windblown rain or other factor could have caused the clock to stop at 8:57. Somehow Paul's gone from the Town Clock after the Atomic Blast to a wall clock on the ground after the flood as being equally indictative of the timing of the respective events.

Paul, I've read the IPET report.
It does not mean what you think it means.

As for the other evidence you've put together, espcially the photographs, it's interesting to consider and perhaps useful to people with expertise who are investigating it.

What's even more revealing is the level of "Paul's" disdain for anyone with the "stupidity" to disagree with his conclusions. For the record, I happen to KNOW one of those firefightes, and his home was ruined on the Orleans side of that breach and even he is in complete disagreement with the estimable Paul's conclusions. He said the claim that the water levels were "at or near normal" is beyond absurd, and that the so-called "photo" evidence he presents at ground level from a different section still reflects both a very HIGH level in the canal (certainly nothing "normal" as presented) and one that is NOT being surged into with the force of a hurricane adding to the pressure. The only thing I might be inclined to agree with Mr P on is that the ACOE is largely culpable for having failed to protect the city adequately--beyond that:

The article--actually op/ed is yellow journalistic nonsense!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Don't shot the messager

Wouldn't dream of it--but just consider the source.

A2K

[all_we_know_is_FALLING]

Methinks they should interview A2K on the news someday.

[JTD]

If you look at this article with an open mind, this writer is actually correct in alot of ways. Some of the flooding was from over the top flooding. Pontchartrain was storm related flooding. The 9th Ward and other places is poor engineering. The 17th street canal has been bowing for quite a while. So, Katrina or no Katrina, those areas were doomed anyway. Thanks to Katrina, maybe they will be properly structured to prevent this type of flooding in the future.

Excellent post.