<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] A Bit of Political & Economic Reality





Begin forwarded message:

From: "Stephen D. Poe" <sdpoe@xxxxxxx>
Date: September 5, 2005 12:58:14 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: A Bit of Political & Economic Reality
Reply-To: sdpoe@xxxxxxx


Dave -

For IP, if you like.

Stephen
---

I think there are two salient points here:

1. You Can't Fund Everything
---
Regarding NOLA, levees & preparedness, it was decided 30-40 years ago (depending on which source you go by) to fortify NOLA for up to a Cat. III storm; this was believed to handle 99.5% of all potential hurricane threats NOLA would face (http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/ 20050904/ts_latimes/ despitewarningswashingtonfailedtofundleveeprojects). Every few years since then the Corps of Engineers and/or New Orleans officials and/or Louisiana officials would ask the Feds for the money to ratchet this up; just as regularly, the House and/or the Senate would turn them down. From the 1 Sept. Chicago Tribune:

"WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina.

In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way--inundating much of the city--were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.

However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn't handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.

"I don't see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case," said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the corps. "Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place."

And from a US Corps of Engineers Press Release:
"Let me also address the issue of the general impact of the war in Iraq on civil works funding. We've seen some suggestions that our budget has been affected by the war. I can also say that I do not see that to be the case. If you look at the historical levels of funding for the Corps of Engineers from the pre-war levels back to 1992, '91, before we actually got into this, you'll see that the level of funding has been fairly stable throughout that period. So I think we would see that our funding levels would have dropped off if that were the case; so I do not see that as an issue that is relevant to the discussion of the flood protection of the City of New Orleans." (http://www.usace.army.mil/PA-09-01.pdf)


So, at first blush, you could blame every President and Congresscritter for the past 30 years, not just Bush Jr.

Given Katrina, it's easy to demonstrate how, in hindsight, the ROI would have been positive to spend the extra money.

The problem is the US is full of dozens if not hundreds of such "0.5%" events. Each one, if it happened, would be a monumental loss; each one, taken separately, has a favorable ROI if that event happened. For example, fortifying all of California to handle a Richter 9.0 earthquake. Or even a Richter 8.0. Fortifying the middle of the US to handle a Richter 8.0 if (when) the New Madrid fault lets loose again (http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheets/NewMadrid/). Closer to (my) home, fortifying most of the Midwest to better withstand a Category 5 tornado. Fortifying the East Coast to withstand a tsunami of the magnitude of the last Indonesia tsunami (http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag158.htm). And so on and so on and so on...

But the US can't afford to budget for each and every one of these events. As one pundit reported, politics is the sordid business of, however unfairly, setting priorities with limited funds in a world of unlimited projects. We can't plan and build for every "once in every two centuries (99.5%) events" that might happen anywhere in the US.

2. Our Risks are Increasing
---
As the US population continues to grow, more and more people are moving into higher risk areas. Hurricane Andrew was a wake-up call as to exactly how many more people lived in Florida's "hurricane alley" in the 1990s than in previous years (and several insurance companies failed because of this lack of recognition). The great Midwest floods of 1993 showed how more heavily populated the midwest flood plains had become (http://www.ucowr.siu.edu/updates/130/14%20changnon.pdf). The fires in California show more and more people are building in previously uninhabited areas. As a country, we are increasing our exposure and our financial and human casualty liability on a day-to- day basis.

From an FDIC study:
"The disasters of hurricane Andrew and the Northridge earthquake alone cost the insurance industry more than the cumulative insured losses from catastrophes in the decade before those events. Losses from the two disasters totaled over $45 billion in 1997 dollars, with insured losses running about $30 billion. These insured losses compare with cumulative insured losses from natural catastrophes in the previous decade of only about $25 billion. <http://www.fdic.gov/ bank/analytical/banking/2003apr/footnotes1.html#1> Yet, although the Atlantic and Gulf coastal regions of Florida are exposed to hurricanes and much of California is vulnerable to earthquakes, the population in these states has grown at two or three times the national average for the last three decades. Given this population growth, scenarios constructed by catastrophe modelers now suggest the possibility of a $76 billion hurricane in Florida, a $72 billion earthquake in California, and even a $21 billion hurricane in the Northeast. " - http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/banking/2003apr/ article1.html And as Stratfor points out in their 1 September report "New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize": "The United States historically has depended on the Mississippi and its tributaries for transport... There must be a facility to empower this exchange... Without this port, the river can't be used...

Katrina has taken out the port -- not by destroying the facilities, but by rendering the area uninhabited and potentially uninhabitable. That means that even if the Mississippi remains navigable, the absence of a port near the mouth of the river makes the Mississippi enormously less useful than it was...

It follows from this that the port will have to be revived and, one would assume, the city as well... New Orleans is where it is for a reason: The United States needs a city right there.

New Orleans is not optional for the United States' commercial infrastructure. It is a terrible place for a city to be located, but exactly the place where a city must exist. With that as a given, a city will return there because the alternatives are too devastating. The harvest is coming, and that means that the port will have to be opened soon. As in Iraq, premiums will be paid to people prepared to endure the hardships of working in New Orleans. But in the end, the city will return because it has to.

Geopolitics is the stuff of permanent geographical realities and the way they interact with political life. Geopolitics created New Orleans. Geopolitics caused American presidents to obsess over its safety. And geopolitics will force the city's resurrection, even if it is in the worst imaginable place."



So, perhaps, instead of blamestorming as to why this particular project, in hindsight, was not funded, don't we move on to something more useful - tactically, helping the survivors pick up the pieces and move on; and strategically, planning how to help the US weather the occasional "once every two centuries" event even as the number and scope of such events increases with our increasing population.

These would be far better exercises, IMHO, than more red-vs-blue free- for-alls.






-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/