The Corps of Engineers has stated repeatedly that they are succeeding in their projects to the extent they are authorized by Congress. They act like their hands are tied to act outside this scope even when its obvious that the "truth on the ground" suggest they should. They don't seem to feel they have the mandate to advocate for effective projects.

The levee boards ceratinly don't have this role as their job is to mow the lawn.

In classic project managment terms what is needed is an Executive Sponsor. This role is usually filled by a senior member of the buying organization. The Executive Sponsor interacts with the Project Manager to make sure the project stays on a track that makes sense. Who wants a successfully completed project that fails to produce a useful outcome?

It is unrealistic to assume that the goals stated and objectives developed at project inception will remain unchanged as the project progresses and details are developed. The Corps conducts multi-year even multi-decade projects under just this assumption.

This suggests a role. Executive oversight of the Corps and liasion with Federal and State authorities. Scientific and engineering expertise would be required but even more important would be the advocacy skills needed to command the respect needed to get the job done.

Do we need a "Coastal Protection Czar?" Did our congressional delegation forsee this need in their Pelican Commission proposal to spend $40 billion on flood protection?