On July 10, 2006 the Corps released its 78 page pdf document for providing Category 5 protection to New Orleans. The document entitled 2006 Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration is characterized as a Preliminary Technical Report to the US Congress. Authored by the USACE it lists over 30 contributors including 9 Louisiana departments, 11 cities and parishes, the LRA, BNOB, 10 universities, 10 US Government organizations, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, some Dutch organizations and a number of corporations and foundations.

It proposes a Hurricane Risk Reduction Decision Making Framework focused on eight important components and proposes to use that framework over the next 18 months to produce a final report December 30, 2007 that will give decision makers the information they need. It contains a comprehensive overview of the geography, assets, threats, projects, populations, etc. with some excellent photographic work  It even catalogs some innovative methods for building protection structures. It is a logical approach but may not be aligned with the decision making process.

Controversy swirled again as this document did not seem to fulfill the Congressional mandate for its creation. The disappointment seems to stem from the fact that it did not contain actionable recommendations for specific projects that need to be considered and an overall price tag.  It outlines 18 additional months of study.  Drafters of the plan said that it did contain those specifics until a final review by senior management stripped the specifics from the plan. Sidney Coffee of Gov. Blanco's office identified the Asst. Secy of the Army and the OMB as the policy level members of the Bush administration who made this decision.

The Louisiana Congressional Delegation reacted with the usual disappointment / outrage / impotence. Governor Blanco criticized the plan calling for specifics particularly 1) Rigoletes Gates  2) Close MRGO 3) Barataria Barrier Islands 4) Morganza to the Gulf  5) Southwest Louisiana protection. Included in report you'll find her 3 page letter dated June 27 requesting these specifics. Louisiana recognizes a few issues:

1. Hurricane recovery is amazingly still getting national attention but it's unlikely that the attention will survive another 18 months.
   
2. The governor's priorities are old projects that have been studied for decades and need only the will (and funding) to execute.
   
3. A delay of 18 months increases the exposure to future damage. Five feet of water on Canal Street created a bias for action in Louisiana that does not seem to have penetrated offical Washington.

This could be a powerful argument to forward the Senate's deliberation of the OCS revenue sharing. If Louisiana had its own money for hurricane protection projects that bias for action could result in meaningful protection.

Louisiana was clearly hoping to get started on some critical projects. Closing Mr.Go and rebuilding the Barataria Barrier should not take any more studies. Starting on the other projects could be premature and then again it might not be. At this point Louisiana and the nation ought to be willing to start building while we develop the best possible plan. Louisiana believes the Corps is experiencing "Analysis Paralysis."

As Louisiana continues to study the report the fear that the Corps is continuing to "Fight the Last War" is growing. Emphasis on levees and structures is apparent and rebuilding the wetlands though prominent in the report is not primary. In the reports own words:

"Each of the three major categories of coastal risk reduction measures – structural (e.g. levees and floodgates), non-structural (e.g. elevated buildings and evacuation routes), and coastal restoration (e.g. barrier islands, marshes, and ridges) – represents a strategy for providing risk reduction.  The sole use of any one of these groups of measures would produce a varied level of success and be accompanied by specific risks and impacts. The application of homogenous sets of measures requires a careful assessment of the tradeoffs between damage risks, ecosystem disruption, continued economic viability, and other factors."

If it takes another 18 months to discover the obvious, then so be it, however in doing so if we lose the opportunity to protect what remains of the city and the assets listed in this report shame on us.