Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (150949)	12/14/2005 11:16:12 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 793838

I think you misread my postion on the COE. "Below we have presented as facts in evidence conclusion that are not crystal clear." OH, I repeated part of C2 post sans clear quotes. the last to paragraph presented are repeat that comment above refers to. the delays in Federal assistance, the unpreparedness of FEMA, the sluggishness It is crystal clear that the Corps of Engineers made terrible errors in engineering, design, and supervision of the construction of the levee system and canal banks. Designing for and permitting installation of sheet piling which reach only 10 feet below sea level in soft, peat-like soil, to support a levee system was gross negligence. Even the design plans called for 17 feet, and the experts who have examined the design say this was woefully inadequate. It would seem from you latest info that even not crystal clear is not dismissive enough. It looks like maybe no to little COE errors is the fact. But I would also not now call "no errors" a crystal clear fact.

To: aladin who wrote (150949)	12/14/2005 11:44:25 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793838

The information concerning the 10 ft. pilings rather than the specified 17 ft. length was based on sonograms. They seem to have been in error, but I cannot confirm this since only a few sections have been lifted. It is impossible yet to state with any conviction that all of the pilings were in fact 17 ft. long. The originally designed 17 ft. pilings have been widely criticized as inadequate by some eminent engineers and the National Science Foundation as being insufficient. If the 17th st.canal had been overtopped, a failure mechanism could be readily identified. Howerver, they were not overtopped. Bottom line: The sheet pilings were either insufficiently designed or improperly constructed, both of which fall into the COE'slap. There is also an increased focus on dredging of one of the canals whose purpose was to increase the canal's depth beyond its original design. It removed some impervious clay soils and increased the load on the sheet pilings. The dredging was approved by the COE, and was performed only on the side of the levee which failed. The significance of this has not been yet assessed, but it certainly raises suspicions that the removal of the clay soils reduced the effectiveness of the sheet pilings because water could seep under them.