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 (151040)	12/14/2005 5:26:51 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

My point is you are ready to convict the COE folks on very preliminary data It depends on how high a level of assurance you want. The COE had the legal duty to make sure the design and the construction were sufficient to withstand a cat. 3 storm. It had a duty to conduct inspections of all levees to make sure they were not compromised and that they were cat. 3 storm-proof. Katrina was a cat. 3 a storm. In the case of the 17th st. canal, the floodwalls were not overtopped. They should have therefore held if their design, construction, and inspection were sufficiently good to withstand a cat. 3 storm. The MR GO project was built with the COE's funds, was designed by the COE over protests thatit would funnel a storm surge into the city, which is exactly what it did. One hundred days after the event, knowing what we know and knowing the legal responsibility imposed on the COE, it is sufficiently obvious to me that that it is at fault. No doubt the contractors may have snuck a few things under the COE's nose, but that does not absolve it from its legal duty to prevent that kind of thing from happening.