Interesting points

On January 10, I received an email from a concerned and informed individual who agrees that the levees and floodwalls that failed New Orleans need to be rebuilt. However, he disagreed with the Save the Big Easy Organization's view on how this should be accomplished. He raised some good points, and I responded, and I believe that our conversation should be shared.

"Dan, That's a very interesting thought. I believe, however, that it is not a function of Congress to feed money to a city with a local government that is too corrupt to take care of itself. I agree that the levees should be fixed, and preferably quickly, but it is my hope that the effort of those who live in New Orleans, along with the slap in the face that this situation has hopefully imposed upon the local government, will coerce the necessary people into allocating local funds and imparting their own energies toward this problem, and not shunning personal responsibility. Congress has already given much more aid in the form of wasted dollars than they have in motivation to fix the actual problem, and until someone defies logic by making efficient use of dollars they are not held accountable for, I think I'll hold off from signing your petition. Thanks for caring about it enough to do this though, and I hope you'll take into consideration the idea that throwing more money at the levees probably won't make them build themselves." -Anonymous

I responded..."I appreciated your forthright email. You clearly have given this issue somethought and I thank you for taking the time to convey your views. I would liketo respond to your arguments, and I hope after reading this that you will consider signing the petition.

In your recent email, your major points as I understood them were as follows: 1) The city governmnet is too corrupt to be trusted with large sums of taxpayer dollars. 2) The repairing and strengthening of the levees and floodgates is a local, and not a federal, responsibility. 3) Congress has already appropriated enough money for New Orleans.

Yes, the city government of New Orleans has been riddled with corruption in the past. And, despite strides made in fighting that corruption, it still remains aproblem. However, there is a broad movement in Louisiana now to clean up the local levee boards and to consolidate them into one board with reputable boardmembers. Any bill that our organization takes part in forming will call for thecreation of a completely independent levee board with credible and honest boardmembers. This Levee Council will not be beholden to the local government butrather to the U.S. government and will be monitored by watchdog groups. If the culture of corruption in New Orleans will not change, then it will be bypassed with a Levee Council responsible to the federal government. You would also benaive, and surely you are not, to not acknowledge the presence of corruption inother state governments and the federal government. Corruption is not native to New Orleans, and as the Jack Abramoff scandal goes deeper, we see that it is not confined to one party or one level of government either. Corruption at the local level can be overcome.

You say that you hope that, "those who live in New Orleans...will coerce the necessary people into allocating local funds and imparting their own energies toward this problem, and not shunning personal responsibility." This statement, is flawed. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designed the defective levee system for New Orleans and supervised its construction. The system was designed to hold against a Category 3 storm and immediately after the storm, itwas believed Katrina struck as a Category 4 hurricane. However, it is now becoming clear that Katrina struck land as a Category 3 storm and thus the system should have protected New Orleans from flooding. Obviously, it did not. Since the federal government built that failed levee system, it is responsible for rebuilding it. If the Army Corps of Engineers had not designed the system,I could understand the argument that it is not a federal responsibility. However, that's not the case. Secondly, you say that local funds should be used to rebuild and not federal funds. Lets assume for a second that it was not the federal government's responsibility to rebuild the levees and it was the stateof Louisiana's responsibility. The Category 5 levee system will probably cost $30 billion. That is too much money for a state as poor as Louisiana. Lousianais ranked 47th in per capita income and is the 6th poorest state overall. In addition, the state gives the federal government most of the $8 billion in oil and gas revenue it collects every year from the Gulf of Mexico. So how is the state supposed to fund a new levee system? If the levees are going to be rebuilt, the federal government is going to have to help significantly.

It is also true that Congress has appropriated a lot of money for New Orleans already. Billions of dollars in emergency aid. Most of that money is going to emergency payments for individuals hardest hit by Katrina and for relief operations. Very little actually was appropriated for the levees, a billion or so, and that billion is only going to patch up the levees for next hurricane season. Without strengthening them, what is the point? The city is just as vulnerable.

Finally, as you know, the whole nation was adversely affected by the devastation that befell New Orleans. I live in NY and gasoline prices skyrocketed here. New Orleans handles nearly 25% of domestic oil refining or output (I need to checkthat figure). The point is, the damage to New Orleans affected everyone. Therefore, it is everyone's responsibility to make sure that this never happens again. Investing in new levees for the city is really an investment for thewhole country. The federal government built that levee system, it is responsible for rebuilding it the right way this time, and it must provide the funds to do so otherwise it will never be done. And if it is not done right this time, then everyone loses. So please Mike, sign the petition.

Once again, thanks for your comments and I hope you reconsider.

Respectfully,

Dan"