I am just pointing out that when you say you only have the money to do Option 1, it is because you only asked for the money to do Option 1.

Do not rush to undertake the expenditure of a lot of funds that might not be adequate for the task.

The authorization language says modify the canals. Now to me, this fits Option 2 better than it fits Option 1 because of that word.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I believe this language covers Option 2 more clearly than it covers Option 1.

This is also part of a broader issue, obviously, with China. China is clearly the biggest problem, worldwide, with regard to many products.

It has caused an enormous negative impact in Louisiana.

But they provide a heck of a lot more protection from flooding.

The safe level is seven or eight feet below the top of the wall. Clearly, that is diminished capacity from the original design.

But under Option 1, which you want to move forward with, they would not be redesigned, they would not be rebuilt?

Thanks, Madam Chair, and thank you again General for your leadership.

Has the analysis of Option 1 versus Option 2 and 2a gone through any sort of outside peer review?

Again, my big overarching concern is that we could be repeating a grave mistake of history.

it is safer. It would simply take the water out of the system and avoid the huge risk of the collapse of the walls again.

Thank you for all your leadership.

But everywhere where they did not breach, which is 99 percent of the length of the walls, we have the same design and the same walls as we had before Katrina. Is that correct?

So, given that, is not the general concept of Pump to the River to move a significant volume of water in a whole other direction and avoid the 17th Street Canal, a reasonable compensation for that enormous loss from the capacity we thought…

In my opening statement, I expressed a frustration, also, with some of the ways the Corps is moving forward...