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.
Again, my big overarching concern is that we could be repeating a grave mistake of history.
Has the analysis of Option 1 versus Option 2 and 2a gone through any sort of outside peer review?
Do not rush to undertake the expenditure of a lot of funds that might not be adequate for the task.
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.
You are just fixing the same system that broke in the first place.
The authorization language says modify the canals. Now to me, this fits Option 2 better than it fits Option 1 because of that word.
This is the authorization language to do the permanent fix.
OK. So, under Option 1, the solution is to lower the water level allowed in the canal to a lower 'safe water level.' Is that right?
So, wherever there is not a breach, which is 99 percent of the walls we are talking about, there is the same old faulty design that led to t...
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I believe this language covers Option 2 more clearly than it covers Option 1.
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.
It has caused an enormous negative impact in Louisiana.
This is also part of a broader issue, obviously, with China. China is clearly the biggest problem, worldwide, with regard to many products.
