David Vitter

It has caused an enormous negative impact in Louisiana.

Just to summarize, my personal goal coming out of this hearing, which I think is shared by Senator Landrieu and Chair Boxer, is to first urge the Corps again to reconsider their position on authorization of 2 versus 1.

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

I guess one of the points I am trying to make is that the Corps will say, well, under Option 1 we are going to match at the lake the pumping capacity that the city has in the center of the city.

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…

But my point is, if under Option 1 you cannot allow the water to get past 6 feet, you are giving up a lot of safe storage between 6 feet and 12.5 feet, which we thought we had, which the system was designed to include?

So again, under Option 1, that would not change. Under Option 2, it would completely change for the better.

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, just to underscore this, where the canal walls breached have been replaced with a whole new design. Correct?

Thank you for all your leadership.

Everyone in the State unanimously is with this.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

This is the authorization language to do the permanent fix.

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.

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?

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

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 the breaches.