News New Orleans disaster predicted in 2001

[Rabid]

Here is some information about FEMA under Clinton

Among emergency specialists, "mitigation" -- the measures taken in advance to minimize the damage caused by natural disasters -- is a crucial part of the strategy to save lives and cut recovery costs. But since 2001, key federal disaster mitigation programs, developed over many years, have been slashed and tossed aside. FEMA's Project Impact, a model mitigation program created by the Clinton administration, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half. Communities across the country must now compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars.

As a result, some state and local emergency managers say, it's become more difficult to get the equipment and funds they need to most effectively deal with disasters. In Louisiana, requests for flood mitigation funds were rejected by FEMA this summer. (See sidebar.) In North Carolina, a state also regularly threatened by hurricanes and floods, FEMA recently refused the state's request to buy backup generators for emergency support facilities. And the budget cuts have halved the funding for a mitigation program that saved an estimated $8.8 million in recovery costs in three eastern North Carolina communities alone after 1999's Hurricane Floyd..

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-09-28/cover_story.html

 

[Evo]

Here is some information about FEMA under Clinton



http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-09-28/cover_story.html

Shows that Clinton could have actually DONE something and DIDN'T. Appointing committees and people is lip service. Why didn't he actually DO SOMETHING? What IMPROVEMENTS to the levee did he make?

 

[pattylou]

I don't think anyone said Bush should have improved the levee.

In fact, someone pointed out that levee improvement was underway - and scheduled to complete in 2010.

People are saying that Bush cut programs and funds that could save lives. Clinton didn't. I don't understand your point, Evo. Obviously, there are dozens of catastrophes waiting to happen. The supervolcano under Yellowstone. Earthquakes in LA. Mt St. Helens. Tsunami in Oregon. Volcanoes in Hawaii. Twisters in the midwest. Famine, drought.

Flooding in Louisiana.

I don't think it is reasonable for any president to protect absolutely against each of these threats. But if a president has a style of making sure emergency relief (or mitigation) is available --- vs taking that relief (and mitigation) and squandering it -

The comparison seems clear.

What am I missing?

 

[Rabid]

I think appropriating millions for disaster mitigation programs is a little more than lip service, IMHO, but as far as the levee system, I haven't seen anything to indicate that he denied funding requested to work on the levees as this administration did.
As far as I know, the Core of Engineers got their requested budget under Clinton.

 

[loseyourname]

Yeah, it was known that it could happen at any time for a lot longer than 2001.

I can remember seeing news programs about how New Orleans is slowly sinking and will inevitably end up like Venice, and since it's on the Gulf Coast it's set up for a humanitarian disaster. Just like what happened.

I was going to mention that. Althought it's pretty bad that the funding for their levees was pulled, this scenario was almost inevitable no matter what they do. Building a city on a river delta is begging for eventual trouble. No levee can stop an ocean, or even just a river as voluminous as the Mississippi, from rising. The true moral I pull from this disaster is that man is doing himself a disservice by expanding his dwellings blindly into regions where cities have no business being. Just look at Malibu; when you build on a chaparral cliffside, you can't complain when you suffer from wildfires and mudslides.

One interesting thing to bring up is the fateful building of the Erie Canal back in the early nineteenth century. Before the canal was dug, New Orleans was the main point of shipping for all midwestern goods to the rest of the world, and even to the eastern seaboard. The port of New York dealt mostly in regional trade goods. As Chicago became the national hub of meatpacking, New Orleans could easily have become the preeminent port, and perhaps city of commerce in general, in the entire United States. Thanks to the building of the Erie Canal, though, it became possible to ship goods from the midwest, and especially Chicago, directly to the eastern seaboard and the Port of New York. This was the event that really precipitated the rise of New York to such a powerful city. Imagine if that had happened to New Orleans right now. Imagine New York buried under ten feet of water, the city deserted except for scattered refugees.

 

[Skyhunter]

Shows that Clinton could have actually DONE something and DIDN'T. Appointing committees and people is lip service. Why didn't he actually DO SOMETHING? What IMPROVEMENTS to the levee did he make?

Well he was an economist not a construction manager.

He signed the bill that funded the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project.

Bush cut the funding. The levees that failed were the ones that were 80% complete, the same ones Bush left severely unfunded.

Here is an article that talks about it.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html

I have a rule that I usually apply when discussing current politics. "If you have to resort to using Clinton in your argument you have lost." Although in this case I think I see what you are trying to accomplish.

It is not all Bush's fault, but the lack of response, the gutting of FEMA, and the cutting of funds for existing projects have contributed to the scope and scale of the disaster.

 

[Evo]

I don't think anyone said Bush should have improved the levee.

Yes, that has been the accusation.

Even if Bush hadn't recently cut back on funding, not enough would have been done to matter for this storm. The project was never aggresive enough.

In Skyhunter's link, it states that last year they recognized that "more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane" and "that second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million". Even if funds hadn't been cut, this would not have had an impact on this storm. The study wouldn't even be finished until 2008.

 

[Skyhunter]

I was going to mention that. Althought it's pretty bad that the funding for their levees was pulled, this scenario was almost inevitable no matter what they do. Building a city on a river delta is begging for eventual trouble. No levee can stop an ocean, or even just a river as voluminous as the Mississippi, from rising. The true moral I pull from this disaster is that man is doing himself a disservice by expanding his dwellings blindly into regions where cities have no business being. Just look at Malibu; when you build on a chaparral cliffside, you can't complain when you suffer from wildfires and mudslides.

One interesting thing to bring up is the fateful building of the Erie Canal back in the early nineteenth century. Before the canal was dug, New Orleans was the main point of shipping for all midwestern goods to the rest of the world, and even to the eastern seaboard. The port of New York dealt mostly in regional trade goods. As Chicago became the national hub of meatpacking, New Orleans could easily have become the preeminent port, and perhaps city of commerce in general, in the entire United States. Thanks to the building of the Erie Canal, though, it became possible to ship goods from the midwest, and especially Chicago, directly to the eastern seaboard and the Port of New York. This was the event that really precipitated the rise of New York to such a powerful city. Imagine if that had happened to New Orleans right now. Imagine New York buried under ten feet of water, the city deserted except for scattered refugees.

Excellent point, reminds me of a song when I was a kid.

"I got a mule her name is Sal...fifteen miles on the Erie canal
Low bridge... everybody down
Low bridge cause were coming to a town
So you'll always know your neighbor
you'll always know your pal..if you've ever navigated on the Erie canal."

Don't remember any more.

Even though I said it to my friends jokingly, I was half-way serious when I told them they should go to Mardi Gras before NO was under water.

New Orleans was settled there because it connects the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. Great location on a very bad site.

 

[loseyourname]

New Orleans was settled there because it connects the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico. Great location on a very bad site.

In my revisionist opinion, Memphis would have been the ideal location for a Gulf port. It avoids having to build on the delta, and the river is still wide enough to build a large inland port, like in Philadelpia or Portland. Oh well, though. It's a little late to unbuild New Orleans and move it upriver. You wish that city planners would have more foresight in these kinds of things.

 

[pattylou]

Yes, that has been the accusation.

I missed it. Was it in this thread? Who said such a silly thing?

 

[Astronuc]

In all fairness to Bush, mostly likely what happened with Katrina would have happened if Kerry or anyone else were president.

Successive administrations (and Congress) have allowed the situation to develop. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the levees along the Mississipi and around NO. Their budgets have been cut and money diverted. Clinton was pushing for surpluses and Bush has his war.

The levees should have been upgraded long ago.

Remember Hurricane Andrew (Aug 24, 1992 - almost 13 years to the day) was a Cat 5. Then, experts were asking, what would happen to New Orleans. Then was the time to fix/upgrade the levees.

As for the cost and time - my company and many others have the capability, and have had the capability for more than 10 years to analyze the levees and provide engineering solutions.

As for money being diverted to the war in Iraq - I know first hand that is the case. However, very likely, even without the Iraq war, I suspect the levees around New Orleans would have had the same low priority as they have had for a long time - regardless of who is president, Democrat or Republican.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think anyone said Bush should have improved the levee.

What am I missing?

The entire point of this thread was that Bush should have improved the levees. Skyhunter said it in the OP and TRCSF ran with it. And more:

And then there is this;

The corps of engineers website says the project has a long way to go. 2 projects are about 90% complete, but some are 70% or 60%, and some haven't even been started.

From your article on FEMA:

Back in 1995, Danny Franklin wrote a piece in the Washington Monthly about the travails of FEMA, an agency that had an abominable reputation for poor planning and bureaucratic incompetence in the 80s and early 90s:

FEMA was, in the words of former advisory board member and defense analyst Lawrence Korb, a "political dumping ground," a backwater reserved for political contributors or friends with no experience in emergency management. [that's a mixture of an article and a blog]

Again, the problems with FEMA were decades-old. Clinton didn't fix them either, and from the looks of things, folding FEMA into homeland security can only help.

So Bush should have improved the levees - ok, sure, he should have. But nothing he could have done in 4 years could have had an impact. So the question becomes, why didn't Clinton do more? Or Bush Sr? Or Reagan? Or Carter...? Few people took the threat seriously. Bush is no better or worse in that

 

[russ_watters]

I have a rule that I usually apply when discussing current politics. "If you have to resort to using Clinton in your argument you have lost." Although in this case I think I see what you are trying to accomplish.

This is precisely the same as the knee-jerk "Blame Bush!" reaction people had to 9/11. When the dust settled and the 9/11 comission report came out, there was lots of blame to go around, with most of it going to Clinton for eviscerating the intelligence services and doing nothing about the first WTC attack.

Sorry, Skyhunter, history can't be segmented the way you want it to be. I'm perfectly happy to put some of the blame for this on Bush Sr., Reagan, and Carter as well, since, as I said, such projects take many decades - but that still needs to include Clinton.

 

[Art]

From your article on FEMA: Again, the problems with FEMA were decades-old. Clinton didn't fix them either, and from the looks of things, folding FEMA into homeland security can only help.

In 1993, President Clinton's new FEMA director, James Lee Witt, set the agency on a corrective course. Witt, who had served under then-Gov. Clinton as director of Arkansas emergency management, embarked on an ambitious campaign to bulk up the agency's natural disaster programs while staying prepared for "all hazards." Witt's changes eventually reversed FEMA's reputation for being unfocused and ineffective. The agency garnered praise from both Democrats and Republicans for improving coordination with state and local emergency offices, and turning attention and resources to the benefits of disaster mitigation.

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-09-28/cover_story.html It says in this quote even republicans praised the improvements made to FEMA under Clinton so it's okay to give the man credit on this one Russ. You won't be kicked out of the party.

 

[pattylou]

The entire point of this thread was that Bush should have improved the levees. Skyhunter said it in the OP and TRCSF ran with it.

Incidently the money for shoring up the levees was used for homeland security and the Iraq war.

And where is the Louisiana national guard?

Oh that's right, in Iraq.

This does not equate to "Bush should have fixed the levees". Rather, it equates to "Money that could have been spent on the levee system was diverted to homeland security."

Are you saying that such money was *not* diverted to homeland security?

The references and reports on this matter - None of them have put the blame on Bush for not improving the levees directly. Instead, they paint the pattern of his priorities, as Skyhunter did.

Look. It's the job of the office of the President of the United States to take care of things like this, and Bush done f*cked up.

Again, nowhere does (s)he say anything about bush fixing the levees. As I read the thread, the message was simply that Bush had (1)diverted money (2) removed the national guard and (3) not put any attention to possible catastrophes at home(in fact the reverse).

Are any of these *specific* claims in dispute?

And, are *these* the quotes you're talking about??

 

[Art]

Yes, that has been the accusation.

Even if Bush hadn't recently cut back on funding, not enough would have been done to matter for this storm. The project was never aggresive enough.

In Skyhunter's link, it states that last year they recognized that "more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane" and "that second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million". Even if funds hadn't been cut, this would not have had an impact on this storm. The study wouldn't even be finished until 2008.

Shows that Clinton could have actually DONE something and DIDN'T. Appointing committees and people is lip service. Why didn't he actually DO SOMETHING? What IMPROVEMENTS to the levee did he make?

I know you have often stated that you didn't vote for Bush but given your criticism of all things democrat and praise / understanding of all things republican I presume you must have been physically incapacitated to prevent you voting that day.

 

[Kerrie]

As far as I am concerned, the National Guard is for domestic use and it is wrong to send them overseas. But, it's not my decision.

THAT I can certainly agree with. America has it's tragedies too, even if we have the technology and money to deal with it, there will still be hardships.

My heart really goes out to the LA/MS area. Especially those who are most vulnerable-the elderly, the sick, and the children.

Also, I am certainly not a fan of Bush, but it's too easy to blame the president for this chaos. I think bad decisions all around were made by many. Ultimately, America needs to take care of itself when it comes to these needs though before we start meddling in with other nations (such as Iraq).

 

[arildno]

Just a bit of European heresy here:
Perhaps American voters are to blame in not voting for anyone willing to pay for upgrading the levees?

 

[russ_watters]

This does not equate to "Bush should have fixed the levees". Rather, it equates to "Money that could have been spent on the levee system was diverted to homeland security."

I don't see the difference between the two.

It says in this quote even republicans praised the improvements made to FEMA under Clinton so it's okay to give the man credit on this one Russ. You won't be kicked out of the party.

Clinton's interest in FEMA was in natural disasters, at the expense of homeland security, Art. Bush has been going the other way. Its a push-pull, and the article says pretty explicitly that FEMA has never had a clear mission since it was created in 1979 - it changes with the changing geopolitical climate.

And quite frankly, it is contrary to the purpose of FEMA for it to be concerning itself with prevention.

Also, while it may be true that funding to FEMA itself has been cut, it is of course also trivially obvious that general funding for disaster relief has been massively increased with the inception of the Homeland Security Administration - the administration to which FEMA has been joined.

FEMA's history, from FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

A not-so-rosy picture of Clinton's impact on FEMA: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0197f.asp

 

[Art]

I don't see the difference between the two.

If you do not see the difference then it follows that as you have agreed that Bush diverted money that would have been spent on the levees you are actually the one purporting that Bush is directly to blame.

And quite frankly, it is contrary to the purpose of FEMA for it to be concerning itself with prevention.

This is from the first paragraph of the FEMA ref you kindly provided,

The Federal Emergency Management Agency - a former independent agency that became part of the new Department of Homeland Security in March 2003 - is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from and mitigating against disasters.

Highlight added by me.

A couple of nice own goals there Russ.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is precisely the same as the knee-jerk "Blame Bush!" reaction people had to 9/11. When the dust settled and the 9/11 commission report came out, there was lots of blame to go around, with most of it going to Clinton for eviscerating the intelligence services and doing nothing about the first WTC attack.

Most of it going to Clinton.

The perpetrators of the first WTC attack were captured and prosecuted, his eviscerated intelligence service thwarted the millennium plot, and he and his administration emphasised the threat from OBL when Bush took over.

What did Bush do about terrorism before 9/11?

Lie about Clinton and his team vandalizing the White House. Try to start a new "star wars program, and develop scenario's where it would be feasible to use nukes! Ignore the threat of terrorism until they had a better excuse than the Cole bombing.

Do you remember that in order to have unanimous agreement on the report the commission left out the part about Bush's incompetent handling of intelligence until after the election.

Hmm the election is over, and they never published part 2.

Bush ignores terrorism. And his apologists blame Clinton. Typical right-wing delusions.

Sorry, Skyhunter, history can't be segmented the way you want it to be. I'm perfectly happy to put some of the blame for this on Bush Sr., Reagan, and Carter as well, since, as I said, such projects take many decades - but that still needs to include Clinton.

Most of the time the argument is; "Well Clinton was worse." In this one it is; "Clinton was no better." Well Clinton did more for FEMA and the levees than Bush has.

I am contending that Bush's policies and his response are making the disaster worse. You are defending him.

You seem quite capable of doing so without blaming Clinton. The ACE report was a good example.

It is all a matter of priorities. This response reminds me of the Tsunami, where it wasn't until a reporter in Europe asked Clinton about the disaster that someone on Bush's team decided that he should maybe do something.

What was he doing the day after Katrina hit?

Playing guitar and selling his war.

Good leaders don't need people to continually make excuses for their failures.

 

[pattylou]

Just a bit of European heresy here:
Perhaps American voters are to blame in not voting for anyone willing to pay for upgrading the levees?

My husband's comment:

It's OK for any president to be as bad as previous presidents. And sometimes, it's okay to be a little worse.

I thought that was amusing. I'm sure we could blame the founding fathers, too, if we tried.

 

[pattylou]

Good leaders don't need people to continually make excuses for their failures.

I like that. Can I use it?

 

[Skyhunter]

I like that. Can I use it?

Sure, although I will want a couple of bucks if you use it in a best seller.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm perfectly happy to put some of the blame for this on Bush Sr., Reagan, and Carter as well, since, as I said, such projects take many decades - but that still needs to include Clinton.

I have to agree with Russ on this.

If one blames Bush, one has to blame Clinton too, and their predecessors.

Clinton's administration did cut certain domestic programs. My previous company got wacked by one of those cuts.

One also has to look at the priorities on the part of Congress.

Since the 1980's there has been enormous pressure to cut taxes, while still funding numerous federal programs.

Congress needs to prioritize, and the President needs to make sure that Congress has the right priorities. Checks and balances.

Hopefully, we will find out what wasn't done about the levees and why.

This kind of disaster will happen again - be sure of that. Houston could easily get a Cat 4/5 hurricane, and they were pretty badly flooded a few years ago. New Orleans, Mobile, Pensacola, Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville, Savannah, . . . are all at risk of receiving a Cat 4/5 hurricane.

 

[Kerrie]

Just a bit of European heresy here:
Perhaps American voters are to blame in not voting for anyone willing to pay for upgrading the levees?

There are many US citizens who question if their vote is even effective these days. Our voting system is seriously flawed (IMO), but that's another topic altogether.

 

[BobG]

The strength and height of the levees is pretty much a cost-benefit analysis and what specifically happened in NO has little to do with any president, at least directly.

Granted, with a large enough budget, even lower priority, once in a hundred year disasters get taken care of, but I don't think any president has made that type of commitment to preventing natural disasters - for one thing, natural disasters aren't normally blamed on politicians while taxes are.

Considering the impact of a disaster of this scale in a region like New Orleans and the surrounding Gulf, accepting a once in a hundred year risk winds up being more expensive than spending the money ahead of time to reduce the risk. Tapping into the reserve oil supply gives a hint about how important this part of the country is even above and beyond the cost in human lives and devastated buildings. But then you're asking politicians to take the blame for taxes now for a problem that's more likely to occur 'sometime in the future'.

I am surprised at how the levee failed. With a direct hit, you knew you'd have water flowing over the top, causing a disaster. I was surprised the levee actually broke. That wasn't exactly the advertised vulnerability.

The only solution, scientists, politicians and other Louisiana officials agree, is to take large-scale steps to minimize the risks, such as rebuilding the protective delta.
Every two miles of marsh between New Orleans and the Gulf reduces a storm surge -- which in some cases is 20 feet or higher -- by half a foot.
In 1990, the Breaux Act, named for its author, Sen. John Breaux, D-La., created a task force of several federal agencies to address the severe wetlands loss in coastal Louisiana. The act has brought about $40 million a year for wetland restoration projects, but it hasn't been enough.
"It's kind of been like trying to give aspirin to a cancer patient," said Len Bahr, director of Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster's coastal activities office.
The state loses about 25 square miles of land a year, the equivalent of about one football field every 15 minutes. The fishing industry, without marshes, swamps and fertile wetlands, could lose a projected $37 billion by the year 2050.
University of New Orleans researchers studied the impact of Breaux Act projects on the vanishing wetlands and estimated that only 2 percent of the loss has been averted. Clearly, Bahr said, there is a need for something much bigger. There is some evidence this finally may be happening.
A consortium of local, state and federal agencies is studying a $2 billion to $3 billion plan to divert sediment from the Mississippi River back into the delta. Because the river is leveed all the way to the Gulf, where sediment is dumped into deep water, nothing is left to replenish the receding delta.
Other possible projects include restoration of barrier reefs and perhaps a large gate to prevent Lake Pontchartrain from overflowing and drowning the city.
All are multibillion-dollar projects. A plan to restore the Florida Everglades attracted $4 billion in federal funding, but the state had to match it dollar for dollar. In Louisiana, so far, there's only been a willingness to match 15 or 25 cents.
"Our state still looks for a 100 percent federal bailout, but that's just not going to happen," said University of New Orleans geologist Shea Penland, a delta expert.
"We have an image and credibility problem. We have to convince our country that they need to take us seriously, that they can trust us to do a science-based restoration program."

I agree the loss of wetlands over the years contributed very significantly to the disaster, but restoring them at this point would require a lot more money than anyone would spend. Unless you could convince everyone along the entire Mississippi River valley that periodic floods were the cost of living next to the river, it would be a constant never ending investment of huge amounts of money. The boldfaced (by me) alternatives are the most cost effective way to avoid an endless raising of the levees.

 

[Manchot]

Clinton's administration did cut certain domestic programs. My previous company got wacked by one of those cuts.

Just out of curiosity, what was that domestic program?

 

[Skyhunter]

Clinton's interest in FEMA was in natural disasters, at the expense of homeland security, Art. Bush has been going the other way. Its a push-pull, and the article says pretty explicitly that FEMA has never had a clear mission since it was created in 1979 - it changes with the changing geopolitical climate.

The cold war was over, Clinton was reallocating government resources. I don't know what Bush is doing since he is unwilling or incapable of communicating clearly.

The department of homeland security has become another huge pork barrel.

Their major function, frightening people during the election cycle is now over so what are they doing now?

Where was their immediate response to the aftermath of Katrina?

And quite frankly, it is contrary to the purpose of FEMA for it to be concerning itself with prevention.

Preventing an emergency is much more efficient than coping with one after the fact.

What agency is supposed to concern itself with disaster prevention?

Also, while it may be true that funding to FEMA itself has been cut, it is of course also trivially obvious that general funding for disaster relief has been massively increased with the inception of the Homeland Security Administration - the administration to which FEMA has been joined.

See pork barrel.

FEMA's history, from FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

So what is the problem here?

In 1993, President Clinton nominated James L. Witt as the new FEMA director. Witt became the first agency director with experience as a state emergency manager. He initiated sweeping reforms that streamlined disaster relief and recovery operations, insisted on a new emphasis regarding preparedness and mitigation, and focused agency employees on customer service. The end of the Cold War also allowed Witt to redirect more of FEMA's limited resources from civil defense into disaster relief, recovery and mitigation programs.

A not-so-rosy picture of Clinton's impact on FEMA: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0197f.asp

This is one of those sites full of partisan rhetoric complaining about giving people tax payer money when they are struck by a disaster.

 

[Skyhunter]

once again I would like to point out that the flooding may well have been avoided had the Army Corp projects been fully funded. We will probably never know but the point that Bush is diverting rescources needed at home to fund his adventure in Iraq is still valid.

The levee and flood-control system itself represents the city's losing battle with nature. It has been built in fits and starts since 1724, and it was still not done when Katrina struck. The cost has been immeasurable, and the failures innumerable. Moreover, the section that protects against hurricane surges--begun only 40 years ago--has sunk below the height designed to bulwark against a Category Three hurricane (Katrina was nearly a Five). For decades, models have shown that, if a Category Five were ever to crawl up the mouth of the Mississippi--a scenario known to New Orleanians as "the Big One"--it could lift 25 feet of water into the saucer and leave New Orleans submerged for months. This week's cruelest irony is that New Orleans survived something like the Big One only to succumb to shoddy engineering: The city was soused the day after the storm, when levee collapses dumped 20 feet of water into the city. It met its demise by an act of man, not an act of God

Emphasis added by me.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050912&s=diarist091205

[edit] New Orleans should not be rebuilt because thermal expansion and melting land bound glaciers are going to make it near impossible to prevent a future disaster.