Gulf Coast Hurricane Damage Prevention Bill II

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As re-introduced by Senator Ebowed.

Gulf Coast Hurricane Damage Prevention Bill II

1.  No new levees shall be constructed on the Mississippi River or its tributaries without the consent of the Army Corps of Engineers.

2.  The Army Corps of Engineers shall approve the construction of new levees on the Mississippi River or its tributaries only in cases of eminent danger to sites of population centers or sites of vital economic importance.

3.  The number of total levees on the Mississippi River and its tributaries shall be reduced by 25% by 2020.  This shall be accomplished by the removal of levees that do not meet the provisions of Section 2 of this act.

I hereby open debate on this bill

[MasterJedi]

I have one question, what will the removal of those levees do?

[Q]

I have one question, what will the removal of those levees do?

^ The first question that should be asked.

Right now, because of the thousands of levees along the Mississippi River and its tributaries, the Mississippi is basically a chute going from Minnesota all the way to Louisiana.  All the water that enters it during its route, save a small portion used for irrigation and such along the way, thus must exit the river at a single point: New Orleans.

Removal of the levees would allow the river to flood naturally and more often, but on a smaller scale than it currently does.  Right now, nearly every flood on the Mississippi is catastrophic, because in order for the river to flood at the current time, it must reach levels high enough to breech levees.  Removal of non-essential levees would allow the river to expand and contract more naturally.

This problem is not a new one, either.  It was first recognized by the Army Corps of Engineers as early as the 1930s, but no action has ever been taken to correct it.

[Platypus]

Guys, didn't we kinda...get rid of the army corps of engineers?

[Sam Spade]

Guys, didn't we kinda...get rid of the army corps of engineers?

Yep.

[Platypus]

Guys, didn't we kinda...get rid of the army corps of engineers?

Yep.

*sigh*

I suggest this bill be withdrawn unless anyone can think of a suitable alternative to the army corps of engineers.

[Q]

Guys, didn't we kinda...get rid of the army corps of engineers?

Yep.

That was wise.

Any money spent rebuilding SE Louisiana is a waste if it's just going to get washed away again.

[Brandon H]

As we no longer have a ACE, this is probably a moot point. Perhaps altering levees along the entire Mississippi would make a difference, but New Orleans can not afford to have any levees removed, though I am sure it is possible that the levees can be reconstructed in a more efficient manner.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This bill has been withdrawn from the Senate floor

[Q]

This bill has been withdrawn from the Senate floor

Then perhaps a bill could be introduced that would prohibit federal tax money from being spent on repairing flood damage on the Mississippi River.

It's a waste of money and very short-sighted to leave the situation as it is, and then throw cash at it every time there's a disaster.  We're inviting further destruction as it is.

[Brandon H]

This bill has been withdrawn from the Senate floor

Then perhaps a bill could be introduced that would prohibit federal tax money from being spent on repairing flood damage on the Mississippi River.

It's a waste of money and very short-sighted to leave the situation as it is, and then throw cash at it every time there's a disaster.  We're inviting further destruction as it is.

If the people who suffered Flood Damage along with Mississippi River pay federal taxes then they should receive federal aid. If federal tax money would be prohibited from helping those in the area then those in the area should be prohibited from paying federal tax money.

[Q]

This bill has been withdrawn from the Senate floor

Then perhaps a bill could be introduced that would prohibit federal tax money from being spent on repairing flood damage on the Mississippi River.

It's a waste of money and very short-sighted to leave the situation as it is, and then throw cash at it every time there's a disaster.  We're inviting further destruction as it is.

If the people who suffered Flood Damage along with Mississippi River pay federal taxes then they should receive federal aid. If federal tax money would be prohibited from helping those in the area then those in the area should be prohibited from paying federal tax money.

If someone builds in a place that is unsafe, why should part of my income go to rebuild their property just as it is.

Building a house on sand, as the Bible put it, is unwise.

I don't want people's lives to be ruined over and over again.  I want the situation fixed for the long term.  The best way to do that is by securing the area geographically.

[Brandon H]

I don't want to repeat this either. But you can't tell one part of the country that they are less important than another part of the country. Whether it is the largest or smallest city, every city and every citizen in Atlasia is important. And everyone who pays taxes, expects to at least get something for that money they are paying. The federal government helped out during previous disasters. Are we to say one that the people in the Mouth of the Mississippi and Gulf Coast are less important than other citizens? Do we expect them to leave their homes, some of which have called these places home generation after generation for well over 200 years? Nearly every place in country has its own dangers. Terrorists want to attack major financial sectors such as New York as well as our nations capital. California is vulnerable to earthquakes and forest fires. Indiana was recently hit by Tornados. If we started looking at every reason not to leave someplace, we may as well just move out of our entire country because no place is safe.

[Q]

I don't want to repeat this either. But you can't tell one part of the country that they are less important than another part of the country. Whether it is the largest or smallest city, every city and every citizen in Atlasia is important. And everyone who pays taxes, expects to at least get something for that money they are paying. The federal government helped out during previous disasters. Are we to say one that the people in the Mouth of the Mississippi and Gulf Coast are less important than other citizens? Do we expect them to leave their homes, some of which have called these places home generation after generation for well over 200 years? Nearly every place in country has its own dangers. Terrorists want to attack major financial sectors such as New York as well as our nations capital. California is vulnerable to earthquakes and forest fires. Indiana was recently hit by Tornados. If we started looking at every reason not to leave someplace, we may as well just move out of our entire country because no place is safe.

Then they need private insurance.

I and other taxpayers are not in the insurance business.

[Brandon H]

I agree. But the insurance companies have labeled certain areas as "No Flood Zones" and do not require Flood Insurance. Guess what flooded. Also, guess where flood insurance comes from? The federal government. http://www.floodsmart.gov/ The insurance companies need to be more honest. However, I was not talking about insurance. The Hurricane victims of 2005 deserve the same treatment as the victims of 2004 and years past as well as other victims of disasters.
Actually, as this bill was with drawn because there is no longer a Core of Engineers, there may not be a federal money available for disaster victims in the first place.

[MasterJedi]

Since this has been withdrawn and we only have 3 bills on the floor can we get another one on?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yep. Wait a sec...