- Mar 9, 2013
- Leeds United
Just so it's clear - it's $824 million.the report rejected a $1.8bn proposal to deal with the 1 in a hundred year floods but endorsed a $824 bn plan that deals with the 1 in 25 year floods - this also provides 86% of the benefit of the one in a hundred year proposals
in effect making the last 14% of the 1 in a hundred years cost £1bn whilst 86% of the benefits costs $824bn and is expected to pay for its self in approx 4 years with savings on dealing with floods
i think it comes down to the fact that effectivley dealing with the extra 14% of flooding from a one in a hundred year occurrence vs the 1 in 25 year occurrence is simply something that does not provide the same value for money
Also, if I've read the article correctly the $1.8 bn relates to the current recommendations; with $824m going on protecting structures and $988m being allocated to "ecosystem restoration features." There doesn't seem to be any mention of how much extra would need to be spent on levees had they gone that route (I reckon it'd be loads more fwiw).
Apparently the initial report into what should be done around Lake Charles was first drafted in 2013 and finalised in 2016. That has now been scrapped as "too expensive" and this new proposal was described by the quoted Corps spokesman as being "still in its draft stage". Given the three years taken to draft the initial report, the three years between the report being finalised and then being scrapped you'd expect another couple of years to go by before they finally finish this one. The entire thing looks like a bunch of folks giving the appearance of doing something while in actuality sitting on their thumbs. I reckon their current brief is to keep it in committee, talk a lot about the great savings they're making and put a brave face on things. Whatever they do though, they'd better not act.