Selected comments on Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) from email lists
Compiled by Ilan Kelman (dated 4 September 2005)
disaster_grads
Hazardmit
Other Email Lists
SwiftH2O-News and PSDivers-PublicSafetyDiversForum
Other Articles
See also:
JISCMail archives
Radix archives
GDN archives
disaster_grads
(all messages)
From : Courtney Flint <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 1:58:52 PM
To :
Subject : Katrina
Hello all,
I've been surprised by the lack of dialogue on our listserve about the tradegies occurring in the Gulf States. Seems like this should be a forum for putting together a collective set of ideas about what went horribly wrong in managing this event, where we go from here, and how the disaster field of practitioners and researchers can respond. Any thoughts?
Courtney
Courtney G. Flint
Univ of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Dept of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences
1023 Plant Sciences Laboratory
1201 South Dorner Drive
Urbana, IL 61801-4778
Telephone: 217-244-1840
Fax: 217-244-3469
Cell: 217-714-6012
EMail:
From : <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 2:29:09 PM
To :
Subject : Re: Katrina
I can say the same thing about the Hazardmit list (see Hurricane Katrina shouldbe a wake up call for re-emphasis of hazard mitigation and most specificallyhazard avoidance. Are we going to fund yet another rebuilding initiative in thehigh hazard zone? The once 'cornerstone of emergency management' has falled bythe wayside. Why? The war on terror? Or is it that we have reversed course andreturned to the notion that we can both control and predict nature? Should wepermit the USACE to strengthen and heighten all the levees around New Orleans?Where is the political will to bring about serious hazards avoidance? Will theUS taxpayers not living in the high hazard zone be willing to once againsubsidize the few who choose to live in the high hazard zone? The massiverecontruction effort that follows major disasters is an unparalleled opportunityto redesign an otherwise vulnerable society in a sustainable manner, which !includes hazards avoidance. Is anybody with any political clout going toadvocate for the long view?
- Christian Stalberg, Hazardmit Moderator
From : Kathleen Oberst <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 2:37:46 PM
To : <>, <>
Subject : RE: Katrina
Hi Courtney, My personal belief is that it is inappropriate to say thatthings went "horribly wrong" in managing at this point. It is easy tobe an arm-chair emergency manager however we are not on the groundhaving to implement the plans that presumably existed and having toreact to the ever changing environment. The media is likely not asinterested in reporting on things that are working well since that willbe less likely to draw in viewership so I don't believe we have completestories. This situation is also far from over.
There is no doubt that this will be a tremendous learning experiencethat unfortunately will have a large human toll in terms of mortality,morbidity, displacement not to mention the remarkable economic andsocietal ramifications both on-site and in receiving areas of thecountry. This is and will continue to be a test of many systems that upto this point had seemed to be the best options on paper or even inexercise scenarious (which are still artificial and planned). I don'tthink disaster management will ever be an exact science and we do thebest we can with what we have at the time and make notes for how tobetter the process for the future.
Just my personal opinion. I look forward to seeing how this impacts ourfield, especially 'mitigation' in the years to come. Thanks for thenote.
Kathleen, RN, MS, PEM
From : Cheryl Chang <>
Reply-To : Cheryl Chang <>
Sent : September 2, 2005 2:45:14 PM
To : ,
Subject : Re: Katrina
What do you mean by "what went horribly wrong in managing this event?"
Phrases like that are interesting in that sometimes they can serve as anindication of the expectations a person may have with regard to a situation. Obviously, I have absolutely no way of knowing what your expectations are and myreply is not an attempt to reveal and judge what those expectations are.
However, that phrase did inspire the following questions:
- how can we presume that we can "manage" such a widespread event? Howrealistic are our expectations?
- how can we live in the context of these naturally-occuring events so that wecan mitigate negative effects in the future?
- how are we labeling what happened?
- what are our individual definitions of "manage?"
- what are our ideologies/values/world views around our relationships toweather, climate, etc.?
To me, it's important to ask and answer questions such as these because, whetherwe realize it or not, the values that we hold and the meanings we attach towords and events very much influence what actions we take in reponse to thesewords and events.
Cheryl Chang
Rockledge, Florida
From : Earl Lee <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 3:13:03 PM
To : <>, <>
Subject : RE: Katrina
Courtney and all,
You use of the phrase "went horribly wrong" is exactly what this forum isn'tfor. What this forum serves best is the needs and knowledge transfer amongacademics and many other organizations in first of all learning from this. Ido apologize if this seems poorly worded or organized but your post deservesan immediate response.
We should be looking at what went right - the courage of the mayor indeclaring the evacuation - how big of a political scapegoat would he be ifpeople had left and nothing happened.
What about the long view - who has ever written the plan for the long termevacuation of a major American city? Who will be there for the cleanup? Whowill re-inhabit the homes and businesses? What are the long term healtheffects from the flooding - what heavy metals, fecal material, chemicals,etc now permeate the structural materials of the remaining buildings? Whatabout emergency management - the response to the chemical plant fire andexplosion this morning was in police boats. What will fire and otheremergency response be in the weeks and months ahead? How much of the citycould be lost due to fire during restoration when power comes back yetfirefighting resources and water may still be in short supply.
Courtney - I have to say this is the first time and hopefully the last thatI see that phrase in this forum. What are we doing? We are doing what we dobest. We are preparing proposals to fund the research to learn and assistwith this horrible event. We are supporting the efforts of those at thescene with our hopes, prayers and donations. This forum will serve as thesharing point for information in the weeks and months ahead.
The forum for the arm chair quarterbacks that point fingers is foundelsewhere..
I apologize to all for the emotion in this ...but it had to be said...
Earl Rusty Lee
Decision Sciences and Engineering Systems
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 Eighth St. CII 5107
Troy, NY 12180
(518) 276 2759
From : Runte, Eduardo Frederico Augusto <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 3:17:51 PM
To :
Subject : Re: Katrina
Hello folks,
I agree with the comments you all made so far. I do not think something went"horriblywrong" in the New Orleans area. First, it is a region prone to hurricanes, it isnotthe first one, and certainly not the last one. So, this is in line with thequestionraised by Christian Stalberg: "Are we going to fund yet another rebuildinginitiativein the high hazard zone?". Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes. Why?Becausehazard is just one of the things in people's minds. After all, the area in whichNewOrleans is located is a beautiful spot.
The other point was raised by Kathleen: what are our expectations? The dams werebuiltto stand a hurricane 3 - just as the WorldTradeCenter towers were built tostand asmall airplane collision - but if that threshold is surpassed, well, there's notmuchwe can do.
The one thing I see wrong with much of the US disaster planning in general isthe overreliance on the military, and when all eyes and troops are directed to Iraq andAfganisthan, there is not much manpower left to take care of domesticsituations.
I was also displeased to see the use of the superdome as a shelter - it is toobig andposes serious management problems. With the capacity of hosting over 30k people,it islike a small city, with all the problems of a small city.
The disaster tells something about ourselves as well. If you read Pres. Bush'stalksabout the whole situation, "maintaining the law" (which translates as "securingproperty") is often mentioned before "taking care of people". Should thegovernment bespending money at all with trying to control gangs invading houses when thereArepeople dying of starvation?
Eduardo
--
Eduardo Frederico Augusto Runte
MA Candidate - Department of Sociology
University of New Brunswick
ICQ: 31826219
MSN:
From : Tim Hundsdorfer <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 3:27:20 PM
To : <>
Subject : RE: Katrina
You people are sick. Blame the victims. Don't accuse the incompetent swinethat have let Black New Orleans suffer for FIVE DAYS without an attempt tore-establish order or get them food and water, that would be unfair. Ignorethe fact that Congress had cut funding for levees for the past four years.Instead, let's talk about how the victims (1/3rd of whom live in poverty)didn't evacuate or live in high risk places.
Ridiculous.
From : Ilan Kelman <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 3:30:23 PM
To :
Subject : Re: Katrina
What do you mean by "what went horribly wrong in managing this event?"
Where to begin? I give a few examples:
1. Emergency responders from different jurisdictions could not communicate due to different equipment. Have you read the 9/11 report?
2. Hundreds of water rescue specialists were attending a conference in New Orleans last week and were told to evacuate on Friday. A major hurricane is about to strike a low-lying city and you tell the experts with the equipment, training, and experience to get out?
3. People have been working for ten years (or more) to get specialist water rescue as a core part of flood emergency response and, in particular, to get them to pre-deploy (safetly) to the crisis area. You don't need a PhD to work that one out, yet it has not happened. 48 hours after impact, one water rescue team was told to drive for two days to get to New Orleans while on-site rescuers were short of boats which were sitting in a warehouse in Boise. Why was there no pre-deployment? Why were there apparently minimal thought that flood rescue would be needed?
4. On Friday, most major airlines cancelled flights from New Orleans leaving people stranded. They then flew their aircraft and crews to safety--completely empty of passengers.
5. Academics and practitioners have been warning for years that New Orleans was vulnerable to this event and explaining what to do about it. Plans were not prepared properly, were not updated, and did not factor in the issues that people were warning about. Do a literature search and look at who was talking to the practitioners and the authorities. The amount of work which was going on at an operational level and which was ignored is frightening.
6. Plenty of literature and operational plans exist regarding pets in disasters. The lessons are not apparent from New Orleans.
7. Plenty of literature and operational plans exist regarding shelter after disaster. Every single rule has been broken--in a developed, affluent, industrialised country.
8. Hurricane Andrew taught emergency managers significant lessons regarding post-hurricane operations. Few were implemented in New Orleans. I append below someone else's message to another listserve.
9. Someone asks "who has ever written the plan for the long term evacuation of a major American city?". What have the past four years of DHS and counterterrorism been about? Are you trying to tell me that in planning for dirty bombs and mini-nukes, no one considered that a major city might be unihabitable for weeks?
10. Someone else wrote: "The dams were built to stand a hurricane 3". Hurricane categories refer to wind speed. Factors such as atmospheric pressure, wind fetch, and coincidence with high tide are better correlated with storm surge height than wind speed. If the dams were indeed built with a view that they might blow away in the wind, it is no wonder that they failed under water pressure.
I have barely scratched the surface. There is plenty more that I could write. This is not about armchair emergency management. This is about the operational reality from those with field experience: what was known, what could have been done, and what was not done. This listserve is about both good and bad practice, about the people who died because of incompetence, and about what we should be doing to avoid making the same mistakes for the fifth or fourteenth time.
Let us admit what happened and what did not happen. Let us admit the mistakes which were made and the good practice which was witnessed. This time, let us turn "lessons learned" into "lessons applied".
Ilan
------
Having been an emergency manager in Florida for the last 20 years. None of these problems are new. None ofthem could not be expected. All of them were lessons learned from as far back as Hugo, and Andrew. The lack of communications, the lack of food and water are well understood. The lawlessness was seen after Andrew. What has happened is a lack of understanding those lessons learned and then building operational systems capable of responding to those problems. This is not a planning issue or a legislative issue it is an operational issue.
There was a long piece on the news about police officers not knowing what to do when their radios went out. That happened in Andrew and can be planned for and then carried out. I created for my old jurisdiction for multi-departmental task forces around the city that included fire, police, EMS, public works and public utilities vehicles and personnel. When the winds stop without orders from anyone these task forces begin to move down the streets toward the center of the city clearing streets and dealing with problems as they move. This was not my idea someone else had already thought of it.
If you have ever seen a shelter during a hurricane you could have predicted the problems in the Superdome. It was too many people with too few shelter managers, law enforcement, EMS, medical personnel and National Guard to support it. Regardless of the flooding or any of the other problems there should have been help to them by now. It is about operational command and control. The running of an EOC during these events can be chaotic if good command and control procedures are not implemented to grab control the chaos. With a good Incident Action Plan priorities can be set and then accomplished. We have got to get better as a profession at operations if we are ever going to avoid the problems we are facing in New Orleans in the next big disaster. You can write all the plans you want but unless you can carry them out and adjust to rapidly changing conditions not in the plan the plans become useless.
Roger C. Huder CEM
From : Bryan J. Boruff <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 3:48:39 PM
To :
Subject : Ridiculous
Thank you "Ridiculous". There is nothing more to say.
Bryan J. Boruff, Ph.D.
Hazards Research Lab
Department of Geography
University of South Carolina
(803)777-1699
From : Ana Maria Cruz, Ph.D. <>
Reply-To :
Sent : September 2, 2005 3:52:43 PM
To :
Subject : Re: Katrina
I received this message today, think it is quite appropriate at this time. My son is a New Orleans resident (and I also lived there for over 7 years) and it breaks my heart to see the poorest people of New Orleans still trapped in the city on the 5th day after the storm...... a scene from a 4th world country.... we definitely need to ask questions! Tim, I am with you!
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
by Hunter Thu Sep 1st, 2005 at 10:28:22 PDT
George W. Bush was once known as the C.E.O. President, a term his handlers eagerly coined in order to convey that the country would from now on be run like a business. That quickly evolved into the less flattering Enron President... then the War President... now it's looking like we can all finally settle on one. George W. Bush: the Disaster President.
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
He honestly said that.
The administration specifically cut the funds to fix these specific levees, in order to specifically divert that Corps money to Iraq, despite urgent warnings and predictions of catastrophic disaster if the levees were breeched. The administration specifically cancelled the Clinton-backed flood control program to preserve and restore the wetlands between New Orleans and the gulf, instead specifically opening parts of that buffer zone for development.
Nobody anticipated this disaster? It was identified by FEMA as one of the top three likeliest major disasters to strike America. (That link, one of countless stories, was from 2001, by the way.) It has been a major disaster scenario for years. Everybody anticipated it, which makes this single statement by George W. Bush possibly the most dishonest, lying, craptacularly false thing he has ever said in his presidency -- even surpassing his now-infamous State of the Union Address. Truly, this is President Bush's blue-dress moment.