essay levees draft 1

Loyola University New Orleans Policy Research Shop
College of Social Sciences, Political ScienceDepartment___________________________________________________________
1
Hurricane and Flood Protection in New Orleans
___________________________________________________
PRS Policy Brief
15 December 2011
Prepared by:
Martin Antonio Quintero, Melisa Mantilla and Jerry Reese
This report was written by undergraduate students at Loyola University New Orleans under the direction of
Professor Peter F. Burns.
Contact:
Dr. Peter F. Burns ∙ pburns@loyno.edu ∙ 504-865-2299
Loyola University New Orleans ∙ 6363 St. Charles Avenue ∙ Box 86 ∙ New Orleans, Louisiana 70118

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 3
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 4
THE LEVEE SYSTEM BEFORE HURRICANE KATRINA....................................................... 5
THE CURRENT PROBLEM WITH THE LEVEE SYSTEM....................................................... 6
LACK OF STANDARDS...................................................................................................... 6
DEFINING SAFETY............................................................................................................. 8
THE PROBLEM................................................................................................................... 9
THE NETHERLANDS—DUTCH FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM........................................12
CALIFORNIA VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION.....................................................................17
RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................20
APPENDIX:............................................................................................................................25
WORKS CITED ......................................................................................................................27

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hurricane Katrina was the most destructive and costly of natural disaster in the
history of the United States. Hurricane Katrina revealed the failure of the hurricane
protection system and the poor performance and slow response of the government during
the disaster. The paper focuses on explaining why the hurricane protection system failed
and how the lack of standards for measuring safety is the main problem that the levee
system faces today. Using a set of standards developed from the research, we were able to
propose the courses of action that New Orleans should undertake to improve its’ flood
protection system.

4
INTRODUCTION
Hurricane Katrina was the focusing event that revealed a problem that had been
overlooked, the failure of the levee system and the lack of an efficient emergency response
by the government. In August 29, 2005, a Category 3 storm hit New Orleans leaving
behind 1500 dead and 100 000 homeless. Most of New Orleans was flooded, with the
Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes flooded more than 80%. The devastation caused by the
event revealed the importance and necessity of a safe levee system and the risks of living in
an area unprotected of hurricanes and flooding. The levee system has been restored to
withstand a 100-year flood. However, this is not a standard for safety. Hence, the main
challenge that the levee system faces is the lack of standards that would determine whether
it is or not a safe system. The Netherlands and California served as successful examples of
a safe flood protection system. Therefore, the purpose of the New Orleans’ hurricane and
flood protection system is to reduce the risks and provide safety for those living behind the
levee system.

5
THE LEVEE SYSTEM BEFORE HURRICANE KATRINA
New Orleans geographical makes the city vulnerable to hurricanes, as most of its
population lives in the areas below sea level that are most prone to flooding. In addition,
human activities have disrupted the environment, increasing the rates of erosion of
wetlands and marshes. As a result, the populated areas are being increasingly exposed to
the Gulf of Mexico.
Under the Flood Control Act of 1965, Congress ordered the Corps of Engineers to
protect New Orleans from “the most severe meteorological conditions considered
reasonably characteristic for that region” (Van Heerden, 25). However there was no way to
determine if levees where appropriate for the most severe meteorological conditions. This
Hurricane Protection System was never completed and the design that was originally
planned to take 13 years stretched out over 40 years. During these 40 years, “changes to the
definition of sea level, actual subsidence…, settlement, and datum-related issues caused the
top of barriers to be lower than authorized project levels at some locations” (Sills, 563)
Hurricane Katrina was a stronger storm than what the hurricane protection system
was designed to withstand. Breaching and overtopping took place in levees where these
have been in soils with higher silt and sand content. In addition, I-type floodwalls failed,
especially because of the instability in the foundation soils. In contrast, T-type floodwalls
resisted overtopping and erosion.

6
THE CURRENT PROBLEM WITH THE LEVEE SYSTEM
LACK OF STANDARDS
During Hurricane Katrina, more than half of the levees that protect the Greater New
Orleans were breached or destroyed by the hurricane. Since then, the Army Corp of
Engineers has undertaken the responsibility to restore the levee system to satisfy the one-
percent-annual-chance level of flood risk reduction. However, this is not a safety standard.
In 1968 Congress enacted the National Flood Insurance Program which established that the
“ 1%-annual-chance event as a flood hazard area in which those holding federally related
mortgages would be required to purchase flood insurance” (National Committee on Levee
Safety, 10). Gilbert White, a professor at the University of Colorado and widely recognized
advocate of promoting sound US flood management strategies, explained the problem of
using the 100-year flood as the criteria for design. The Federal Insurance Administration
chose this figure because it represented an intermediate level regional flood, and hence
implicitly imposing this figure as a standard. The problem is that the design of the levees
has focused on the 100-year level flood (which is not a standard of safety) and that even
when levees are said to meet this criteria, there is still likelihood of flood as seen on the
graph below.

7
The graph demonstrates that even with a 100-year level of flood protection there is
almost 30% of flooding over a period of 30 years. In addition, New Orleans geographical
location makes the city even more vulnerable to flooding. New Orleans needs a levee
system that addresses the flood risks and is designed to resist floods of all magnitudes.
Money is not being managed properly because there is no way to determine how to
allocate the resources. The Federal and state agencies have varying policies and conflicting
criteria regarding design, construction, operation, and maintenance. There are no cohesive
standard for levee safety that can be adopted by governments at all levels. New Orleans
needs to attain a safe flood and hurricane protection system. Yet, without standards to
effectively define and measure safety, it is impossible to identify the flaws in the system,
and allocate resources to improve, provide safety and minimize the risks.

8
DEFINING SAFETY
There are several important criteria to take into consideration when defining a safe
hurricane and flood protection system. There are some elements that distinguish a safe
system. These standards serve to measure and define safety1:
1. Building Codes:
o Implementation of Freeboard Design
o Implementation of Closure Design
o Implementation of Embankment Protection
o Foundation Stability Analyses
o Natural protection (wetlands, marshes, barrier islands)
o Land use
2. Levee Certification
3. Program Oversight
o Independent review committee
o Periodical assessment of performance
o Continuous funding
4. Assessment
5. Research and Development
6. Sustainability
7. Training
8. Risk Communication
o Public involvement
o Awareness Campaigns
o Emergency Management
An important aspect that distinguishes a safe system is the one that accounts for all the
unknowns in its design. “Engineers address uncertainties in levees by adding freeboard to
raise crown elevation beyond the minimum speciﬁed to account for unknowns, and by
incorporating redundant measures to limit the eﬀect of the failure of a single component”
(Van Heerden, 27)
1 See Appendix for definitions and explanations of the criteria. These standards were developed using the
criteria used by FEMA in 44 CFR 65.10; the recommendations of the National Committee on Levee Safety to
the Congress and the Analyses of the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force.

9
THE PROBLEM
Analysis performed by the IPET, reveal that “with the current hurricane protection
system, most of the city will be flooded to an extent worse than during Katrina at least once
every 500 years” (Shuster, 16). In addition, there a 10% chance that every 50 years the city
will flood to an extent similar to Katrina.
Using the following standards, one can see that New Orleans has an unsafe flood and
hurricane protection system. Acording to FEMA’s criteria, New Orleans has incorporated
embankment protection, foundation of stability analysis and freeboard design. However,
other important aspects have been overlooked and no action has been taken to address
them.
Also, “population growth and economic investment behind levees is the dominant
factor in the national flood risk outpacing the effects of increased chance of flood
occurrence and the degradation of levees” (National Committee on Levee Safety, 12). The
Census of 2006 showed that two of fastest growing counties in the United States were the
St. Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish. These two areas were the most devastated in the
Greater New Orleans area during Katrina, yet construction and development continues to
take place without land use plan. These areas have low level of flood protection and are areas at
high risk.
Different areas of New Orleans have different levels of flood protection. “However, the
overall level of flood protection is probably on the order of about a 2%-annual chance or
about a 50-year level of flood protection” (National Committee on Levee Safety, 63)

10
Building Codes
Implementati
on of
Embankment
Protection
Natural Protection Foundation
of Stability
Analyses
Implement
ation of
Freeboard
Design
Land Use
X No natural
protection. The
wetlands which act
as a natural flood
protection have
reduced significantly
over the last 50
years.
X X Lack of land use
planning. St. Bernard
Parish and Orleans
Parish, the two areas
most devastated areas in
the Greater New
Orleans, during Katrina,
continue to grow and
develop. More lives and
property are at risk.
Levee
Certification
Assessment Research and
Development
Sustainability Training
X
FEMA
Certified
A review of
federal agencies
that have
responsibilities
for levee safety
indicates a lack of
rigorous
oversight.
X
Modern
engineering
practices have
been applied to
the levees.
Program Oversight
Public Involvement Periodic Assessment of
Performance
Continuous Funding
Most of the funds that have been
allocated for disaster recovery have been
used to restore the levee system to the
100-year level of flood protection.
Vital repairs are neglected, and these
levees are subject to further deterioration
due to lack of funds

11
Risk Communication
Independent Review
Committee
Awareness Campaign Emergency Management
To an extent
The Corps has received approximately $15 billion to repair the levees and floodwalls. This
flood protection system is expected to attain the 1%-annual chance of flood protection.

12
THE NETHERLANDS—DUTCH FLOOD PROTECTION
SYSTEM
The modern Flood Protection System in place in the Netherlands was established as a
protective reaction to the destruction caused by the 1953 North Sea Flood. This disaster
caused the death of 2500 people, the loss of nearly 40,000 properties, and the flooding of
10% of the arable farmland in the country. The Dutch government had began to modernize
its system before the disaster happened but it lacked the capital, both political and monetary
to proceed with its plan. Due to a universal cry for increased and improved protection the
Dutch government was able to launch its plan for modernization across the entire nation.
The modern Dutch Flood Prevention Shield has been designed to withstand a 1:10.000 year
storm, a standard which is constantly reevaluated to ensure optimal levels of protection.
This is ensured through the application of new technologies and techniques that improve
the FPS and in order to address the changing variables due to climate change and other
factors.
Figure 12 Figure 23
2 "Storm Surge Southern North Sea." Canon.Web. 01 May 2012.
3 "Dutch Dikes." - The NetherlandsPhoto. Web. 01 May 2012.

13
The two images above showthe modernization of dikes in the Netherlands during the 20th Century. The FPS
that failed during the North Sea Flood (Right) has been modernized to ensure a greater level of protection
(Left). Note the altitude and size of the dike, the elevated road, reservoir, and drainage channels .
The development of new construction practices has allowed the dike [levee] system
in place in the Netherlands to be able to stand the pressure of enormous volumes of water,
as well as the stress imposed by storms and major decay. This has been achieved through
the development of improved technologies and practices, such as the armoring the dikes,
the construction of a major canal drainage system, and the construction of emergency water
reservoirs.
The current Dutch Flood Protection Policy, “Give the Water Room,” attempts to
address the issues that may arise from a future increase in the height levels of the North Sea
and Dutch rivers.
Give the Water Room proposes:
1. The reclamation of coastal land to expand the buffer zones between inhabited
communities and the sea.
2. The rearrangement of existing dikes in order to expand the rivers banks increasing
the volume of water that waterways can hold without adding more pressure to the
barriers.
3. Increase the number and depth of overflow canals in order to better manage surging
levels and volume of water. Provide for a more expansive draining system for
floodwaters in the case of an eventual major or minor disaster.

14
4. The creation of water storage locations [e.g. artificial reservoirs] towards which
high volumes of water may be moved in the eventuality of a flood or an emergency.
The “Give the Water Room” Policy combines infrastructural innovations in the face of
rising sea levels and increased storm patterns that the Netherlands today faces. Instead of
facing the dangers of flooding directly, this policy proposes a system of defenses by
allowing the water to be more free and not as constricted, and therefore, instead of facing a
direct onslaught; the system functions by allowing the water to flow more freely, resulting
in a decrease on the pressure that is being forced constantly on the FPS.
The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure is in charge of the overall development and
structure of the Flood Protection System of the Netherlands, but even before its modern
inception in the 20th century, a devolved system of administration has existed in the
country: the Water Boards. In essence they are very similar to the structure of the former
Orleans Parish Levees Board, although designed for a smaller, more manageable area.
These boards are in charge of the day-to-day maintenance and supervision of their dikes
and polders [reclaimed land areas] and perform minor works on them if necessary. By
devolving certain authority and responsibility to a local administration the Dutch have
increased the efficiency with which they can handle the upkeep of their system, as well as
the response to any major or local development that may emerge.
The Netherlands shares many geographical similarities that allow it to be used as a
model comparison of what should be done in the City of New Orleans. A majority of the
Dutch territory lies at or below sea level; and the Rhine River passes through a large
portion of the country and is one of its main economical arteries just like the Mississippi,
both of whom if unrestrained would endanger and flood major populated areas. The

15
Netherlands is located on the North Sea, which is constantly eroding the country’s land
area, much like what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, to which the Dutch have
responded through their system of polders for reclamation of land. All in all, the
Netherlands provides the best example of what a nation, when faced with adversity, may do
when there is both a universal cry for change and the necessary political and economic
capital to achieve it.
Building Codes
Implementation of
Embankment
Protection
Natural
Protection
Foundation of
Stability
Analyses
Implementation
of Freeboard
Design
Land Use
X X
Preservation
of natural
environments
that provide
protection
such as
wetlands and
natural
barriers due
to erosion.
X
Analysis of the
structural
foundations of
the dikes
performed
constantly in
order to
combat
gradual
sinking and
erosion.
X
Additional
construction
provides
greater margin
of safety.
X
Levee
Certification
Assessment Research and
Development
Sustainability Training
X
All dikes in the
Netherlands are
public property
and are certified
by the National
Ministry of
Infrastructure and
the Environment
and the individual
local wáter
boards.
X
Constant
assessments are
performed by the
national Ministry
of Infrastructure
and the
environment in
coordination with
the individual
local water
boards.
X
Partnership with
academic, and
public and private
enterprises allows
for new
technological
development in
the field of Flood
and Water
Management.
X
New practices and
technologies
implemented
combine
economic
feasibility with
environmental
standards ensure
an
environmentally
sustainable
infrastructure.
X
Higher education
and employment
standards,
innovative
training technique
ensure
competitive labor
force in charge of
the protection
system and public
safety.

16
Program Oversight
Public Involvement Periodic Assessment of
Performance
Continuous Funding
X
Through locally elected
water boards the people
have a say in the
expansion and
maintenance of their
Flood Protection System.
X
Quinquennial assessments of
the entire flood protection
system and its capacity.
Annual assessments of
individual sections of the
system.
X
A continual funding is
provided for the management
of the system.
Risk Communication
Independent Review
Commitee
Awareness Campaign Emergency Management
X
The Gov’t maintains the issue
of flood protection constantly
in the minds of its citizens
through public awareness
campaings.
X
Centralized Emergency
Response. Benefitted from
small territory and
concentrated population.

17
CALIFORNIA VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION
As a remedy to riverbeds, levees were built very close to the river channels to keep
water velocity high and thereby scour away the sediment.
By the turn of the 20th century, a large device called a sidedraft-clamshell dredge was
being used to remove material from riverbeds to increase the size of levee barriers.

18
In 1917, Congress authorized the Sacramento Flood Control Project, which was
completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1960. "Project levees" built by the
Corps were designed to provide superior flood control protection. Once completed, the
general upkeep of project levees was turned over to local entities. There are more than
1,600 miles of State-federal project levees in the Central Valley, 385 miles of which are
located in the Delta.
California has used flood forecasting and flood operation management for about a
century. After a severe flood across Northern California in December 1955, The
Department of Water Resources established the Division of Flood Management was created
in November 1977.The Division of Flood Management, among several others, is carrying
out the work of the Department's Flood SAFE California Program which partners with
local, regional, state, tribal, and federal officials in creating sustainable, integrated flood
management and emergency response systems throughout California.
The State of California increased its preparation and the ability to protect against
heavy rainfall directly after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. On February 24, 2006,
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allocated $500 million in state funding to assess the
levee system after heavy rainfall. Protecting Sacramento and the San Joaquin River Valleys
is critical to saving $47 billion in infrastructure. In addition, the State of California passed
two bond measures that would provide $4.9 billion for levee and other flood protection
repairs and improvements.
The California Department of Water Resources has repaired 300 levee sites using
state funds, with 100 sights deemed “critical.” Drill evaluations extracted soil samples of

19
the levee in 1,000 ft. intervals, and the samples underwent analysis in which factors as
moisture, density, soil grain size distribution, and shear strength.
To test those criteria, technical specialists measured by:
- analyzing existing levee historical data
- mapping near-surface geology
- conducting field explorations
- performing engineering, stability and seepage analyses by electromagnetic surveys,
underwater bathymetric surveys, and light detection and ranging (LIDAR)
- Topographic surveys using helicopters
Geomorphic drill testing in Central California
Cooperation between the California Central Valley Flood Protection Board and the Army
Corps of Engineers increases transparency and perpetuates good relations between the state
and federal government. Both institutions recognize the same standards of security and
have created a unified policy aimed at combating natural disasters in the Valley.

20
RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure the best protection, the City of New Orleans must implement the
following recommendations:
- Develop standards to guarantee that the best engineering practices are implemented
and that the levees’ provide safety.
- Foundation stability analysis so the levees are built in cohesive materials, so levees
have a higher chance of resisting overtopping without breaching.
- A flood control structure should be built at the main entrance to Lake Pontchartrain,
protecting communities around Lake Pontchartrain up to Baton Rouge
- Establish pump stations to block any storm surge from the lake from entering the
canals.
- All levees need to be substantially raised by the implementation of freeboard
design.
- All levees should integrate armoring that protects levees from wave attack and
erosion.
- Avoid the use of the ineffective I-wall concrete floodwalls. Build “T-wall”
floodwalls, which are equipped to better resist overturning and lateral displacement.
These T-walls will need to be analyzed with regard to this potential failure.
- Incorporate Dutch-type floodgates and pile-supported barrier structures
- “Build a surge protection barrier system westward of the Mississippi river
- “The barrier needs to be elevated a given number of feet to provide additional
protection in the event of overtopping and reduce flood damage if rainfall flood
exceeds the capacity of the pumps” (Van Heerden, 31)

21
- Building and restoring wetlands, to prevent overtopping, water degradation
(experienced in the Netherlands) and protect levees. By collaborating with the state
of Louisiana and non-governmental organizations, such as Environmental Defense
Fund, the City of New Orleans would be able to restore and develop some natural
buffers between the City and the sea in the lower delta of the Mississippi River.
- “The barrier levee and gates protect the built environment, the wetlands protect the
levees, and the barrier islands protect the wetlands” (Van Heerden, 34)
- Legislation to stop development in the wetlands and mandate retreat in high-risk
areas.
- Thomas Birkland explains that structural features of the American government alter
and slow down the policy process. As seen during Hurricane Katrina, there was no
efficient emergency response because there was confusion about who was
responsible and who had the authority. Hence, the federal, state and local
government needs to work together and delegate responsibilities, and thus
improving the system of accountability in case of an emergency.
- An external expert should certify the design; construction and implementation of the
hurricane and flood protection system are consistent with standards and address the
unknowns.
- The City of New Orleans should establish a committee to assess the current
integrity of the levee protection system. The committee would be in charge of three
main aspects of the revitalization of the levee system:
1. Use the Californian system to evaluate the standard of each levee built.
2. Proper allocation of funds and resources

22
3. Meet every five years and set up a group of engineers and experts to inspect and
determine if any modifications are need to keep the levee system up-to-date and
at its best.
- “Storm surge numerical models must be used to fully investigate possible surge
conditions under a whole range of storm sizes, forward speeds, angles of approach”
(Van Heerden, 32) and thus, improve the levees where necessary.
- Communicate to the public the risks of living in such a vulnerable area, so they
understand that levees reduce but not eliminate the risks.
- Push Congress to pass a bill that guarantees that the flood and hurricane protection
system are funded at the federal level.
- Additionally, similar efforts should take place at the state and local governments to
create their own grant programs for levee rehabilitation
- Supported by the evidence given, the City of New Orleans should implement
similar policies used by the Dutch in their flood protection system. The Netherlands
has a defense to defend against a flood only said to happen once in 10,000 years.
New Orleans levee system is only designed to protect against a 100-year storm. By
collaborating with the state of Louisiana and non-governmental organizations, such
as Environmental Defense Fund, the City of New Orleans would be able to restore
and develop some natural buffers between the City and the sea in the lower delta of
the Mississippi River.
- Mandate citizens living the leveed areas to purchase a flood insurance to reduce the
economic losses from flooding.
- Education and awareness campaigns to communicate to individuals that levees do
not eliminate the risk from flooding.

23
- Guarantee that all practices are environmentally friendly.
- Training programs to increase the level of expertise in those involved in the process
of design, construction, operation, maintenance and oversight.
The safety of the citizens must remain a top priority for the city. It has been realized that
some of this falls out of the jurisdiction of the city; however, if it remains a top priority in
the City and amongst its citizens, this problem will not fall by the wayside.

24

25
APPENDIX:
Glossary of Standards
- Assessment: government agencies constantly inspect levees and provide technical
assistance where necessary to implement levees consistent with standards.
- Awareness Campaigns: develop a comprehensive program of education and
awareness to communicate the risk in leveed areas. Citizens in these areas need to
understand the role of levees and know that while levees are designed to reduce
risk, they do not eliminate it.
- Closure design: all openings have closure devices; closures are designed according
to sound engineering practice and are a structural part of the levee during operation.
(FEMA, 44 CFR 65.10)
- Continuous funding: develop a program to ensure that funding is available for
research, rehabilitation, improvement or removal of deficient levee infrastructure
and to maintain the necessary expertise and risk communication programs,
- Embankment protection: it is used to prevent erosion of levee embankment during
the base flood. (FEMA, 44 CFR 65.10)
- Emergency Management: it includes but not limited to emergency plans, evacuation
plans and designed routes for evacuation.
- Foundation stability analysis: evaluating expected seepage during base flood
loading conditions, including flooding depth, duration, penetrations and other
seepage and stability factors.
- Freeboard design: Engineers address uncertainties in levees’ design by adding
freeboard to raise crown elevation beyond the minimum speciﬁed.
o Settlement analysis assessing potential freeboard loss due to settlement,
showing that minimum freeboard will be maintained. (FEMA, 44 CFR
65.10)
- Independent Review Committee: a committee responsible to ensure that levees are
operated and maintained in accordance with appropriate and protective standards by
constantly inspecting levees.
- Land use: a plan for land use that establishes a buffer zone between levees and the
populated area to minimize the risks to the population in case of flooding.
- Levee Certification: the design for all new levees and existing levees have to
comply with the standards specified and must be certified by a professional
engineer.
- Natural Protection: wetlands, marshes and barrier islands act as storm-buffering
protection and protect the levees’ infrastructure too.
- Periodical assessment of performance: develop programs focused on continual and
periodic inspections.

26
- Public involvement: Citizens are aware of the protocols and procedures during an
emergency and know the steps for protecting their families, homes and businesses
from flooding.
o Projects need to increase the public involvement in levee safety programs.
- Research and Development: Develop technology and engineering practices for
levee site investigation, design, construction, operation and maintenance.
- Sustainability: develop measures that guarantee that the levee operations and
maintenance are environmentally friendly practices.
- Training: training programs to increase the level of expertise and knowledge in all
aspects of levee safety to those involved in the design, maintenance and oversight of
levees.

27
WORKS CITED
 Cardno, Catherine A. "Hurricane Protection System Reviewed, Deemed Successful
during Hurricane Gustav." Civil Engineering (08857024) 79.8 (2009): 30-2. Print.
 Eisler, Peter. "Panel to Urge National Safety Standards for Levees ; Federal
Committee's Preliminary Findings show that no One really Knows if the Barriers
could Withstand a Flood." Usa Today, sec. NEWS: 4A. Print. December 22 2008.
 FEMA. "Requirements of 44 CFR Section 65.10: Mapping of Areas Protected by
Levee Systems." FEMA Library. Apr. 2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2012.
 Heerden, Ivor Ll van. "The Failure of the New Orleans Levee System Following
Hurricane Katrina and the Pathway Forward." Public administration review 67.,
Special Issue on Administrative Failure in the Wake of Hurricane Katrina (2007):
pp. 24-35. Print.
 House, Gary W. "Actions for Change." Recommendations for a National Levee
Safety Program. 7 Oct. 2008. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
 National Commitee on Levee Safety. "Recommendations for a National Levee
Safety Program." Recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program. Web. 27
Apr. 2012.
 Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. “Water”. Web. April 28
2012.
 Reid, Robert L. "Louisiana Levee District Launches Local Hurricane Protection
Plan." Civil Engineering (08857024) 80.6 (2010): 16-20. Print.
 Shuster, Laurie A. "RISK ANALYSIS: ASCE Panel Finds Risk Level in New
Orleans 'Unacceptable'." Civil Engineering (08857024) 78.6 (2008): 15-6. Print.
 Sills, G. L., et al. "Overview of New Orleans Levee Failures: Lessons Learned and
their Impact on National Levee Design and Assessment." Journal of Geotechnical
& Geoenvironmental Engineering 134.5 (2008): 556-65. Print.

essay levees draft 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to essay levees draft 1

Similar to essay levees draft 1 (20)

essay levees draft 1