Hurricane Katrina: Infrastructure Impacts - Case Study Example

National’s Infrastructure Accident (failure of the New Orleans levees) Introduction The overwhelming consequences that resulted from the levee failures at New Orleans generally focused the civil engineering sector and the country’s attention on the cause of what refers to the worst nation’s infrastructure accident in the history of United States. According to a report produced by ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers), the country is beginning to accept the fact that its infrastructure is aging and thus there is the need of its repair or even total replacement (United States, 2006). There is a need of the U.S. government to implement effective measure that would prevent the occurrence of such accidents. This paper aims at highlighting the various actions that are necessary for the U.S. government to consider in order to mitigate occurrence of similar events in future. The Occurrence of the Hurricane Katrina For those who watched the media news about the New Orleans landfall made by the Hurricane Katrina in the year 2005, highly remember how water flooded over the numerous levees, which were built to prevent an occurrence of such accidents as well as protecting the city. Several factors contributed to the failure of New Orleans levees ranging from poor engineering designs to the storm’s sheer ferocity (Reilly, 2009). All these factors were into consideration during the reconstruction of the levee after the wake of the Hurricane Katrina. The other low-lying cities in America learned a lot from the failure of New Orleans levees and considered such factors when making evaluation on their preparedness prevent occurrence of such storms. New Orleans is an American city that is located in a unique site, because it is completely below the sea level. Residents of this city cope with the surroundings of large water bodies such as Lake Pontchartrain, Mississippi River, and Mexico Gulf with array of levees designed to prevent flooding water from entering the city (United States, 2006). When conditions caused the breakage of the constructed levees during the Hurricane Katrina in the year 2005, the effect was highly harming and flooding water pooled out covering the entire city. With the initial 24 hours after the storm started, 28 levees had already failed. The total number of failed or broken levees increased to over 55 within the first week. The U.S. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers), the core constructor of the levees issued out a public explanation on why the levees failed after several days. According USACE’s account, the design of the levees was only to protect the city from Category Three storms, and the Hurricane Katrina generated a too massive storm surge that the levees were unable to handle hence the reason the levees broke (Reilly, 2009). The officials of the USACE justified this inadequate protection by claiming that the governmental funding for the construction of the levees was too restrictive to enable them to add other safety measures. The funding decision-making depended on strict risk analysis. This review weighed the event of hurricanes above Category Three alongside the levees’ construction cost and the cost to be incurred while coping with effects of storms if they occur (United States, 2006). Risk analysis is frequently a gamble, and if disasters such as Hurricane Katrina occur, the house appears to be a winner. However, this leads to loss of lives and property damage hence affecting the country economically, politically, and socially. However, few weeks after the event of the Hurricane Katrina, additional report explaining the failure of the levees emerged. The professional engineering companies of United States suggested there were other factors that influenced the failure of the levees. Among these research reports, there was a significant piece of information that investigated the levees’ debris line. The debris line was in most cases below the top level of the levees (Reilly, 2009). This indicates that the flooding water did not top these levees, thus; they failed in other ways. Most of America engineers who highly criticized the breakage of the New Orleans levees argued that the levees failed due to poor construction, or constructed on layer or foundation with a low power of shear. This meant that when flooding waters exerted forces against the levees, the levees only gave way for the waters. Additionally, the Corps of Engineers failed to interlock the sections of the levees firmly to increase their strength (Levitt & Whitaker, 2009). In most cases, the constructions of the levees were over peat or dirt levees causing them to break easily. Independent studies came to conclude that the major factors leading to the levees failure were poor design and low construction quality. How the government responded to the levees failure After several months of serious analysis of the national infrastructure accident, the ASCE argued that the organizations that are responsible for such critical life-safety infrastructures should be under organization that enables them to focus on safety matters. Additionally, civil engineers should continually make evaluations on the appropriate design criteria and always consider how the performances of single components may affect the performance of the entire system (Mccarthy, 2008). These principles are commonly familiar in almost all individuals and companies participating in funding, designing, planning, operating, and constructing critical life-safety infrastructures. The U.S government used this report to address all forms of institutional and engineering factors that led to the failure of New Orleans levees. The ASCE Board established the CIGTC (Critical Infrastructure Guidance Task Committee) mainly to develop the guide whose main purpose was to ensure quality during construction of significant life-safety infrastructure (McCarthy, Bring New Orleans Back Commission & Rand Corporation, 2006). The CIGTC formulated some guiding principles for institutions and civil engineers to follow when constructing critical life-safety facilities such as the levees. The U.S. federal government started to prepare for a large infrastructure accident in New Orleans city since the year 2002. Joe Allbaugh who was FEMA director at that time ordered for a conduction of examination (Hurricane Pam drill) of a hurricane possibility hitting New Orleans that year. In the year 2004, FEMA started the investigations and came to conclude the possibility and risk of a huge storm occurring in New Orleans. After this drill, the U.S. government started preparation for a large storm such as Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans (Mccarthy, 2008). Despite all these efforts, most people criticized FEMA for doing a very deprived job in response to the disaster. Michael Brown, FEMA’s director at the time when Hurricane Katrina occurred resigned from his position soon after the occurrence of the accident. Most reports stated that Brown was highly focused on showing her personal appearance than providing quality response to the citizens who were perishing. The world watched the Hurricane Katrina consuming millions of lives and damaging personal and governmental properties and U.S. government responders to the event being unable to offer effective protection of lives and properties from nation’s infrastructure accident (Farris, 2007). The cover titles of two U.S congressional reports showed the sense of governmental failure to respond effectively to this disaster. The SHC (Select House Committee) identified that there was a failure of initiative, while the SCHSGA stated that U.S was a country that was still unprepared for nation’s infrastructure accidents. This poor governmental respond resulted from the failure of the state to manage various risk factors. FEMA had long considered the risk of occurrence of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (Huber, 2007). Therefore, there was sufficient warning about the event of the Katrina and thus FEMA had already made emergency declarations several days before the disaster occurred. However, the responders’ failure to convert this essential information into their preparations was the main factor for poor response. As the whole situation unfolded, it was now clear that the U.S. government response was inefficient and at the same time inadequate. It became true that the federal government had no sufficient information regarding the exact destruction that the levees failure had caused to not only the New Orleans city but also the entire world (Farris, 2007). Most people nationally and internationally lost their relatives, friends, and properties due to this nation’s infrastructure accident. Although the U.S. federal government employed quantity of workers to respond to the situation, the accident’s effects continued worsen wreaking havoc in the entire city with large numbers of citizens still stranded in the city and looters robbing their properties. Following the worsening of the havoc despite federal government respond, firefighters from all corners of the country participated in the incident to help the federal government’s responders. However, majority of the firefighters were unable to use their firefighting skills to ensure efficient and adequate rescue operation. Instead, they wasted most of their time handing out FEMA Fliers to the New Orleans residents (Huber, 2007). Additionally, the governmental organizations that are responsible for rescue and search did not show any attempt to respond to the situation (Urban search and rescue and Civil search and rescue). FEMA also seemed not willing to ask for help from any non-governmental organization. For example, the U.S. Red Cross was not mandated any permission to take part in the rescue process. The decision-making criterion that FEMA used was ineffective and that the reason the government was unable to provide efficient and adequate respond to this nation’s infrastructure accident (Farris, 2007). The government’s response to nation’s infrastructure accidents is a very crucial thing and needs much improvement. The actions that government could take to mitigate a similar event in the future The recent catastrophic occurrences of nation’s infrastructure accidents in United States serve as a reminder that the government should find other measures that will mitigate occurrence of similar accidents in the future. Basing on the failures of the state and the Engineers Corps to come up with meaningful actions to address the levees failure issue, the U.S government should establish long-term measures that will mitigate event of such harming nation’s infrastructure accidents (Huber, 2007). The government should ensure adequate funding towards the construction of any life-safety facility because adequate funding is the only key to quality infrastructures. If the U.S. government had provided sufficient funds to the Corps of Engineers during the construction of the New Orleans levees, the Engineers would have constructed levees that would be able to handle any other storm category apart from Category Three storm (Levitt & Whitaker, 2009). Secondly, there is a very high need for the government to establish clear responsibility lines to ensure effective operations and maintenance of all drainage systems, as well as flood control projects. One big problem prevailing in many countries apart from America is that almost all governmental projects are rarely completed increasing the risk of nation’s infrastructure accidents. For example, the U.S. government should ensure that the consolidated levee boards that were established in the year 2006 improve the coordination (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007). Thirdly, all governmental projects aimed at protecting the coastal cities need evaluations from independent investigators making use of the modern surges and wave-modeling procedures to enable the state determines their durability and the degree to which such projects will continue to protect the cities from occurrence of a similar event (Huber, 2007). The outlets of Mississippi river and all other channels surrounding the funnel should be fitted with efficient closures to prevent it from acting as a surge and waves conduit to New Orleans. Lastly, transparency is necessary when dealing with the country public. For instance, the U.S. federal government did not inform the New Orleans’ citizens how defenseless they were to occurrence of such nation’s infrastructure accidents or the simplification used during the construction of the levees. It is highly vital for the government to communicate all aspects about the levees construction, whether repairing or future systems to the public (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007). The public must be aware of all risks behind their lives in order to take risk measures such as life insurance and flood insurance for their properties. Conclusion All nations’ infrastructure accidents cause much harms to the entire country and the whole world, as well. For instance, the infrastructure failures discussed in this paper resulted in the loss of many lives and property destructions and damage. Such failures are manmade, and there is a possibility of preventing their occurrence. Combination of political decisions and engineering errors usually result to the construction of country infrastructures of low quality and this was the main factor that led to construction of fewer quality levees in New Orleans (Farris, 2007). In order to reduce the occurrence of related infrastructure accidents in future, the government should implement the above-discussed measures. By doing this, nation’s infrastructure accidents will remain a theme of the past. References American Society of Civil Engineers. (2007). The New Orleans hurricane protection system: What went wrong and why. Reston, Va: ASCE. Farris, G. S. (2007). Science and the storms: The USGS response to the hurricanes of 2005. Reston, Va: U.S. Geological Survey. Huber, L. V. (2007). New Orleans: a pictorial history. Gretna, La, Pelican Pub. Co. Levitt, J. I., & Whitaker, M. C. (2009). Hurricane Katrina: America's unnatural disaster. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Mccarthy, K. F. (2008). An economic development architecture for New Orleans. Santa Monica, CA, RAND. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10235197. McCarthy, K. F., Bring New Orleans Back Commission., & Rand Corporation. (2006). The repopulation of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Gulf States Policy Institute. Reilly, B. (2009). Disaster and human history: Case studies in nature, society and catastrophe. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co. United States. (2006). Hurricane Katrina: A nation still unprepared : report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. Washington, D.C: United States Senate. Read More