Levees.org held a press conference today in response to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ final results of an internal investigation looking into Dr. Ray Seed’s 42-page ethics complaint.
Eighteen months ago, Dr. Seed co-chair of the Independent Levee Investigation (U of Cal Berkeley) submitted an ethics complaint to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) detailing an early intentional plan by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Dept of Defense to:
1. hide the mistakes of the Corps of Engineers in the metro New Orleans flooding;
2. sabotage the independent investigations by UCal Berkeley and LSU;
3. intimidate those who tried to intervene;
4. limit the scope of the official Corps-sponsored levee investigation; and
4. delay the release of its findings until the public’s attention had turned elsewhere.
All of this was done with the help and the complicity of some in the ASCE. Dr. Seed, a well known and highly credible source, risked his career to come forward with no expectation of personal gain.
The results of that self investigation were released Monday April 6.
Any thoughts on publishing the text of the letter? None of the media reports went through the actual substance of the Levees.org criticism. What are the specific complaints? Can you not publish it because specific individuals were named?
The email below sent to me – and me only – is a copy and is unaltered in any way. Mr. Boutwell was responding to 2 questions I had asked verbally. 1) How how much money did the American Society of Civil Engineers receive from the US Army Corps of Engineers to complete its peer review, and 2) what was his opinion of the peer review report (ERP) and the accompanying press release.
From: Gordon Boutwell
Date: Jun 20, 2007 2:41 PM
Subject: Re:
To: Sandy Rosenthal
Sandy:
Sorry to be so late getting back to you, but my paying customers also wanted my time. I understand that the $2 million was for the entire External Review Panel (of ASCE) work over some 20+ months, not just for the report. The ASCE/ERP report “What Went Wrong and Why” is not part of the IPET report. In fact, the ASCE/ERP report covers areas that were not in the USACE assignment.
For your information, the latest issue (June 2007) of ASCE’s monthly magazine “Civil Engineering” has a 10-page article on the ASCE report. It more closely captures the real spirit of that report as opposed to the Press Release “spirit”.
As for the ASCE/ERP report itself, I am in basic agreement with it. Of course, there are some points on which I would disagree, and with which at least one ERP panelist disagrees, but overall the report is quite satisfactory.
The Press Release, however, is another matter. All three of the Times-Picayune’s criticisms of the Release are correctThe Release often calls what I consider proven facts as “Perceptions” to be debunked. For example:
Katrina was a CAT 3 – the Release writers use the surge level on the Mississippi Coast in an attempt to maximize the Storm. Totally irrelevant to New Orleans.
No Levee Failures, No Devastation. The Release writers claimed that the rainfall and surge overtopping (without breaching) would have devastated the City. You won’t find this claim in the ERP report. Sorry, but N.O. had two rainfall events in the preceeding 10 years that exceeded Katrina’s rainfall.
No Malfeasance. This was in the IPET (USACE) report but I didn’t find such a statement in the ERP report. Rather, the ERP report attributes failure to “questionable engineering and management decisions”; these could be found to rise to the level of malfeasance. As for the construction contractors, I’ve seen nothing to indicate substandard work or collusion, no “malfeasance”.
Overall, I found the Press Release selective; that is parts contain the truth but not the whole truth. Its objective appears to be exoneration of the designers from any responsibility. I am proud of ASCE for publishing the ERP report and the cited article. The Press Release makes me ashamed for my Society.
Gordon