|
S. Hrg. 109–526
HURRICANE KATRINA:
WHY DID THE LEVEES FAIL?
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
NOVEMBER 2, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
(
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
HURRICANE KATRINA: WHY DID THE LEVEES FAIL?
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
S. Hrg. 109–526
HURRICANE KATRINA:
WHY DID THE LEVEES FAIL?
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
NOVEMBER 2, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
(
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24–446 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800
Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
THOMAS R. ELDRIDGE, Senior Counsel
JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
DAVID M. BERICK, Minority Professional Staff Member
TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk
(II)
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
CONTENTS
Opening statements: Page
Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1
Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 2
Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 24
Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 27
Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 30
Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 32
Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 36
WITNESSES
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2005
Ivor Ll. van Heerden, Ph.D., Head, State of Louisiana Forensic Data Gath-
ering Team, Director, Center for the Study of Public Health Impacts of
Hurricanes, and Deputy Director, Louisiana State University Hurricane
Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana ......................................................................... 5
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Research Scientist, U.S. Army Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi ............................................. 8
Raymond B. Seed, Ph.D., Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California at Berkeley, on behalf of the National Science
Foundation-Sponsored Levee Investigation Team ............................................. 10
Peter Nicholson, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering and Graduate Program Chair, University of Hawaii, on behalf
of the American Society of Civil Engineers ........................................................ 14
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Mlakar, Paul F.:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98
Nicholson, Peter:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14
Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 121
Seed, Raymond B.:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10
Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 102
van Heerden, Ivor Ll.:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5
Prepared statement with attachments ........................................................... 49
APPENDIX
Letter and e-mail from Raymond B. Seed ............................................................. 208
Preliminary Report on the Performance of the New Orleans Levee Systems
in Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005 ......................................................... 224
Questions and Responses for the Record from:
Mr. van Heerden ............................................................................................... 162
Mr. Mlakar ........................................................................................................ 166
Mr. Seed ............................................................................................................ 170
Mr. Nicholson .................................................................................................... 206
(III)
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
HURRICANE KATRINA:
WHY DID THE LEVEES FAIL?
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2005
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in room
342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chair-
man of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Warner, Lieber-
man, Akaka, Carper, Dayton, Lautenberg, and Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS
Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Today,
the Committee continues its investigation into the preparation for
and response to Hurricane Katrina. Our focus at our fifth hearing
this morning will be on why the levee system in and around New
Orleans failed.
This flood-control system was not constructed as Katrina bore
down on New Orleans. It is a project that dates back 40 years and
was first authorized by Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1965.
It is a project that has consumed $458 million of the taxpayers’
money. Yet the project still is not complete, and key elements failed
when put to the test.
While some of the floodwalls and levees were overtopped, some-
thing much more catastrophic happened that was not anticipated.
Some levees and floodwalls failed outright, leaving gaping holes
through which water rushed uncontrollably into the neighborhoods
of New Orleans.
The result was a city more than 80 percent underwater. Esti-
mates by experts tell us that this was approximately twice the per-
centage that would have flooded solely from overtopping and that,
even in those parts that were expected to flood, the levee breaks
caused the floodwaters to be far deeper.
This flooding caused enormous destruction and tragic loss of life.
It made inoperable a land-based relief plan and aggravated the suf-
fering and deprivation of the survivors. It caused far more devasta-
tion than would have occurred if the levees had held.
Our four witnesses today are the leaders of forensic teams that
are investigating why the levees and floodwalls failed. These teams
are sponsored by the State of Louisiana, the National Science
Foundation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The National Science Foundation and
(1)
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
2
the American Society of Civil Engineers teams will be releasing a
joint interim report detailing their initial findings at this hearing.1
The testimony we will receive today demonstrates that many of
the widespread failures throughout the levee system were not sole-
ly the result of Mother Nature. Rather, they were the result, it ap-
pears, of human error in the form of design and construction flaws,
as well as a confused and delayed response to the collapse.
For example, at the 17th Street and London Avenue Canals, the
evidence suggests that the design and construction of the floodwalls
did not adequately account for layers of unstable soil beneath these
walls that became, literally, ‘‘slippery when wet.’’ Built on a weak
foundation, these floodwalls could not stand up to the force of the
water brought by the storm.
We will hear that the flooding east of the Industrial Canal in
New Orleans East and in the lower Ninth Ward was caused in part
by the storm surge from the hurricane that flowed over the top of
the levees and floodwalls protecting those parts of the city. But we
will also hear that this flooding was made worse by poor design
and a lack of a uniform, comprehensive approach to levee construc-
tion.
In addition, our witnesses will testify that some of the levees in
St. Bernard Parish apparently were built with inferior material
that washed away as Katrina hit, allowing the surge waters to flow
more easily into that parish.
We will also hear troubling concerns that the Army Corps’ ongo-
ing repair and reconstruction efforts have been insufficient. At
least one of the team’s leaders believes that these rebuilt levees
may be at risk of failing in another storm, a disturbing finding that
raises serious questions about the safety of the city’s returning
residents.
This Committee’s investigation of Hurricane Katrina has already
exposed many flaws in what we thought was a coordinated home-
land security system that has been built during the past 4 years.
Our hearing today will demonstrate that these flaws go beyond in-
effective coordination and communication among the various levels
of government to the very structures that are supposed to protect
the residents of New Orleans.
The people of New Orleans and the surrounding parishes put
their faith in the levee system, and many of those people have lost
everything. Unless the cause of this failure is investigated thor-
oughly and addressed, New Orleans will remain a city in jeopardy.
Katrina was a powerful hurricane, but it will not be the last hurri-
cane.
Senator Lieberman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Thanks to the expert witnesses that are before us today.
I do want to stress that these are expert witnesses. These aren’t
political people or elected officials. I must say, therefore, the collec-
tive weight of their expert testimony, as I have read it in prepara-
tion for this hearing, makes this, in my opinion, a very important
1 The report appears in the Appendix on page 224.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
3
hearing because the collective weight of the testimony and the find-
ings that they will bring before us today, for me is as disheart-
ening, as heartbreaking, as infuriating, and ultimately as embar-
rassing as the scenes of human suffering and degradation that we
saw in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
This was a powerful hurricane. Our Committee’s investigation
began to determine why the Federal Government and the State
and local governments failed to adequately prepare for and respond
to the hurricane so that some of the human suffering that we saw
on television from this distance would not have occurred.
But today, your testimony tells us something different, which
really is—it is just shocking, which is that, notwithstanding how
strong Hurricane Katrina was, a lot of the flooding of New Orleans
should never have happened if the levees had done what they were
supposed to do. What we kept hearing leading up to the hurricane
hitting landfall and, of course, afterward was that the levees had
been built to withstand a Category 3 hurricane.
The testimony we are going to hear this morning, as I have read
it in preparation, tells me that Hurricane Katrina may have been
as weak as Category 1 when it hit the canals along Lake Pont-
chartrain. But the bottom line point here that cries out from your
testimony is that, in fact, it was human error in the design and
construction of the storm surge barrier system that caused nearly
all of the flooding of downtown New Orleans from the Lake Pont-
chartrain canals. And that a significant amount of the flooding of
the Ninth Ward in New Orleans, the lower Ninth Ward and of so-
called New Orleans East, occurred from the storm surge, but a lot
of it occurred because of the failure of the levees on that part of
town to do what they were supposed to do.
This ultimately has to lead our Committee to ask some very
tough questions of the Army Corps of Engineers since the Army
Corps of Engineers, not singularly but significantly, as a Federal
agency, was in charge over a long period of years of the construc-
tion of these levees. We will ask those questions.
I must say that I am troubled also to hear from some of the wit-
nesses in the testimony and in remarks to the staff that investiga-
tors from the three independent teams feel that they have not had
the kind of cooperation that they should have had from the Army
Corps of Engineers in providing access to important facts and evi-
dence. I hope that lack of cooperation will end. We will have a wit-
ness before us in a couple of weeks from the Army Corps of Engi-
neers administrative wing, and I hope before then that the frustra-
tion that the investigators are feeling with the lack of cooperation
from the Corps will end.
Also, as the Chairman has said, your expert investigations have
now found that some of the work done to repair the levees, the re-
construction efforts after Katrina, was done, we all understand, in
haste and in very urgent circumstances, was plagued by a lack of
engineering oversight and perhaps by the use of substandard mate-
rials, and therefore, may not adequately, from what I read in your
testimony, protect the City of New Orleans from high tides, let
alone another hurricane.
Gentlemen, I truly appreciate what you have done here and what
you are going to tell us this morning. It is not pleasant to hear it,
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
4
but it is important to hear it. Because as we said at the beginning,
the only way we are going to make sure that, to the best of our
ability, the suffering that occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina
in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Coast region doesn’t hap-
pen again is by pursuing the truth of what happened here and then
fixing it.
I thank each of you—forensic teams operated under the auspices
of the State of Louisiana, the National Science Foundation, the
American Society of Civil Engineers, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Respectively, from all that I know, you include many of
the foremost experts in this country in the design and operation of
levee systems and the impact of hurricanes and storm surge upon
them. We are also very privileged to have the benefit of the joint
preliminary report of the teams from the National Science Founda-
tion and the American Society of Civil Engineers that is scheduled
to be released this morning, and I want to extend a special thank
you to Drs. Seed and Nicholson and their teams for their hard
work in finishing that report in time for today’s hearings.
I thank all the witnesses for rearranging also what I know are
very demanding schedules to be here this morning.
As a Committee, we are going to ask some tough questions about
why the levees failed and what needs to be done to repair and re-
construct them now to protect the people of New Orleans and to
enable the reconstruction of that great American city. We ask that
you answer those tough questions with the same frankness that
you have shown in the testimony that you have prepared for this
morning. Thank you very much.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator.
I want to welcome, officially, our witnesses to this hearing. As
Senator Lieberman indicated, we have assembled what is truly a
world class panel of scientists to help us understand this issue.
Dr. Ivor van Heerden is the Deputy Director of Louisiana State
University’s Hurricane Center and Director of the Center for the
Study of Public Health Impacts of Hurricanes. He has an under-
graduate degree in geology and both a Master’s and a Ph.D. in ma-
rine sciences. He currently is the lead investigator selected by the
State of Louisiana to review the levee failures in the New Orleans
area.
Dr. Paul Mlakar is a West Point graduate. He has both a Mas-
ter’s and a Ph.D. in engineering science. Dr. Mlakar has served as
the Chief of the Concrete and Materials Division of what is now
called the Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Dr.
Mlakar led the Corps’ performance study of the Pentagon after the
September 11 attacks. He is the leader of the Army Corps of Engi-
neers data gathering team investigating the levee failures.
Dr. Raymond Seed is a professor of civil and environmental engi-
neering at the University of California at Berkeley. He is an expert
on the stability of dams, embankment soils, and buried structures.
He holds an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and both a
Master’s and a Ph.D. in geotechnical engineering, which I have
never even heard of before. Dr. Seed is leading the National
Science Foundation’s investigation of the levees.
And finally, we will hear from Dr. Peter Nicholson, who is an as-
sociate professor of civil and environmental engineering and Chair
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
5
of Graduate Programs at the University of Hawaii. He has under-
graduate degrees in geology and geophysics and in civil engineer-
ing, and both a Master’s and a Ph.D. in civil engineering, as well.
Dr. Nicholson, who chairs the American Society of Civil Engineers
Geo Institute Committee on Embankments, Dams, and Slopes, is
leading the Society’s investigation of the levee failures.
I spent some time going through the credentials of our witnesses
to demonstrate what an extraordinarily well-qualified panel we
have this morning. I think it is unusual for us to have four sci-
entists testifying before this Committee, and we very much appre-
ciate your sharing your expertise with us this morning.
I am going to ask that you all stand and raise your right hands
so that I can swear you in.
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give to
this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. I do.
Mr. MLAKAR. I do.
Mr. SEED. I do.
Mr. NICHOLSON. I do.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Dr. van Heerden, we are going
to begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF IVOR LL. VAN HEERDEN, PH.D.,1 HEAD, STATE
OF LOUISIANA FORENSIC DATA GATHERING TEAM, DIREC-
TOR, CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS
OF HURRICANES, AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA
STATE UNIVERSITY HURRICANE CENTER, BATON ROUGE,
LOUISIANA
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Can I have the first slide, please? This is a
product from a model that we used to determine the surge, and
this gives you an idea of what the flooding would have been in New
Orleans if there hadn’t been a breach in the levee. It is a model
we run on our supercomputer. This was actually the first warning
that we put out 30-odd hours before landfall that New Orleans
would flood. Next slide, please.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Could you describe that just a little more?
In other words, how different would the flooding in New Orleans
have been if the levees did not break?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. As a result of the breaches, a whole lot—the
flooding was double what you see on that slide.
The next slide actually is a satellite image that will show you the
extent of the flooding. That is all the blue. So if we hadn’t had the
breaches, this area wouldn’t have flooded and large sections here
and in here wouldn’t have flooded. Next slide, please.
This gives you an idea of the water depth, and you see the max-
imum water depth is about 15 feet. If this hadn’t occurred, the
water depth would have been maybe five to seven feet. I want to
draw your attention to this area here and talk very briefly about
the levee overtopping in this area, which was where Lake Pont-
1 The prepared statement of Mr. van Heerden with attachments appears in the Appendix on
page 49.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
6
chartrain actually flooded into part of New Orleans. Next slide,
please.
This is a slide of the actual levee, and you can see its northern
embankment, and right on the top here is a wreck line. That is the
water line from the surge. But you will see the wall here is actually
a few feet, a couple of feet lower. Next slide, please.
And this is what happens when you get overwash. You create a
scour trench, and this was one of the areas that Orleans East flood-
ed. Next slide, please.
I want to start with the 17th Street Canal and then go to London
Avenue Canal. Next slide, please.
This is the basic design of the walls, the so-called I-walls. There
is sheetpiling driven in the ground and then a concrete wall on top,
a soil embankment on either side. Very often, that soil comes from
the dredging of the canal, so it is the material that was in the
canal. Next slide, please.
This is what we term a hydrograph. It gives you the height of
the water with time, and I will draw your attention to the pink
line. This is from the model. This is the water level that was expe-
rienced in the 17th Street Canal at its mouth. The arrow indicates
when we believe the breach actually occurred, so it was after the
peak of the surge. Next slide, please.
An aerial view right after the flood, and the important thing is
right here in the middle, you can see a green bank and the wall.
That is the area that slid. Next slide.
This is taken on the water on day two. You can see there is the
wall. We tried to line ourselves down the wall. And there is the
former bank, and that used to be over here. Here are the wall seg-
ments that moved 30-odd feet. Next slide.
And then between them, there were sky areas and the walls also
blew out, as well. Next slide, please.
This is the actual soil that is left behind, the old embankment,
and the thing that we saw was a lot of wood and organic matter
in this bank, indicative that it was dredged out of the canal. Next
slide, please.
And, of course, as all of this moved, it acted as a bulldozer, and
this yard used to be about four or five feet lower, and you can see
how the hummocky terrain and the buildings and everything have
moved. This is the bulldozing effect as that levee let go. Next slide,
please.
Underneath all of this is an old swamp, and you can see the cy-
press stumps that occur in this area about every 15 feet. So New
Orleans was built on an old swamp, and it suggests that where the
17th Street Canal breach occurred, we were sitting on top of an old
swamp deposit. Next slide, please.
In addition, we tried to get the monoliths and the sheetpiling re-
moved. We couldn’t, but this was something that disturbed us. It
looks like the sheetpiling actually didn’t extend into this monolith.
Unfortunately, this whole area has now been covered with the re-
pair material, but it raises questions. Next slide, please.
Right now, we are not sure exactly how the water got from the
canal through onto the opposite side to soften the soils and lead to
the actual sliding of the wall. There are three potential pathways,
one in this highly organic old swamp material that was pumped up
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
7
to form the bank, the actual peat and swamp layer, and also these
clays down here have lots of parallel lenses in them. The important
thing was that sheetpiling, from all the records we can find, only
went to minus-ten feet below sea level Next slide, please.
An aerial sketch, if you will, of what happened. This levee section
moved, and then these walls on either side collapsed. Next slide,
please.
This is at London Avenue at Filmore. This is the Western
breach, very similar sorts of features. I want to draw your atten-
tion to this little house and pine trees. Next slide, please.
This is what it was like before Katrina. The house was down at
the toe of the levee. You can see the pine tree. Next slide, please.
And now it is way up, as a result of that heave, indicative again
of the very similar failure at the 17th Street Canal of this section
of the levee sliding outwards. Next slide, please.
On the opposite side from that breach, the walls are broken, tilt-
ed, cracked. Next slide, please.
There is evidence of what we call sand boils, where the water has
come underneath the levee and blown up on the top, on the back
side. Next slide, please.
And, in fact, there are also heaves you can see, not a good slide,
but these planter boxes have moved and there was this little swim-
ming pool that moved, as well. So some of the same features we
saw at the 17th Street Canal, not as dramatic. Next slide, please.
And what we believe happened at Filmore was basically the
same thing. The sheetpiling came down to 11-and-a-half feet below
sea level and the water found its way through. What is interesting
on the opposite side of the canal, where it didn’t fail but it cracked
the sheetpiling, we believe went down to minus 26 feet, seeming to
suggest a deeper sheetpile would have helped. Next slide, please.
The Mirabeau break on London Avenue, the thing that really
strikes you when you get there is the sand. This is the top of a car,
so you have four to five feet of sand. It looks like a river, the whole
area. Next slide, please.
And when you look at the actual break, the thing that struck us
were the wall segments actually dipping down into what appeared
to be a hole, and so perhaps a slightly different failure to the other
areas. Next slide, please.
And what we suspect is that this is a blowout hole that the soil,
that the water made its way underneath and blew out, created a
void, and these wall segments collapsed into that hole. Next slide,
please.
And again, the important thing at Mirabeau is you have this
very thick layer of beach sand. It is very porous, very premeable,
and it created, we believe, a conduit for the water to get from the
canal under pressure and onto the other side, and the fact that you
have all the sand amongst the houses, suggesting that this was the
main failure mechanism. Next slide, please.
The Industrial Canal failed just before the peak, right at the
time the water started overtopping. Next slide, please.
The breaches. Next slide, please.
Next slide.
Just to show you how it blew out, it removed all these houses,
probably a 20-foot head of water. Next slide.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
8
And on the ground, you see a scour trench where the pilings used
to be, the wall used to be. Next slide, please.
And where it hasn’t failed, there is this very typical scour trench
all the way along, suggesting that it was just overwash that led to
the failure of these sections of the levees. Next slide, please.
There is the question of the barge. Next slide.
What we found was evidence that the barge had gone through
the wall. Next slide, please.
But it was after the wall had collapsed, and that was given to
us that the wall is at 45 degrees and the sheetpiling where the
barge perhaps did knock the wall is horizontal, suggesting the wall
was down before the barge came through. Next slide, please.
What really struck us, though, was when you look down the
length of the wall, it had these strange curves in it beyond where
the actual breach is and then the signs of embankment failure in
front of the walls. Next slide.
And what you see here is a tilted wall and examples of where
the soil has dropped down in both cases. And in this area, we saw
something that we call percolation holes, where it appeared the
water had actually started to scour down underneath the
sheetpiling. Next slide, please.
Again, swampy material. The bore hole data suggests that these
are all soft or very soft clays. Next slide, please.
And again, there appears to have been a number of potential
mechanisms for the water to get under to lead to the failure as well
as the overtopping, and right now, our investigation is looking at
both, this being a failure related to the soil as well as the overtop-
ping. Next slide, please.
And being from Louisiana, I am obviously very concerned about
what happens to the folk who trusted the system, and this is an
example of how some of them actually got out. Thank you.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Dr. Mlakar.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL F. MLAKAR, PH.D., P.E.,1 SENIOR RE-
SEARCH SCIENTIST, U.S. ARMY RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT CENTER, VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI
Mr. MLAKAR. Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee,
I am Dr. Paul F. Mlakar, Senior Research Scientist at the U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center in Vicksburg,
Mississippi, which is a component of the Corps of Engineers. I have
spent most of my professional career of four decades in the Corps
studying the response of structures to extreme loadings. This has
included the performance of the Murrah Building in the Oklahoma
City bombing and the Pentagon in the September 11 crash. I am
a Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the recipi-
ent of their Forensic Engineering Award in 2003. I am also a Reg-
istered Professional Engineer, legally obligated to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of our citizens.
As some of you know, the ERDC conducts research and develop-
ment to enable the Corps to better perform its military and civil
works mission in support of the Nation. We employ 2,500 people
in seven laboratories located in four States. The staff is recognized
1 The prepared statement of Mr. Mlakar appears in the Appendix on page 98.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
9
nationally and internationally for its expertise in civil engineering
and related disciplines. Our facilities include a number of unique
devices that allow us to deliver technical solutions on the leading
edge of science.
I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the ERDC and the
Corps to provide information as requested in your letter of October
27. The Congressional interest in the performance of the storm
damage reduction infrastructure in Hurricane Katrina is much re-
spected and shared by the Corps. While we do not yet have the
complete answers to all of the questions, we welcome this oppor-
tunity to share our progress with you.
The Corps takes its responsibility for the safety and well-being
of the Nation’s citizens very seriously. In the case of the New Orle-
ans area, we are determined to learn what failed, how it failed,
why it failed, and to recommend ways to reduce the risk of failure
in the future.
So what have we done about these failures in Katrina? As the
emergency operations wound down, the Corps asked me to lead in
the collection of data for the study of the protection infrastructure
affected. I deployed to New Orleans on the heels of Hurricane Rita
and have spent most of the intervening period in the region. At
various times, I have been joined by some 30 Corps staff and other
colleagues. Our priority has been on the breaches in the metropoli-
tan area that caused the greatest devastation, that is the 17th
Street Canal, the London Avenue Canal, and the Inner Harbor
Navigation Canal.
To document exactly what happened, we have been diligently re-
cording the damages and measuring the post-Katrina conditions.
To eventually explain how and why, we have examined physical
evidence to establish the maximum water elevations at various lo-
cations. To establish the timeline of events, we have conducted de-
tailed interviews so far with about 70 people who sat out the storm.
To establish the soil properties, we have pushed a state-of-the-art
instrumented cone to a depth of 80 feet at some 60 locations. We
further collected samples of the soil at depth in 10 locations for lab-
oratory testing. We have also electronically scanned 63 out of 235
boxes of documents dealing with the design, construction, and
maintenance of the projects involved.
As we began, the American Society of Civil Engineers and a Uni-
versity of California team sponsored by the National Science Foun-
dation approached the Corps about similar studies of infrastructure
performance they were undertaking in hopes of applying lessons
learned to the levee systems in California. In the spirit of openness
and full transparency, we invited these teams to join us for inspec-
tions of the projects involved. We subsequently learned that the
State of Louisiana would soon establish its own study team, and
we invited the researchers from the Louisiana State University
Hurricane Research Center to join us in advance of this official es-
tablishment. The Corps gratefully acknowledges the assistance pro-
vided by these teams in the collection of the data.
So what is the way ahead? Over the next 8 months, an inter-
agency performance evaluation task force commissioned by the
Chief of Engineers will conclude the collection of the data, delib-
erately analyze this information, and rationally test various
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
10
hypotheses about the behavior of the infrastructure. This work will
comprehensively involve the following technical topics on 360 miles
of diverse infrastructure. The topics are geodetic reference datum,
storm surge and wave modeling, hydrodynamic forces, floodwall
and levee performance, pumping station performance, interior
drainage and flooding modeling, consequence analysis, and finally,
risk and reliability assessment.
The participants on this task force will be drawn broadly from
Federal agencies, academia, State and local governments, profes-
sional societies, and international experts. We will communicate
our progress periodically through news releases, press conferences,
and web postings. The final results will include conclusions as to
the causes of the failures and recommendations for the future de-
sign and construction of such infrastructure nationwide. These re-
sults will be independently reviewed by an external panel of the
American Society of Civil Engineers. At the request of the Sec-
retary of Defense, the National Academies will also independently
assess the results and report to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works.
Our scheduled completion date is July 1. In the meantime, our
progress will be shared with and used by our colleagues in the
Corps responsible for the reconstruction of the protection in New
Orleans.
My written statement contains further information about your
specific questions, and I request that it be entered into the record.
Chairman COLLINS. Without objection.
Mr. MLAKAR. In closing, I advise against reaching conclusions to
the very important questions before appropriate analysis is accom-
plished. Speculation concerning the understanding of why damage
occurred in Katrina is not adequate to build back a reliable flood
protection system. My testimony illustrates the Corps’ continuing
commitment to the pursuit and use of sound science and engineer-
ing principles in the execution of our civil works mission.
On behalf of the Corps, thank you for allowing me the oppor-
tunity to present this testimony today.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Dr. Seed.
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND B. SEED, PH.D.,1 PROFESSOR OF
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION-SPONSORED LEVEE INVESTIGATION
TEAM
Mr. SEED. Can I get my first Power Point image? In fact, you can
skip to the second one.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, good morn-
ing. My name is Raymond Seed, and I am pleased to be asked to
appear before you today to testify on behalf of the levee investiga-
tion team sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation. A
large number of leading national and international experts with a
tremendous amount of forensic experience in sorting through major
disasters have worked very hard this past month, and I am pleased
to be able to present you with the first copy of the preliminary re-
1 The prepared statement of Mr. Seed with attachments appears in the Appendix on page 102.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
11
port of the findings of the combined ASCE and NSF-sponsored field
investigation teams.1 I am very grateful for their tremendous ef-
forts in getting this material ready for you today.
Our hearts go out to the many people who have lost everything,
even in some cases their lives, in this catastrophic event. Our
teams have had considerable previous experience in many other
disasters, including numerous major earthquakes around the
world, the recent Indian Ocean tsunami, floods and levee failures,
the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, and more. But we were not
prepared for the level and scope of the devastation that we wit-
nessed when we were in New Orleans. It must be the intent of our
work that something like this will not be allowed to happen again.
Next.
With that in our minds and in our hearts, I must make it clear
that we know a great deal about what happened, and in many
cases, why, and that it is my intent today to speak as openly as
possible. Our team, to a man and to a woman, feels that the people
of the New Orleans region and the Nation and our government at
all levels need and deserve nothing less. Important decisions are
being made that will affect people’s lives for years to come. We rec-
ognize the importance of providing the best possible informed infor-
mation, responsibly studied and professionally and thoughtfully
synthesized, that we can at this early juncture. Better and more
complete information will continue to evolve over the coming year,
but that will be too late for many ongoing decisions being made
right now today.
Our preliminary report presents a consensus document, and it
presents the initial observations and findings that we were able to
agree to release with all the team members and organizations in-
volved. If you will ask, I will do my best to answer questions well
beyond the scope of our initial preliminary report.
Why did the levees and floodwalls fail? This is a map of the Cen-
tral New Orleans region, prepared initially by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and then modified to reflect additional findings of our
investigation teams. It shows the locations of many levee breaches
that occurred with stars and dots and serves as a good base map
for our discussions today. Not shown on this map are the additional
flood protection levee systems that extend down the lower reaches
of the Mississippi River, which begins here and runs about to the
floor of the room, providing a narrow, additional protected corridor
down to the Gulf.
The storm surges produced by Hurricane Katrina resulted in nu-
merous breaches and consequent flooding of approximately 75 per-
cent of the metropolitan areas of New Orleans. Most of the levee
and floodwall failures were caused by overtopping as the storm
surge rose over the tops of the levees and their floodwalls and pro-
duced the erosion that subsequently led to failures and breaches.
Overtopping was most severe at the east end of the flood protection
as the waters of Lake Borgne were driven west, producing a storm
surge on the order of roughly 20 feet in the area right here and
massively overtopping the levees across this stretch. Next photo.
1 The report appears in the Appendix on page 224.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
12
This photograph and the one which follows it—next—show two
sections of those levees, or at least two sections where those levees
had previously existed. They are massively eroded. There is vir-
tually nothing left of these levees along some parts of this stretch.
A very severe storm surge also occurred farther to the South,
along the lower reaches of the Mississippi River, and significant
overtopping produced additional breaches in this region, as well.
Next.
That is the section off the bottom of the map. Next.
These are some of the homes in that area. This photograph
shows houses in the Plaquemines Parish corridor where the levee
on the left, just off the photograph, breached and overtopped, and
the storm surge carried the houses across and deposited them on
the right-hand levee, which fronts the Mississippi River just to the
right and has the main rip-rap and slope protection across the
front face here. This was a catastrophic breach. Next slide.
Overtopping was lesser in magnitude along the Inner Harbor
Navigation Channel and along the Western portion of the MRGO
Channel, which are the two main conduits through here and along
here. But the consequences were no less severe. This overtopping
again produced erosion and caused numerous additional levee fail-
ures. Next.
This photograph shows the well-known breach at the West end
of the Ninth Ward. I didn’t show this earlier, but we spent some
time figuring out the answer to the chicken and the egg question
here, and it is our preliminary opinion that the infamous barge was
a passive victim which was drawn into a breach that was already
open at this location. Most of the failures in the Central New Orle-
ans area were the result of overtopping, and one of the common
failure modes was simply water cascading over the concrete
floodwalls and then carving sharply etched trenches on the back
sides of these walls. The next photo. The next photo.
This is an example of that, one of many. There is a large breach
just in the background here. This is just West of the Port of New
Orleans. Many failures of this type. This reduced the lateral sup-
ports at the back sides of the walls and left them vulnerable to the
high water forces on their outboard faces.
Another repeated mode of failure and distress throughout the
central region were problems at transition sections, where two dif-
ferent levee or wall systems joined together. The next slide. This
is one of those sections. You can see here a structural wall which
carries a gate structure over here for a road to pass through. It
meets an earthen levee over here with a rail line crossing it, so
there are three different intersections here. The intersection itself
was a soft spot. Each of the individual sections was better de-
signed, but they didn’t join well. This was a common problem.
There is a need to better coordinate these connections and their de-
tails.
Farther to the West, in the East Bank Canal District, three levee
failures occurred on the banks of the 17th Street and London Ave-
nue Canals, and these failure levels occurred at water levels well
below the tops of the floodwalls lining these canals. These three
levee failures were likely caused by failures in the foundation soils
under the levees, and the fourth distressed section on the London
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
13
Avenue Canal shows signs of having neared the occurrence of a
similar failure prior to the water levels having receded. Next.
This photograph actually shows a breach on the 17th Street
Canal being closed, and Dr. van Heerden showed earlier, this is the
original inboard half of the embankment which just slid to the
right, roughly 45 feet at the location of the piece of chain-link fence
right here, a massive lateral translation as a result of foundation
instability.
The section across the canal on the East bank of the London Ave-
nue Canal, North failure section, was very seriously distressed. Dr.
van Heerden showed that one. In our view, it was at the point of
incipient failure and was only saved by lowering of the water in the
canal, possibly as a result of the other two breaches. That section
is very seriously damaged and requires remediation before it can
again safely hold high waters, and that will be another question
which we will deal with later in this talk.
The road forward. Major repair and rehabilitation efforts are un-
derway to prepare the New Orleans flood protection system for fu-
ture high water events. The next hurricane season will begin in
June 2006. We have a hurry on our hands. Based on our observa-
tions, there are a number of things we would like to point out.
Although it is somewhat customary to expect levee failures when
overtopping occurs, they are not a requirement. There are things
that can be done in terms of design details that would have pro-
vided better overtopping protection. Inboard face scour protections,
splash slabs, rip-rap protection, even paving would have made a
big difference at some of these sites and might have prevented
some of the failures we observed.
As the system is being repaired and rebuilt, it would be advan-
tageous to better coordinate the crest heights of the various sec-
tions. Better coordination between individual units would be a good
idea.
Areas in which piping and internal erosion occurred are now
weakened segments. There is a need to go back and assess the re-
maining segments that did not fail and be sure they still have their
full integrity. Some of them will be found to have been damaged,
in all likelihood.
Levees are series systems, where the failure of one component,
one single segment, means the failure of the whole system. The
failure of several levees at less than their full designed water
height in this hurricane warrants a thorough review of the overall
system.
In the short term, as repairs continue, we would like to see the
sheetpiles, which are currently being operated as floodgates at the
north end of the canals, continue to operate in that fashion. The
Corps of Engineers does have good plans for moving forward on the
five main downtown breach repairs, and we think they should oper-
ate those canals in that fashion until those can be implemented.
The Corps, like other public agencies, routinely hires outside
boards of consultants for critical dam projects where public safety
is at interest. We are not aware of any major dams in the United
States which basically protect larger, more vulnerable populations
than the New Orleans levee system, and we hope the Corps will
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
14
be encouraged to empanel such a body to oversee their work in
New Orleans.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are stretched very thin right
now, trying to respond and effect emergency and interim repairs in
the wake of this catastrophe. It must be the job of the Federal Gov-
ernment and oversight committees such as yours to ensure they
have the adequate resources and technical capabilities on hand to
get the job done safely and well. The Corps has responsibility for
many potentially high-hazard dams and levee systems, and we
must all be able to have high confidence in their ability to perform
these tasks.
The ASCE and NSF teams have been drawn in inadvertently
into some of the ongoing levee repair work, and we feel that right
now, the Corps of Engineers is stretched very thin in the New Orle-
ans region.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Nicholson.
TESTIMONY OF PETER NICHOLSON, PH.D., P.E.,1 ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
AND GRADUATE PROGRAM CHAIR, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII,
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGI-
NEERS
Mr. NICHOLSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members of the
Committee. Good morning. My name is Peter Nicholson, and I am
pleased to appear before you today to testify on behalf of the Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers as you examine the effects of Hurri-
cane Katrina on the infrastructure of Coastal Louisiana, particu-
larly on the levee system that protects the City of New Orleans.
I was asked by ASCE to assemble an independent team of ex-
perts to travel to New Orleans to collect data and make obser-
vations to be used to assess the performance of the flood control
levees.
One of the goals of the assessment team was to gather data and
attempt to determine why certain sections of the levee system
failed and why others did not. These determinations may help to
answer the question of whether the failures were caused by local-
ized conditions and/or whether surviving sections of the system
may only be marginally better prepared to withstand the type of
loads that were generated by this event. Could I have the next
slide, please.
The team that we assembled consisted of professional engineers
from ASCE with a wide range of geotechnical engineering expertise
in the study, safety, and inspection of dams and levees. While in
New Orleans and the surrounding areas, we examined levee fail-
ures as well as distressed and intact portions of the levee system
between September 29 and October 15.
Our levee assessment team was joined by another ASCE team of
coastal engineers and another team primarily from the University
of California, Berkeley, under the auspices of the National Science
Foundation. Our three teams were joined in the field by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Research and Development
1 The prepared statement of Mr. Nicholson appears in the Appendix on page 121.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
15
Center Team, led by Dr. Paul Mlakar, and we would like to thank
Dr. Mlakar and the ERDC team for their logistical support.
What we found in the field was very different than what we had
expected, given what we had seen in the early media reports. Rath-
er than a few breaches through the floodwalls in the city caused
largely by overtopping, we found literally dozens of breaches
throughout the many miles of the levee system. As geotechnical en-
gineers, we were particularly interested to find that many of the
levee problems involved significant soil-related issues. Next slide,
please.
We have seen many of these same slides. Dr. van Heerden and
Dr. Seed have stolen a little of my thunder. Playing clean-up here
is going to be a little tough. We have seen this slide before, the
17th Street Canal breach, and we observed, as said, intact soil
blocks that had experienced large translation and heave. Next
slide.
We have seen slides like this. Here is the translated section we
have seen before. It used to be over here. Next slide.
And here again, just a slightly different view looking the other
way than the former slides, where the levee had been here, and
here is that elevated section or block with the chain-link fence.
This movement would be consistent with the failure of the soil em-
bankment or the foundation soils beneath. While we cannot yet de-
termine conclusively the exact cause of the breach itself, the type
of soil failure may well have been a significant contributing factor.
Next slide.
We have also seen London Avenue Canal breach, another view
of the clubhouse, here from a different view, here taken from the
top of the temporary repair that used to be down in the backyard
of the house below. Next slide, please.
Again, in that same area, we saw a tremendous amount of sand
deposited, and we believe this material to be either from the foun-
dation material beneath the embankment as well as material that
may have been scoured from the canal. Next slide.
Again, we were very interested in the non-failed section across
the canal where we observed this floodwall and underlying em-
bankment in severe distress. You can see it is out of alignment.
Next slide, please.
It was observed that we saw tilting on the inside of the wall,
cracking, as we had seen before. This wall was badly out of align-
ment. And as a result of the tilt, there were gaps between the wall
and the supporting soil on the canal side. We also observed that
there was evidence of soil movement, seepage, and piping as indi-
cated by a number of close examinations. Next slide.
Sinkholes behind the wall near the crest of the embankment.
Next slide.
As well as we have seen the examination of sand boils and
heave. We have seen slides like this before. Next slide.
Further to the South, we had the second breach of the London
Avenue Canal. Here, as they were trying to close the repair, drop-
ping sandbags into the open hole. Next slide.
And again, we have seen the buried car with huge volumes of
sand deposited, much more than could have come from the em-
bankment, and we believe these were scoured from the canal itself.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
16
By the time we got there, there was very little evidence left to ex-
amine the mechanisms at this site.
It is very important that the impact of the levee breaches outside
of the City of New Orleans not be overlooked, and many of the sec-
tions of the system were severely tested by overtopping, as we have
heard earlier. Many portions of the levees were breached or se-
verely distressed, causing significant heavy flooding, in many cases
complete destruction of the thousands of neighborhood homes.
The hurricane produced a storm surge that varied considerably
depending on location, including the combined effects of orienta-
tion, geography, topography with respect to the forces of the pass-
ing storm. Hydraulic modeling of the surge, courtesy of LSU and
Dr. van Heerden’s group, and I have a few of his slides, as well.
Next slide, please.
We have seen this before, the hydrograph showing essentially
two different levels of storm surge, as we have heard, in the Indus-
trial Canal and much less in the city, significantly different levels
of the storm surge as the storm passed. Next slide.
As the storm passed to the East of New Orleans, the counter-
clockwise swirl, essentially, of the storm generated a large surge
from the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Borgne that impacted the East-
ern-facing coastal areas of the New Orleans area and the lower
Mississippi delta. Next slide.
The surge was, as we have seen this, as well, courtesy of the
Hurricane Center, concentrated into this funnel area here up
through the MRGO Channel into the Industrial Canal or the Inner
Harbor Navigational Canal, and much less so to the north in Lake
Pontchartrain.
As shown by these models and the field evidence, this surge,
which impacted the lakefront and the three canals within the cen-
tral part of the city, was noticeably less severe. Field data indicated
that the surge levels from the lake did not reach the elevation of
lakefront levees and was well below the top of the height of the
floodwalls bordering the interior canals, where three notable
breaches occurred.
Where the storm surge was most severe, causing massive over-
topping, the levees experienced a range of damage from complete
obliteration to intact with no signs of distress. Much of the dif-
ference in the degree of damage can be attributed to the types of
levees and materials that were used in their construction. The most
heavily damaged and/or destroyed earthen levees that we inspected
were constructed of sand or shell fill, which was easily eroded.
Next slide.
And we have seen this slide, as well, before. This was the area
along the MRGO that took the brunt of the storm as it came in,
or the brunt of the surge through Lake Borgne from the East and
just took out this section of the wall. Next slide.
This is another aerial view showing where the flooding occurred,
color coded here with the deepest flooding in dark blue, getting
lighter to the yellow. So we can see the massive storm surge com-
ing in from the East, or from the right in your picture, coming over
that destroyed levee and also overtopping walls and breaching both
on either side of MRGO as well as from the canals within the city.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
17
Senator LIEBERMAN. Can you do us a favor and define MRGO?
It is the Mississippi River——
Mr. NICHOLSON. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, MRGO.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.
Mr. NICHOLSON. Next slide, please.
This is just a lot of the embankments that were obviously over-
topped. This is a photograph that we got from personnel at the en-
ergy plant, which watched through the storm. There is actually an
earth embankment under here being overtopped by the flood wave.
Next slide.
This is another example of one of the earthen levees that had es-
sentially been gutted by the overtopping flow. Next slide.
We have seen this same slide when Professor Seed shared a lot
of the slides. Essentially, nothing left of that embankment levee.
Next slide.
This is an example of some of the embankments which were
overtopped but survived quite well. In this area, we had a signifi-
cant area of marshland in front, essentially helping knock down or
keep the storm surge or the waves to a lesser extent.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Where was that one?
Mr. NICHOLSON. This is in the first line of defense on the Eastern
edge of New Orleans East. Next slide.
Moving back into the Industrial Canal, we have seen some of
these slides, as well. Next slide.
We have seen this slide twice, I think, already. We can go to the
next one.
We have seen the type of damage. This is just inside of that
breach in the lower Ninth Ward. Next slide.
And we have also seen a similar slide like this showing the scour
on the backside of those walls that are overtopped as well as the
misalignment of those I-walls or floodwalls just to the North of the
lower Ninth Ward breach. Next slide.
Again, the scour behind the overtopping. The soil line used to be
up here. This soil has all been removed, essentially destabilizing
behind the wall. Next slide.
This is on the North side of the MRGO, overtopping, severely
scoured out behind and caused breaches and failure of those walls.
Next slide.
We also saw a lot of problems with transitions. We can see two
different problems here, different materials, and different heights.
Oftentimes, there was a weak connection between the two, but in
addition, the lower heights would direct the water to flood over
sometimes the weaker material first. Next slide.
If this was earth versus concrete, obviously the earth loses. Next
slide.
This is what happens if that is allowed to go further. The earth
line was up here. This was earth embankment, which has now
been severely scoured away and breached through, essentially.
Next slide.
More concrete to sheetpile, again, with the difference in height,
directed the flow over this area first, and sheetpile being weaker
than concrete, sheetpile loses. Next slide.
We also saw this type of very complex transition where we had
all the different problems, different material types, concrete to
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
18
pavement on soil to ballast under railroad tracks to earth embank-
ment. We had breaches on this side and this side. This raises an-
other question of where we have the types of transitions between
parts of the levee system that were maintained, designed, and con-
structed by different authorities or different agency groups. Here
we had an earthen levee constructed by one group, the railroad
taking care of their own business, different heights, so we have a
complete mix of things happening there. I am finished.
Well, I think we can answer the rest as we end. Madam Chair-
man, this concludes my testimony, and we will be pleased to take
questions. Thank you.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Your testimony was very helpful.
Dr. Seed, I want to begin my questioning with you today. At
least twice, you wrote to the Army Corps of Engineers, on October
11 and October 18, to raise very serious concerns about the ade-
quacy and the integrity of the repairs that the Army Corps and its
contractors were making to the levees and the floodwalls, and I
want to read for the record—we will put the entire letter of October
11—and the e-mail of October 18—into the record, but I want to
read some excerpts.1
On October 11, you wrote that the situation at the 17th Street
Canal ‘‘warranted an urgent response’’ because the repair was ‘‘ac-
tively eroding.’’ In this same letter, you wrote that the ‘‘current em-
bankment section was poorly configured with regard to the ongoing
risk of failure.’’ You wrote that certain repairs were leaking. In the
case of the 17th Street Canal repairs, you wrote that ‘‘rapid erosion
and blowout would become likely.’’ At the Southern London Avenue
break, you said that it was leaking into the city more than at the
other two breaks and you called it a ‘‘potential hazard.’’ You urged
‘‘urgent and resolute further action.’’
You also flagged the fact in your subsequent e-mail that contrac-
tors working on some of the levee repairs were not doing it prop-
erly and that there was inadequate oversight from the Army Corps.
In that same e-mail, you said to the Army Corps, you warned of
a ‘‘significant flow’’ of water and that there was no possibility of
controlling storm surge rises at sections of the Industrial Canal
levee so that further action may be urgently warranted.
These raise very serious questions in my mind about the integ-
rity of the repairs that have been undertaken and whether the re-
turning residents of New Orleans are still at risk. What is your as-
sessment today of the sufficiency of the repairs, and do you think
there is a serious public safety issue still in New Orleans?
Mr. SEED. Those are two separate questions.
Chairman COLLINS. Yes, and I shouldn’t have combined them.
Mr. SEED. That is all right. I am a professor. We do that for a
living.
The first question is the most complex. We haven’t been on the
ground in New Orleans now for several weeks and more, and so we
are not entirely clear what the details of those current configura-
tions are.
In response to the first letter, which you discussed, the Corps did
respond quickly and very well, and those sections were rapidly im-
1 The letter and e-mail appear in the Appendix on page 208.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
19
proved. Behind that, though, was a week of back-and-forth inter-
action between our team and the Corps in which the responses, in
our view, were insufficient and sometimes misdirected, and it be-
came clear to us that they were struggling to get the right kind of
people put in charge of the projects to get our concerns addressed.
My understanding from their last response is they do, in fact, have
the right kind of people now directing these projects, and so we
have a better feeling about them.
The second letter addresses the two breaches on the Industrial
Canal at the West end of the Ninth Ward, which when we left the
sites had been further remediated, but which, in our view, were not
adequate for a high-water incident, for instance, another hurricane
storm surge as the storm season isn’t yet behind us, or even a very
high tide. A week ago Monday, October 24, they developed a large
seep at one of those two sections, the northern of the two, and that,
in our view, was not entirely unexpected.
The Corps does now have five contracts let and, I believe, signed,
and they have five outsourced engineering firms doing the final de-
sign work on more permanent closure sections. These will all in-
volve sheetpile curtains, which will be far deeper than the original
sheetpiles that were installed in these sites, and the configurations
will be far more stable than they were before. So there do seem to
be suitable patches on their way to being in place at these five loca-
tions. So with regard to these five particular sites, I don’t believe
there is a long-term significant risk to the City of New Orleans.
The other half of the question, though, is what is the state of the
overall safety of the City of New Orleans, and the answer there is
the section that crossed along the North breach has not yet been
addressed nor remediated. It is clearly a very weakened situation,
and it was probably at the point of incipient failure in this last
event. It certainly hasn’t had its situation improved by the suf-
fering it went through. It has, in fact, deteriorated. And there are
many sections around the system that need to be investigated more
thoroughly.
There are also ongoing repairs of literally, as Dr. Nicholson said,
dozens of breaches, and the section up along what we like to call
as locals the MRGO section is vastly eroded. That is a very difficult
construction project, simply in terms of time, if the race is to get
things put back together for the next storm season in June. So
there is a tremendous logistical difficulty and the Corps of Engi-
neers is working very hard at all this. They are also stretched very
thin. It is a challenge for anybody. It is a very difficult challenge.
Chairman COLLINS. Dr. Nicholson, what is your assessment of
the current state of repairs and the adequacy as far as people com-
ing back into New Orleans to live and work?
Mr. NICHOLSON. Well, as Dr. Seed had mentioned, the repairs of
the damaged sections, of the breached sections in town seem to be
coming along quite well and seem to be adequate, with perhaps the
exception of the Industrial Canal area, which we hope they are
going to be taking care of fairly soon.
As far as the safety of the entire New Orleans area, as engineers,
we look at safety or risk on a scale or as a factor of safety. So there
are different levels of safety. There are always going to be some
risks, particularly in a large storm.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
20
For the short term, my opinion is that short term, without a
storm, they are probably adequately safe. Certainly with a large
storm, as we are not yet out of hurricane season, as Dr. Seed had
just mentioned, and certainly for the next hurricane season, there
are significant risks and safety. With evacuation, proper evacu-
ation, certainly the property is at risk and there is a large degree
of safety to the property, but I believe as far as the safety of re-
turning there with the potential to evacuate, I see that there is
adequate safety.
Chairman COLLINS. Dr. van Heerden, Senator Lieberman men-
tioned in his opening statement that we have heard time and again
that the levees were constructed to withstand what I understand
is called a standard project hurricane, and that is usually stated
to be a Category 3 hurricane. We have also heard, well, the reason
the levees failed is Katrina was a Category 4 hurricane that simply
overwhelmed the design of the levees. But it is my understanding
that your analysis suggests that the hurricane was not that strong.
Could you elaborate on that and tell us what your assessment
showed?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Certainly. If you look at New Orleans, there
was basically two different surges. The surge on the right side of
the eye was the sort of surge you would expect with a Category 3
storm, and that was where we saw the 18 to 20 feet of water in
the funnel. But on the left-hand side, or the West side of the eye,
the winds were much lower, more of the order of a Category 1
storm. The surges were not Category 3 surges. If Katrina had gone
to the West of New Orleans, we would have seen about 15 feet of
water in Lake Pontchartrain and obviously flooded a much greater
area.
So as far as we could see, based on the model, and we have also
spent many hours going out and measuring the heights of water
lines, the surge in Lake Pontchartrain wasn’t that of a Category 3
storm, and nor did it exceed the design criteria of the standard
project hurricane.
We have tried to understand what the standard project hurricane
is, and if one uses the frequency that is in the Corps of Engineers
definition, that is one is to 200 years, then you are talking about
a Category 5 storm. If you use the central pressure of 27.6 inches,
then you are talking about the potential of a Category 4 storm.
In terms of the definition of the winds, we found two different
definitions, and it is very difficult to work from those definitions to
come up with the Saffir-Simpson. However, in the 1965 document,
they talk about trying to design to the 1915 hurricane. The 1915
hurricane was a Category 4 hurricane. In 1969 documents, they
talk about designing to Hurricane Betsy, again, which was a Cat-
egory 4 storm.
So there is some confusion, exactly what is the standard project
hurricane, but in our opinion, the design criteria on the 17th Street
and London Avenue Canals were not exceeded.
Chairman COLLINS. So to summarize before I move on to Senator
Lieberman, is it fair to say that the levees should have survived
Hurricane Katrina, given that Hurricane Katrina by the time it
struck New Orleans was at a lesser category than the standard
project hurricane?
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
21
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Madam Chairman, yes, it is fair to say that
they should have stood the surge.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Dr. van Heerden, let me pick up from Senator Collins’ line of
questioning. I understand you to be saying that, because as we all
remember, Hurricane Katrina went more to the East of New Orle-
ans than it was originally thought. That on the Eastern part of
New Orleans, there was a significant surge and perhaps the hurri-
cane was at a Category 3 or higher at that point. But the point
that strikes me as very significant here is that insofar as Lake
Pontchartrain is concerned, it, in your opinion, was significantly
less than what we are calling a Category 3 hurricane, is that cor-
rect?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator LIEBERMAN. And if I understand this correctly, most of
the flooding of downtown New Orleans came from Lake Pont-
chartrain. Obviously, there was other significant flooding to the
East in the New Orleans East, lower Ninth Ward, but when it
came to downtown New Orleans, the 17th Street Canal, the Indus-
trial Canal, and I believe it is the London Street Canal, those fed
the flooding of downtown New Orleans, is that right?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Downtown was principally the 17th Street
Canal and the London Avenue Canal——
Senator LIEBERMAN. London Avenue——
Mr. VAN HEERDEN [continuing]. As well as some breaches on the
Industrial Canal. When you get to Orleans East, the flooding oc-
curred not only from the Industrial Canal, but also from the
breaches that the others have spoken about along the Gulf Inter-
coastal Waterway.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Correct. Let me come back and focus on
Lake Pontchartrain because now you have told us that by your es-
timate, expert estimate, Hurricane Katrina was well below Cat-
egory 3 as it hit Lake Pontchartrain. So do I correctly conclude that
your determination is that the water of Lake Pontchartrain did not
overtop the levees along the canal? In other words, the water did
not reach a level to overtop those levees along Lake Pontchartrain?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. In the 17th Street Canal and the London Av-
enue Canal, the waters did not get high enough to overtop those
levees from——
Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. I went up in a boat on the 17th Street Canal,
and what we saw were water lines that indicated that the max-
imum water level was about three feet below the top of the wall.
Senator LIEBERMAN. So the fact that the water came surging
through those levees and those canals from Lake Pontchartrain
was the result of a failure of the levees, not that the water went
over them?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. That is correct, sir.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Dr. Seed and Dr. Nicholson, do you and
your investigation agree with those conclusions? Here, I am focus-
ing on Lake Pontchartrain, that the water—the flooding didn’t
occur from the water overtopping the levees, but that the levees
simply failed. Is that your conclusion, Dr. Seed.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
22
Mr. SEED. Our preliminary conclusion on all three of those sec-
tions is that the failure was produced somewhere in the foundation
or the lower levels of the embankments themselves, but certainly
the earthen embankments became unstable and the floodwalls
were no longer supported.
Senator LIEBERMAN. And Dr. Nicholson.
Mr. NICHOLSON. I concur with the other two.
Senator LIEBERMAN. And this led to my conclusion from your tes-
timony that I stated at the outset, that it was human error in the
design and construction of the levees that led to a significant part
of the flooding of New Orleans, that, in fact, if the levees had done
what they were supposed to do, notwithstanding the strength of
the storm on the East part of town, on Lake Pontchartrain, it
wasn’t that strong. If the levees had done what they were designed
to do, a lot of the flooding of New Orleans would not have occurred,
and a lot of the suffering that occurred as a result of the flooding
would not have occurred. Am I correct in drawing that conclusion,
Dr. Seed and Dr. Nicholson?
Mr. SEED. The latter part of your conclusion is unequivocally cor-
rect.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Which is—just to clarify——
Mr. SEED. Which is that the levees would have been expected to
perform adequately at these levels if they had been designed and
constructed properly. The opening sentence was a little bit trouble-
some inasmuch as you said it would be the result of human error.
It may not have been the result of human error. There is a high
likelihood that it was, but we are receiving some very disturbing
reports from people who were involved in some of these projects,
and it suggests that perhaps not just human error was involved,
but there may have been some malfeasance. Some of the sections
may not have been constructed as they were designed.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SEED. That needs further investigating.
Senator LIEBERMAN. That is very important. So it was not only
an error, or might be called technical judgment about what was
necessary there, but that, in fact, the construction work done on
those levees was not up to the design specifications, is that what
I am hearing you say?
Mr. SEED. We are pursuing stories of that, in fact, and we are
seeing evidence from what we saw in the field versus some of the
design drawings we have been able to obtain so far that would sug-
gest that some of those stories might bear some fruits. We are con-
tinuing to study it.
Senator LIEBERMAN. And help us understand, leaving that aside
for a moment, the malfeasance possibility, what the errors in de-
sign were here. Was it a failure—I have heard you refer at dif-
ferent times to the soil configuration. Was it a failure to allow for
the unique qualities of the soil there?
Mr. SEED. Somebody asked me about a month ago the difference
between a dam and a levee.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SEED. In principle, a dam is tall and narrow and a levee is
short and very long. The real difference is that with a dam, we pick
our sites and we pick them very carefully. We build levees usually
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
23
at the edge of swamps, sometimes in swamps. We routinely get
very poor foundation conditions, so the poverty of the foundation
conditions is not unexpected.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Not unusual. That is where levees are built.
Right.
Mr. SEED. Not unusual and we are used to that. What makes the
New Orleans levees unusual is the high stakes involved in terms
of the inboard population being protected. These are very high-risk
levees with regard to consequences. In a system with several hun-
dred miles of levees, it is very difficult to do suitable investigation
and basically to nail all the details. The problem with the levee
system is if you leave one detail unnailed, you leave a vulnerability
which may in the end bring the whole system down.
The local conditions at the sites of the three main breaches on
the canals, the one on 17th and the two on London, were very chal-
lenging local conditions.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.
Mr. SEED. There was some accommodation of that in the design,
and we are studying very hard right now to determine if, in our
opinion, the accommodation was suitable. Performance would be
suggesting that it might not have been.
And the other half of the question is whether they were actually
built the way they were designed, and there are some issues there.
We are hoping very much to be able to, for instance, pull some of
the sheetpiles and see what length they actually are. We have sev-
eral sets of design documents which suggest different lengths, and
we have several reports that perhaps none of those lengths is the
correct answer. But these things are still out there and pulling a
couple of sheetpiles is a clear step.
Senator LIEBERMAN. And you are still at work on it, but I hear
you say that notwithstanding the unique circumstances of the soil
in the vicinity of the construction of those levees to protect New Or-
leans, particularly facing Lake Pontchartrain, within your field,
within your expertise, that was not an impossible task, that it
could have been done, from what you know now, a lot better than
it, in fact, was done, so that the levees would have withstood the
water surge.
Mr. SEED. There was a second message, though, in what I said,
and that is that borings were spaced at intervals, many miles of
levee were being designed, and at some cost and some price, it
would be possible to do a better and safer job. An important issue
to get to later in the studies is whether, in fact, the level of protec-
tion that was paid for was delivered. But I think we have to also
acknowledge the fact that the budgets were tight, people were
squeezed, and we may not have been paying for enough protection.
So it may be a double-ended question.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Well, that is an important question for us
as elected officials, particularly those who fund the Army Corps of
Engineers. But it is just an infuriating conclusion here, if what
stands in the remaining investigations, that, in fact, a lot of the
damage to New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina flooding was pre-
ventable. And it would have been prevented if the design and con-
struction of the levees, particularly along Lake Pontchartrain and,
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
24
to some extent, to the Eastern part of the city, had been done ac-
cording to professional standards and specifications.
Mr. SEED. They were done according to professional standards
and specifications. I want to be very careful there. They weren’t
necessarily done in the way, in hindsight, we would have liked to
have them be done, and that is because professional standards, and
so on, cover some range. But there certainly was the possibility to
have engineered the system to perform better.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Dr. Mlakar, I apologize because I have only
got about a half-minute left, but I hope there is time for you to re-
spond insofar as you are able at this point in your investigations.
I do want to say that I was troubled—I understand the difficulty
and I caught your words of rational conclusions here. One of the
problems we are facing is the movement of the calendar. If your re-
port is not coming until July 1 of next year, and the hurricane sea-
son begins again on June 1, by which time the Corps has said it
would restore the levees to at least the pre-Katrina levels, how is
your report going to be helpful, or as helpful as it should be?
Mr. MLAKAR. We will be sharing our interim progress with my
colleagues in the Corps of Engineers who are responsible for the re-
construction. So while the final report, due to the serious delibera-
tions and complexity of the problem, will take until July, the in-
terim progress will be shared much before that as the decisions
have to be made.
Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding
this hearing and raising important questions about the levees in
New Orleans, and I just want to thank this panel. You have been
terrific. It is nice to have such expertise before us today and com-
ing from an objective point of view without any kind of axe to
grind, as so often is the case when we have hearings before this
Committee and many other committees.
I think it is important to learn from our mistakes and not to re-
peat them in the future. Today’s testimony confirms what I have
known since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transpor-
tation and Infrastructure. That was my first 2 years in the Senate.
I lucked out, and I was chairman of the Transportation and Infra-
structure Subcommittee. I had the Army Corps of Engineers under
our jurisdiction, and at that time, I concluded that we were not
funding the Army Corps of Engineers to the extent that they
should be funded. We can sit here and we can criticize, but I think
we should look at ourselves in the mirror and the administrations,
not only this Administration, but previous administrations should
do the same thing.
In the 1960s, we were spending, in 1999 dollars, about $4 billion
on projects, $4 billion. Today, the last average from 1999 has been
about $1.5 billion. Our operation and maintenance, in 1999, we
were behind about $250 million. Today, it is $1.250 billion. The
real question is, had we done our job, had the administrations
asked for the money that the Army Corps of Engineers should have
received and had this Congress responded to that, and I kept say-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
25
ing, we need it, we need it, please, from the head of the Army
Corps of Engineers, ask for the money. It just wasn’t there.
And, by the way, we then added on to them these ecological res-
toration projects. In other words, in addition to just the Army
Corps of Engineers work, we are saying now we have these
environmental restoration projects. We are going to throw that on
top of you.
Yes, sir, Dr. Seed.
Mr. SEED. The Corps of Engineers knows how to build levees and
how to make them safe. Euphemistically, we say somebody wrote
the book. The Corps of Engineers literally wrote the book repeat-
edly on the creation and the safe creation of levees. Their compac-
tion standards, their design standards are widely copied and emu-
lated throughout the country and throughout the world.
The Corps of Engineers is also struggling right now to repair fail-
ures in the New Orleans area, and it is painfully clear to our inves-
tigation team that they are struggling for lack of technical man-
power, and we find that to be very daunting. We haven’t done a
formal study of the national staffing of the Corps yet, but we hope
to engage in that. We have been taking personal surveys among
our friends and colleagues, former students. The assistant coach of
my soccer team is also a geotechnical engineer, and he is working
on a big Corps levee project in Yuba City, California.
And in all of our contacts, we are finding a shortage of
geotechnical engineering capability and the elongage of cost effi-
ciency, which is people with degrees in economics and management
and a lack of engineering. The stunning parallel to us is NASA be-
fore the Challenger disaster and NASA afterwards, where they re-
instituted their engineering and scientific capabilities at the cost of
cost efficiency.
I think we need to take a very strong look at ourselves as a Na-
tion. We have strangled the Corps of Engineers in terms of budgets
and support. They have responded by doing what was necessary to
get their jobs done as best they could. But I think the human error
issue in New Orleans is not going to be something which we can
be pointing fingers at the Corps for. I think the finger pointing will
be at ourselves when we are all done.
Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the National Academy of Sciences has
come out with some recommendations, ten recommendations on
what we need to do to deal with the lack of scientists and engineers
in this country, and I am hopeful that the Senate and the House
and the Administration will adopt their recommendations and
spend the money and make the sacrifice that we need in order to
deal with this ongoing problem.
This Committee has spent its time on looking at the issue of
human capital, and if you go back to almost any problem we have,
it is not having the right people with the right knowledge and
skills at the right place and at the right time. Go back and look
at it. We have neglected human capital on the Federal level for-
ever, and it is time for us to change that, and I am glad that you
brought up the lack of folks that they need to get the job done.
Here we are today, and we have to make decisions about New
Orleans. Are we going to go to a level three and rebuild this thing
and get it so that we can get to level three, and if we were to do
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
26
that and we decided to go to level five, would we do it differently?
Do you understand the question? In other words, we have concrete,
and we have under-soil that shouldn’t be there. We are going to get
in there and make it better, assuming you have the resources to
do it. But the question is, if you go to a level three and the decision
then is to go to a level five, would you do it differently in terms
of going to the level three? In other words, can you take it to level
three, do it right, and then say, if we go to level five, can you build
on top of that, or if you are going to go to level five, would you do
it differently right from the get-go?
Dr. Mlakar or any of you, chip in on it.
Mr. MLAKAR. Thank you, Senator. Probably if we decided to go
to level five from the get-go, there might be some different options
open to us than if we first went to level three and then went to
level five. I am here primarily to talk about the fact-finding we are
doing to figure out exactly what happened, but as a general answer
to your question, yes, there are probably some different options on
which way you want to authorize us to go.
Senator VOINOVICH. And then the question is, if you go to level
three and then the decision is to go to level five, what is the time
span, and then what do you do in the interim period? What if we
have another hurricane? If we don’t rebuild to level three the way
it is supposed to be done, then the folks will still be very vulnerable
in New Orleans. Can I have some comments from some of the other
witnesses?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. I would respectfully encourage to go to a level
five to start. From the hurricane statistics side, in the last 50
years, a major hurricane has come close to New Orleans on about
eight different occasions, and just a slight change in the track of
any of those hurricanes would have created a similar sort of flood-
ing. Southeast Louisiana is a hurricane-prone area, and speaking
as a Louisianan, I would encourage that we go to Category 5 from
the beginning. Thank you.
Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Seed.
Mr. SEED. Speaking as a Californian and as an American, there-
fore not from Louisiana, I think if you do a Category 3 first design
and then go to a Category 5, many of your design elements will be
compatible and extendable. Some of them will not. There will be
some sunk costs which will essentially be a temporary, interim
measure.
Designing for a full Category 5 is no walk in the park. It prob-
ably involves restoration of offshore barrier islands and a lot of
issues that are going to be well beyond concrete and rebar and
sheetpiles and earth levees. It is a very complex issue and a very
difficult one, and in the end, you are also still going to have a sys-
tem which will be untested until it is tested. One of the great prob-
lems with levee systems is there is no way to do a dry run to see
how you are doing.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Could I make one more comment?
Senator VOINOVICH. Sure.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. We heard in the testimony that those levees
that were faced by wetlands weren’t eroded, and we saw that in the
slide. So I would encourage that at the same time we restore the
levees, we restore our coastal wetlands. These wetlands are our
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
27
outer line of defense. These wetlands are what take the stuffing out
of the hurricanes, the barrier islands and the wetlands. Perhaps
this is a unique opportunity to both reconstruct the levees and get
the coastal restoration program going.
Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Nicholson, would you like to comment on
this?
Mr. NICHOLSON. Well, as Dr. van Heerden just mentioned, we did
observe that where the wetlands gave you a first line of defense,
not necessarily line of defense, but it certainly helped reduce the
wave heights and the impact on those levees. We saw that very
clearly. So that restoring the wetlands would certainly give you a
front line to help reduce the impact.
Senator VOINOVICH. The conclusion I get from all of you, then,
is that if you were in our shoes and having to make a decision,
even if we decided that we were going to build to a level five, then
it is incumbent on us to build to level three and do it the right way.
Mr. SEED. Probably the safest and secure answer to that is there
is no way to do a level five quickly, and the people of New Orleans
will need protection before that can be completed.
Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I want to add my welcome to all of our witnesses, and I would
like to add a special aloha to Dr. Nicholson, who, as Senator Col-
lins mentioned earlier, is a professor at the University of Hawaii
at Manoa. Dr. Nicholson, I want you to know that I am honored
that you are leading the American Society of Civil Engineers team
and lending your expertise to this worthy cause. I am pleased to
have you join this hearing today.
Dr. van Heerden, you have written movingly about the situation
in the State of the Emergency Operations Center, that Monday
evening, as you realized the levees were falling, you assumed that
‘‘the Corps of Engineers, who basically owned the levees, would be
warning everyone’’ and you thought that ‘‘the Corps must be moni-
toring the levees’’ and that they would sound the alarm. Have you
learned why the Corps did not warn everyone and why they
weren’t monitoring the levees?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. No, we haven’t. The first call that we got that
indicated something was amiss was when I was at the State Emer-
gency Operations Center, and that was around eight o’clock on
Monday evening, and quite honestly, at that time, everybody was
congratulating themselves that we had dodged the bullet. We first
heard of a nursing home somewhere, they had two feet of water in
it and the water was rising half-a-foot an hour. They weren’t sure
where it was and they weren’t sure if it was salt or fresh water,
which would have been a key. Then, as far as I know, they lost
telephone contact. But whether a warning was given, certainly at
eight o’clock in the State Emergency Operations Center, we were
unaware of it.
Senator AKAKA. Dr. Mlakar, I know you are not here to represent
the Corps, but I would like to give you a chance to comment, if you
are willing to do that, on this.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
28
Mr. MLAKAR. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I am here as a technical
expert leading the collection of the data to figure out exactly what
happened, and I am really not prepared to answer this question on
our emergency response but will be very pleased to get back with
you for the record on that point.
Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much.
Dr. van Heerden, I understand that in the summer of 2004, you
and others from the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center
participated in a simulation of a Category 3 storm hitting New Or-
leans. That exercise predicted that flooding would leave 300,000
people trapped in New Orleans. On Sunday, August 28, just over
a year later, your LSU team warned FEMA and other disaster offi-
cials that there would be a significant event in New Orleans. What
was FEMA’s reaction when they were warned both in the summer
exercise and immediately prior to the levees breaking that there
was a disaster in the making?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. That is a hard one to address. In the 2004
exercise, I think for the most part, this was the first time anybody
had ever really thought about the consequences of a flooding event
of New Orleans, maybe the first time that some of the agencies
really understood what the consequence could be if the city was
flooded.
The only comment I had was I knew from our public opinion sur-
veys that 68.2 percent of the people would leave and that would
leave about 300,000 behind, and if you flooded the city, you would
have over 800,000 homeless. And so we tried to press with FEMA
the need to perhaps preposition tents and to perhaps find the prop-
erties in Louisiana, whether it was State parks or farmland, where
you could erect these tents for these evacuees as the first line, and
I was told very bluntly that Americans do not live in tents, and I
was obviously very disappointed because I knew that we would
have this problem that we had where citizens were bused all over
the place, families were split up, and in many cases, there wasn’t
the first-line medical surveillance that could happen if you had an
organized tent city or series of cities.
In terms of FEMA in response to New Orleans, we made all our
predictions, our storm surge model outputs available to FEMA offi-
cials via the Internet, and at the State EOC, we briefed them,
briefed everybody there, including FEMA, and then the Times-Pica-
yune Newspaper on the Sunday morning before the storm took one
of our storm surge outputs and created a color graphic and indi-
cated then that the flooding was going to happen.
Senator AKAKA. I was particularly interested in what response or
reaction FEMA had about your findings and what had happened
there.
Dr. Seed, a member of your team was quoted in the press stating
that your team was denied access to certain Army Corps of Engi-
neers employees. Can you comment on these reports and describe
exactly what your team requested from the Army Corps of Engi-
neers and also what responses you received from them?
Mr. SEED. We have had highly variable levels of cooperation from
the Corps of Engineers. It has fluctuated with regard to the units
of the Corps we have been in contact with, the locality of those peo-
ple, and also the time of the week.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
29
We had a marvelous experience in the field for 21⁄2 weeks, where
the various teams arrived, we were squeezed as to numbers of peo-
ple we were allowed to bring in because there were questions about
ingress and safety and also whether, in fact, investigation teams
might be in the way as emergency operations were proceeding.
When we arrived on the ground, we learned rapidly that the situa-
tion was bigger than we could handle, and we pooled our resources.
The Corps team, the investigation team led by Dr. Mlakar, literally
worked shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the teams, and we did
as much study as we could quickly because bulldozers were scoop-
ing up and burying vital data. So cooperation and collaboration of
teams on the ground in the critical 21⁄2 weeks of the field studies
was superb.
We were routinely promised we would be able to meet with local
representatives from the Louisiana District, who have an intimate
knowledge of the history and the evolution of many of these sites,
which is fundamentally critical if you are working under those
kinds of time constraints and you only have limited manpower. We
never actually met any of those people at any of the sites. They
were always busy doing other emergency work, and that was very
disappointing to us. That was the source of Dr. Bea’s concerns.
We received a wonderful inbriefing document with maps and
some cross-sections of some of the levees, which was tremendously
useful. We were, however, not able to obtain any of the subsequent
follow-on documents that we had requested, in fact, a list of docu-
ments which we had developed jointly amongst the various teams,
including input from the ERDC team, until this past Saturday,
when all of a sudden many documents were posted electronically
on a website.
So the Corps of Engineers seems to be moving in fits and starts.
Sometimes, they are very cooperative. Sometimes, they are not. I
was listening with painstaking diligence to Dr. Mlakar’s comments
in the opening session. The Corps of Engineers has repeatedly
promised to provide documentation and access to all the teams.
This involves background design documents and design memo-
randa, construction memoranda, maintenance and inspection re-
ports. It also extends to ongoing studies they are doing right now,
the borings and sampling and the test data. A lot of that stuff is
very important. They have consistently promised that stuff will be
forthcoming.
In his comments today, that last piece was missing. He an-
nounced an intent to develop this information, but he did not an-
nounce an intent to share it with the other investigation teams. I
am hoping that was an omission, not a deletion.
Senator AKAKA. Do you think the Corps was deliberately keeping
you from meeting people?
Mr. SEED. The Corps of Engineers has just suffered a major
blow. The people that work for the Corps of Engineers do so be-
cause they have a desire to do good things and make people safe,
and when your work doesn’t go well in that regard, it is a very dif-
ficult situation.
I think the Corps is struggling to get its hands around all of this
at many levels, locally and at the national level. To their credit, as
time passes, we do see them consistently making the right steps in
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
30
the end. We did see the interim levees repaired in fits and snatches
for a while, and then when we pointed out the flaws, the flaws
were rapidly and appropriately addressed.
It did take us many weeks of struggle to get our investigation
teams in and on the ground. The Corps was expressing concerns
about the safety of the teams and logistical issues and the possi-
bility they might interfere with the operations. Members of our
team have directed these types of operations. They certainly know
their way around a levee and around construction equipment.
There is no way they would be an obstruction in the field, and their
personal safety was not much of an issue. We have been to coun-
tries like the Northwest corner of India up against the Pakistan
border and many of us who have had 12 inoculations are immune
even to mosquitoes from the Louisiana area, to a large extent. So
we thought that was perhaps also a delaying tactic. We would have
liked to have gotten in quicker. But in the end, the teams were let
in. That doesn’t always happen.
So it is a very mixed bag. We are seeing mixed responses, but
we are seeing the Corps consistently in the end responding ade-
quately to get the job done. That lifeline hasn’t been cut yet. We
are concerned, though, that as the heat goes away, they continue
to respond adequately to get the job done. There are a great many
documents, and so on, we are going to need in the months ahead,
and the data they are currently developing is, of course, fundamen-
tally important.
Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Dr. Seed. Thank you, Madam Chair-
man.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you.
Before I call on Senator Warner, let me address the issue of doc-
uments. It is very troubling to this Committee that the forensic
teams that are looking into the failures of the levees have not re-
ceived complete and total cooperation from the Army Corps. I do
want to point out that Dr. Mlakar is not the individual making doc-
ument decisions, but I also want to assure you, Dr. Seed, and oth-
ers involved in these reviews, that this Committee is committed to
making sure that you have all the documents that you need from
the Corps to complete your analysis. That is absolutely critical to
your work. It is also critical to our work. And we, too, have had
difficulty in receiving the documents that we need from the Army
Corps and from the Department of Defense, in general. So this is
an issue that this Committee will follow up on, and it is appro-
priate that I now call on the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee who perhaps can assist us in this matter, also.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER
Senator WARNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
First, the Senate has approached, I think in a very reasonable
way, the extraordinary broad analysis that we must provide about
this natural catastrophe to our Nation and the human suffering it
involved. There are four of us on this Committee who serve on the
Environment and Public Works Committee, and the distinguished
Ranking Member being one of the four, Senator Voinovich, Senator
Carper, and myself. I want to say from the outset what I am sure
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
31
everybody knows, that the Corps has the primary responsibility for
issues relating to these levees and so forth. We all recognize that.
I have personally talked to General Strock. I have a high regard
for his professional capabilities. He has forthrightly said, we
haven’t had the time yet to develop the answers that are needed,
and they are busy doing so. As a matter of fact, I think almost each
of you are in some form of consultation with the Corps on this. So
time is needed. But I will join with others on this Committee to as-
sure the Chairman and Members of this Committee that such docu-
ments in the possession of the Corps are made available to this
Committee and in a timely way.
But I think I have listened very carefully, and this is an excel-
lent panel, by the way. I commend the Chairman and the Ranking
Member for bringing it here, very competent individuals. I draw on
a modest background of civil engineering in my college and univer-
sity years. You are quite right about going, Senator Voinovich, from
a level three to a level five. Ideally, the footings and so forth re-
quired for a level five are probably markedly different than what
you need for a level three in many instances. Nevertheless, we are
not here for that question.
But I did want to just lay a benchmark about the Corps, and
they are working very hard on this, and the Environment and Pub-
lic Works Committee has purposely allowed them more time before
they are brought before us as witnesses, but we will assure you
that this Committee is well served by their documents.
I would like to go to another matter, Madam Chairman, and that
is one that Dr. Ivor van Heerden raised, and others, about if we
go to a level five and so forth, we have to rely on much more than
what man can devise. It is what nature can devise by way of these
natural barriers, which through the years there has been some ero-
sion, and the loss of the natural sediment from the river has not
provided the help that nature needs to reestablish itself.
So this brings me to the channel called, as I understand it,
MRGO, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, a manmade navigation
channel that provides a direct shipping lane from the Gulf of Mex-
ico to the marine terminals in New Orleans. I wonder if that
should not be reexamined in the light of the overall approach to the
revitalization of this whole area.
It is my understanding that over the years, experts have worried
that the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet would allow a severe storm
surge to give a direct hit at New Orleans. Is there any data to sup-
port that did happen in this instance? That concern appears to
have been one that we have got to address. This project also has
disrupted the natural flow of sediment, which is critical in pro-
viding the buffer zones that you referred to.
So, therefore, I just wonder, do you feel as we address this prob-
lem, and given that there has been some reduction in the naviga-
tion use of this outlet and it has become somewhat less significant
now—I have just been told that, I cannot corroborate it, but I
will—should the MRGO be a part of the solution to providing for
the future preservation of this area in the face of natural disasters?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Senator, yes, we believe that a really hard
look needs to be put on MRGO, whether it is actually needed, and
certainly from our computer modeling, we know that where MRGO
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
32
joins the Gulf and Coastal Waterway, the area known as the funnel
is where we really get the amplification of the surge. If MRGO was
to be abandoned, there is the potential of using parts of it as a con-
duit to funnel sediments elsewhere. Obviously, you can’t have sedi-
ment in a channel that you have still got navigation.
Senator WARNER. Thank you.
Mr. MLAKAR. First, Senator, I would like to thank you for your
acknowledgement that there is a great deal of effort involved in
providing this information, and General Strock and all of us are,
indeed, committed to be absolutely open and transparent in this
study.
As far as MRGO and the natural barriers and this larger picture,
I am really here as a technical expert on what happened in Hurri-
cane Katrina. We will have some information about that in our
final conclusions, to what extent the loss of the wetlands, to what
extent MRGO might have played a role in that. Others in the
Corps are looking at these larger questions, and perhaps I would
like to defer to them to answer.
Senator WARNER. Thank you very much. Dr. Seed.
Mr. SEED. We haven’t studied yet, the degree of vulnerability in-
troduced by the MRGO, but it doesn’t appear to have been a large
issue in this particular case. The larger question is to how to move
forward to something like a higher degree of protection, possibly a
Category 4 or 5 system as is being discussed. It is a broader issue
than reconfiguring something as simple as the MRGO when the
barrier islands—it probably involves reconfiguring how that was
even created in the New Orleans area and how they are coordi-
nated.
It involves the need to have somebody be in charge of the overall
system and resolve the differences between the different groups
who have to interact at connections and cross-connections. It in-
volves handling issues like the Corps of Engineers, who build lev-
ees and then nominally turn them over to locals after some period
of time and those interfaces. There are a lot of organizational
issues which need to be resolved to move the city safely forward.
Senator WARNER. Thank you.
Mr. NICHOLSON. Similarly, the hydraulics of MRGO and the fun-
nel factor are a bit out of my purview. As a geotechnical engineer,
we are looking at other issues as far as the levees were concerned.
But certainly, this is an area where there has been a lot of discus-
sion and should be looked into further. I have seen some of the
modeling done by the LSU Hurricane Center that has suggested
that may certainly help at least part of the protection, or could be
a buffer zone, if you will. But that is an area which is really beyond
the scope of what we are looking at.
Senator WARNER. I thank the Chairman.
Chairman COLLINS. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator CARPER. Again, our thanks to each of you for joining us
today.
I appreciate the use of the technology and all the maps and the
photos that you showed, and you used a pointer of some kind, a
laser pointer that was actually difficult to follow. I do pretty well
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
33
in my color blindness tests and so forth, but it was just hard to
pick it up on the charts, so I just share that with all of you so that
next time it might be even more helpful to all of us.
Dr. van Heerden, if I could start off with the first question for
you, please. Last month, at a hearing on another committee that
I serve on, the Environment and Public Works Committee, a Lieu-
tenant General whose name is Strock, Carl Strock—I don’t know
if you know him, but he is the Chief of Engineers. He stated that
the path of Hurricane Katrina was such that the wetland loss was
not an issue in this particular storm. I would just ask for you to
react to that comment.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. If we had the wetlands we had in the 1870s
now——
Senator CARPER. In the when?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. I say 100 years ago, the surge would have
been dramatically less, and there are two very important reasons
for that. First off, if you imagine a hurricane moving forwards with
very strong winds, the winds that are blowing on land are on the
right-hand side and that is blowing the water towards the land.
But on the left-hand side, the winds are blowing offshore and that
is blowing the water away from the land.
So if you have very significant and healthy wetlands and barrier
islands on the left-hand side, you start to suck the wind energy out
of that storm. On the right-hand side, if you have substantial wet-
lands and barrier islands, you add significant friction to that surge.
And if you have ever had the opportunity to go into the Louisiana
cypress swamps, which used to be very——
Senator CARPER. I have never had that opportunity.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Do come down. But if the cypress swamps
that used to exist where MRGO, along the course of MRGO that
got destroyed by the salt, what you see is a 60 to 70-foot high wall
of gray tree stumps, and when that water tries to flow through
that, there is a lot of very significant friction, and you lose that
flow.
An example of how valuable the wetlands are, Hurricane Andrew
made landfall in Louisiana in 1992, I believe it was, and made—
its path came up the central part of Louisiana where we have ex-
tremely healthy wetlands and two new emerging deltas, two areas
of net land growth, and the surge in Morgan City, which was some
20-odd miles inland, was only seven feet. So to me, that is—and in
terms of the wind between the coast and Morgan City, the wind
lost 50 percent of its energy. That is an example of how valuable
those wetlands are in reducing hurricane impacts, both wind and
surge.
Senator CARPER. How do we go about rebuilding the wetlands?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. If you look at it, all of coastal Louisiana was
built by the Mississippi River and the sediment in the river is, in
essence, a renewable resource. The river floods every year. All we
have got to do is find efficient methods to get that sediment out of
the river and back into the wetlands. In our toolbox, we can have
major diversions, perhaps diverting 50 percent of the river. We
know that used to happen every 1,000 years and that is what built
large parts of Louisiana. There may be opportunities to do that
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
34
now in the lower part of the river system, maybe into the Breton
Delta.
The next tools in our toolbox are siphons and minor or smaller
diversions, and we have a couple of those, and that is where you
simulate the distributory channels that used to operate when the
river flooded, and you can get the sediment a little further, and
greater volumes.
Another important way would be to use what we call mini-si-
phons. These are very small siphons spaced every few miles down
the river that would in many ways simulate a natural flooding
event because you would put—you wouldn’t flood anybody locally,
which is a concern, but you would put significant amounts of fresh
water and especially the nutrient-rich waters into the wetlands.
And then also in the toolbox is the restoration of our barrier is-
lands, and in Federal waters, there are some fantastic sand re-
sources that are there that could be mined and that sand then used
to build barrier islands. I believe it is very doable and would really
aid Louisiana in terms of hurricane impacts.
Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks very much.
I have a question that I would invite any of the panelists to an-
swer. I will give you a break, Mr. van Heerden, for a moment, but
I would ask any of the others who would like to take a shot at this
to do so.
Many of the Corps’ calculations regarding how to build levees to
protect New Orleans from a Category 3 hurricane were done, I
think someone said, in the 1960s, and since then, New Orleans has
subsided, but there has been a great deal of additional develop-
ment, as we all know, and hundreds of square miles of wetlands
have been lost. An independent analysis was done, I think for the
Times-Picayune Newspaper back in 2002. I think it was called
‘‘Washing Away.’’ It showed that therisk might now be twice as
large as the Corps had estimated.
How has this affected the Corps’ assumption and design rec-
ommendations? Is there any attempt to review and update the as-
sumptions regarding the design? Mr. Mlakar.
Mr. MLAKAR. Yes, sir. I would say that we don’t have an answer
or conclusion about that right now, but that is certainly going to
be a subject of our study.
Senator CARPER. I am sorry, say that one more time.
Mr. MLAKAR. We don’t have the answer to that right now, but
I think we will have something to report on that at the end of our
study.
Senator CARPER. And that will be roughly when?
Mr. MLAKAR. The study will be done July 1.
Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Seed, an easy
name for me to pronounce.
Mr. SEED. And I apologize for my name being so simple. People
tend to remember it, although sometimes I get called ‘‘Bird’’ several
years later. [Laughter.]
I have a partial answer for that, and our sense is the partial an-
swers are important at this early stage. Hydrology has advanced
considerably over the past half-century, and there are numerous
projects, Corps projects, Bureau projects, and projects owned by
neither involving levees and also large and high-risk dams whose
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
35
hydrology needs to be updated and the ramifications of which need
to be studied.
The difference between levees and dams is that dams tend to get
reassessed every 5 and 10 years in a fairly formal system. There
is a National Dam Safety Program which foments that. We don’t
have a National Levee Safety Program. It is a missing piece, and
we would like to see one established.
Many levees are beginning to protect large populations. Levees
used to exist in the swamps, which were unpopulated. We have a
huge problem in California with our Sacramento Delta, where peo-
ple are now moving into the delta because the real estate around
the delta is both built in and hugely expensive, and we are pro-
jecting having over 200,000 people move into that area in difficult
and tenuous situations over the next 10 years alone. The prudence
of that is also a political issue in California.
We also have in California a city, Sacramento, with levee flood
protection, nominally engineered by the Corps. The design level of
flood protection intended for New Orleans was to be a so-called
200-year level of protection, which means about once every 200
years, you would expect to lose it in a major hurricane. As the Pica-
yune said, the better estimate today might be roughly half that. We
have levee systems in Sacramento which are nominally engineered
to a 75-year level of protection, and the local understanding is it
may be half of that. There are efforts to raise Folsom Dam now to
help staunch some of the flooding and raise those levels. But we
have levee systems throughout the United States at various levels
of protection, and it is possible that those all need to be reassessed
in terms of their levels of prudence.
Senator CARPER. Mr. Nicholson, do you want to add anything?
Mr. NICHOLSON. Yes, just two things. First of all, I am not in a
position to comment on what the Corps is doing or has understood
about reevaluating the effect of the wetlands, but I did want to con-
cur that the ASCE also believes that support of a National Levee
Inspection Safety Program similar to the National Dam Safety Pro-
gram that exists now would certainly be important, particularly in
protecting those large urban areas. It is vitally important as they
have been neglected to a much greater extent than our national
dams.
Senator CARPER. One last quick one for you, Dr. Seed. You stated
in your testimony that some inexpensive modifications to the levees
and floodwalls could have prevented some of their failures. What
would be the reasons for choosing not to undertake those modifica-
tions?
Mr. SEED. It is almost a policy issue. The Corps of Engineers was
authorized, which is a very specific term, to provide a certain level
of protection for the people of New Orleans, and they specially
sized the elevations of the tops of the levee and floodwall systems
targeted at that. They typically overbuilt them in many areas by
a foot and sometimes two to allow for long-term settlement, and
the region is also subsiding. But by and large, that was the target,
and they met it.
It was not their policy to think about what would happen if you
got one or two more feet of water. Therefore, there was no design
provision for one or two more feet of water, but it may well be that
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
36
with some inexpensive additions that might have added, at best, a
few percent to the overall project cost, one or two or sometimes
three feet of water for a few hours might have been accommodated
safely. Our sense is that there is a bit of a policy issue there which
needs to be evaluated.
Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks to all of you. Thanks very
much.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN
Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you
for holding this important hearing. Gentleman, though I didn’t
have the time to listen to your testimony, I have read your state-
ments. Just a couple of questions. I am still trying to understand
what happened here.
We have heard a lot of talk about building to a level five and the
timing that would take and the cost that would take, but my kind
of basic question as I kind of listened to the testimony, I think all
of you have commented that the levee failure—I think, Mr. van
Heerden, I think you talked about geotechnical engineering failure
and talked about high porosity and permeability of soils. I think,
in fact, every individual talked about the soil being an issue, that
it wasn’t the surge, as you read the paper, that the surge over-
came, but there were issues with the soil, geotechnical issues, I
think is the phrase that was used.
So my first question is, did the levees break because they were
not geared to deal with a Category 5 hurricane, or, in fact, what
we really dealt with was something less than a Category 5 here?
I am trying to understand why. Is there anybody here who is say-
ing that the reason for the failure was because the levees were not
adequate to protect against a Category 5 hurricane?
Mr. SEED. There are two pieces of that. As Dr. Nicholson said,
there were several dozen levee failures, breaches, and distressed
sections. A majority of them were the result of overtopping, and
that simply means that the hurricane was bigger than the levees
were built to take and that will be a policy issue. You could pay
more and get bigger, taller systems that would have taken more
storm surge.
But three of the particularly devastating failures, the ones on the
17th Street and London Avenue Canals, failed at far less than de-
signed water surge levels because they were on the left flank, far
away from where the hurricane was, and the water surge wasn’t
so big there. So those were, in fact, foundation failures.
Senator COLEMAN. So those, just to understand, if they were
built to level 3 but didn’t have the foundation failures, we would
not have seen the extent of damage that occurred?
Mr. SEED. A considerable fraction of the flooding and some of the
loss of life would have been prevented.
Senator COLEMAN. I don’t want to get into any finger-pointing
here, but how would that have been prevented? What should have
gone on that didn’t go on to have prevented those structural fail-
ures?
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
37
Mr. NICHOLSON. I will take that one. First of all, I think I would
be careful with the use of ‘‘structural failure.’’ As geotechnical engi-
neers——
Senator COLEMAN. I am not a geotechnical, so give me the right
phrase. It is important that we define this. And again, my concern
is that there is so much talk about Category 5, but as I read your
reports—and there are cost issues, let me just say, there are cost
issues. I fully agree with my colleague from Ohio about the need
to have more scientists, more engineers, but I don’t agree that the
issue is simply more funding, and I don’t believe—I would say, re-
spectfully, Mr. Seed, that this kind of conflict, if we put more into
cost efficiency, that somehow that takes away from efficiency. In
the private sector, it doesn’t work that way. You can get cost effi-
ciency and have people do the right job. So I am not a believer that
if we would have thrown more money in, necessarily. If that is the
case, I would support that.
So I am trying to understand the nature of the problem, why the
problem was there, and what I am least clear on, that it wasn’t
necessarily a problem because we weren’t at Category 5, the ability
to deal with Category 5. We had less than that, and yet we still
saw the breaches. So help me understand why that occurred and
how that could have been prevented.
Mr. NICHOLSON. OK. Well, in fact, this is a multi-faceted issue
because we had a number of different types of flood control struc-
tures. We had different heights of storm surge in different areas.
And so this discussion of Category 3, Category 5, as Dr. van
Heerden said, really is a term that is used for the size of the storm,
and there are a couple different definitions which make it even
more complicated. Really, the individual flood protection is de-
signed for a certain level of storm surge.
As Senator Lieberman had asked, if they had performed as they
were intended, certainly, we would have seen a lot less flooding.
Exactly what went wrong and what failed is precisely what we are
trying to do, and we certainly need additional studies. We, in the
field, observed many different types of failure mechanisms. There
is not one thing that went wrong. In different areas, in different
types of levees, we saw different types of failures.
So in some cases where we saw the overtopping, it is fairly easy.
It is the more difficult ones, such as those floodwalls in town on
the 17th Street and London Avenue Canals where we, in fact, have
some pretty good ideas of what had gone on. We understand or we
can observe some of the mechanisms that had led to the failures.
But exactly what went on, and again, we aren’t looking at finger-
pointing at this point.
Senator COLEMAN. Let me ask you, who has the responsibility for
checking the soil——
Mr. SEED. Can I tackle that next because I think I have the an-
swer you are looking for, and I think the question you asked is the
one that we were all hoping to hear today. It is certainly why I flew
out from California on the red-eye.
Senator COLEMAN. I have taken that flight. [Laughter.]
Mr. SEED. That is the only way we get to Washington from
Berkeley.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
38
Throwing more money into the bucket is not going to fix the
problem. For more money, you can buy higher levees, and for more
money, you can buy an increased level of safety, but what you need
is an increased level of assurance of safety, and to get an increased
level of assurance of safety, you need to make some fundamental
changes as to how levee systems in the New Orleans area are de-
signed and built and maintained.
No one is in charge. You have multiple agencies, multiple organi-
zations, some of whom aren’t on speaking terms with each other,
sharing responsibilities for public safety. The Corps of Engineers
had asked to put flood gates into the three canals, which nominally
might have mitigated and prevented the three main breaches that
did so much destruction downtown. But they weren’t able to do
that because, unique to New Orleans, the Reclamation Districts
who were responsible for maintaining the levees are separate from
the Water and Sewerage District, which does the pumping. Ordi-
narily, the Reclamation District does the dewatering pumping,
which is separate from the water system. These guys don’t get
along. The Sewerage District was so concerned they wouldn’t be
able to pump through gates which had to be opened and closed that
in the end, the Corps, against its desires, was forced instead to line
the canals, which they did with some umbrage, and the locals bore
a higher than typical fraction of the shared cost as a result of that.
The constant interaction between different groups who fight over
turf, pride, and other issues to the detriment of public safety needs
to be stopped. There needs to be some overall coordination. Levees
in the New Orleans area are at different heights. You can stand—
we have a photograph in our report at one section where you can
clearly see five different elevations, all within 100 yards of each
other. If you have five different elevations within 100 yards, the
person who built the lowest section wins because they become the
public hazard. There is a need to coordinate these things.
At a more global level, if someone is to be in charge, in all likeli-
hood, it needs to be somebody very much like the Corps of Engi-
neers, quite likely the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers
needs to have the manpower and the technical expertise in terms
of boots on the ground to get that job done.
Standing in the field, we saw sections which just didn’t look en-
tirely prudent. These weren’t individual sections of a levee or of a
wall, these were sections where a levee and a wall joined together
and the joint didn’t look right. Now, we had the benefit that nature
had highlighted that for us by scouring around the edge so we
could all see that there was a scour path, but we all thought, look-
ing at them, maybe we would have foreseen the scour path had we
been standing there before the hurricane. Hindsight is 20/20, but
we think perhaps we would have noted that. It doesn’t seem to us
that people stood there and looked at that. There seems to have
been a shortage of boots on the ground.
We are seeing design documents which are signed off and ini-
tialed and checked by just one individual and not by several, as
would be customary, and we are seeing the Corps stretched very
thin, trying to do the work to build and to complete the building
of a very complex system, and it doesn’t feel like the manpower and
especially the technical expertise is entirely at the level we would
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
39
like to see it at to get a job of this nature and this sensitivity ac-
complished.
Senator COLEMAN. Mr. van Heerden.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. I met with Colonel Wagenaar last week, the
District Engineer in New Orleans, and recognizing, as Professor
Seed does, that perhaps they don’t have all the technical expertise
they need at this point in time, we offered from the University of
Louisiana to help. We have got, obviously, a lot of engineering de-
partments, geotechnical engineers, and so maybe as a beginning or
a short gap or whatever, we suggest that the Corps of Engineers
reach out to academia and try and capture some of the talents and
expertise in the universities.
Senator COLEMAN. If I may, and this is just a comment, Madam
Chairman, I served as Mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota. We are at the
beginning of the navigable headwaters. The Mississippi starts
there and is navigable right down to New Orleans. When I was
Mayor, we had floodings that came very close to flooding situations.
We have a major power plant on the Mississippi, and we were
within a short level of major problems. I worked extensively with
the Corps. We actually built a gate and a floodwall around one of
the neighboring islands, which was the Corps really going outside
of the way they usually operate so that citizens could use this is-
land when there wasn’t a problem with the flood, but you could
close the gate and provide protection. They showed great flexibility.
But I really do appreciate two things that I have heard here, and
one of which reminds me of what we heard in the post-September
11 hearings. Who is in charge? If you see a problem, how do you
get it done? We are all listening to this and saying, we have heard
this before, the kind of silo effect in government.
So I would just say thank you, one, for expressing the need to
coordinate, and then the second piece, which we have heard before,
too, is the need for government to reach out. Whether it is FEMA
calling Wal-Mart and figuring out how to position supplies or the
Corps working with academia and others, and we did that in our
development, to take advantage of the talent that is out there. So
it isn’t necessarily just throwing more money. I am not against that
where it is needed. But it is about how you use it efficiently and
how decisions are made, and so I do appreciate your response.
Mr. SEED. Could I add a third piece to that, though, and that is
something we saw with NASA and the Challenger and we see in
other agencies. It is important that we don’t just simply reach out
to academia. The Corps, in streamlining its operations, is out-
sourcing an increasing fraction of its work in engineering and espe-
cially in geotechnical engineering. I should welcome that because,
of course, I could do work for the Corps and I could get paid for
it as opposed to doing these investigations where we are all volun-
teers and my wife is nuts. [Laughter.]
But against my own better judgment, I am going to tell you that,
I think, the Corps of Engineers needs to have a very strong inter-
nal capability because what happened to NASA was they lost the
ability to keep track of the outsourced engineering. You bring ele-
gant people in from the outside. If you can’t deal with them on a
level playing field, you have a hard time checking what they are
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
40
doing and problems can arise. It is important that the Corps have
an internal capability which matches the problem, as well.
Senator COLEMAN. You have made that point quite clear today.
Thank you.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Coleman. You brought
up an incredibly important issue. Our full Committee investigation
has already revealed that there was a great deal of confusion
among the Army Corps, the Levee Board, the State Department of
Transportation, and the Water and Sewer District on who was re-
sponsible for what, and that is an issue that we are going to be
pursuing in a subsequent hearing because there is also evidence
uncovered by our investigators that that confusion about who is re-
sponsible for what delayed the response when the levees failed, and
it is incredibly important that we pursue that issue and focus not
just on the specifications that are needed for the new, improved
levee system, but also the organizational issues that will clearly
designate an agency to be in charge. So I appreciate your raising
that issue.
I do want to follow up on that issue with Dr. Nicholson because
we have had a number of experts, including Dr. Seed today, who
have suggested that the failure to have one department or agency
with clear control and responsibility for the designing, the building,
and the maintenance of the levees contributed to the damage from
Hurricane Katrina. From your perspective, what would be some of
the problems from a civil engineering standpoint associated with
the lack of a comprehensive effort and with a lack of a clear role
designating responsibilities?
Mr. NICHOLSON. I see that really as a two-part question, or two-
part answer. Certainly, we observed in the field where you had dif-
ferent organizations in charge of the design, maintenance, and even
the construction of certain parts of levees, where they came to-
gether, that was one of the transition problems we saw and——
Chairman COLLINS. If I could just interrupt you for a second, is
that the issue with the transition points that both you and Dr.
Seed referred to, where you have very different materials being
used, where the seams don’t seem to go together in a logical way
once they are uncovered?
Mr. NICHOLSON. Well, certainly we find that each individual or-
ganization will do as they see fit, and when the two sections of the
flood control system operated or owned, designed, and maintained
by each of those different organizations come together, they may be
in two different manners. They may have two different heights.
They may be two different materials.
And so the transition from one to the next needs to be more con-
tinuous. We need to maintain or improve the connection between
those two. If they are at different heights, if they are different ma-
terials, those are two of the big transition problems. As I showed
in my last slide there, we have also got different organizations such
as the railroads coming in with a very different purpose and aspect
of what they believe is their greatest importance. They may not
have in their mind the same, not just agenda, but the same com-
prehension of what their part of the responsibility is. And so that
is a very difficult question or problem that we see.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
41
How to answer that, as has been brought up, perhaps the solu-
tion would be to put one organization in charge and to oversee and
essentially be responsible for that, and overseeing and essentially
having authority over the other organizations.
Chairman COLLINS. Dr. Seed, do you agree with that?
Mr. SEED. Yes. The important analogy here is that building a
levee system is like building a boat or building a Space Shuttle.
You have a lot of pieces that have to fit together perfectly because
if you have a flaw, you are going to lose the whole thing. It is not
necessarily reasonable to think you can build 80-some-odd miles of
levees in a ring if you have got a half-dozen or more different par-
ties involved and if you do it in 143 individual projects. It is per-
haps better to have an overall vision and one group responsible,
like the captain of a ship, whose job it is to be sure that the ship
is seaworthy before it sails.
Chairman COLLINS. Dr. Mlakar, what is your opinion on that?
Mr. MLAKAR. I think the results of our studies, I believe, ma’am,
you began by saying we need to really investigate this thoroughly,
and I think the final results will have some recommendations along
those lines.
Chairman COLLINS. You are withholding judgment for now.
Dr. van Heerden, what do you think? Should we have one agency
with clear, overall responsibility?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Madam Chairman, my comment is going to
politically raise some hackles in Louisiana, but I believe there
should be one Levee Board. It is a scale of efficiency. It is a scale
of expertise. And it becomes a case of when you have all these dif-
ferent agencies, one hand doesn’t know what the next hand is
doing. So in my opinion, yes, we need one Levee Board, and they
should be controlling all the levee systems, not a large number of
levee boards, each funded in a different way, each appointed in a
different way, in many cases, levee board members not being engi-
neers or having experience in drainage or understanding some of
the models.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you.
Dr. Nicholson, just one final question. Dr. Seed raised the issue
of possible malfeasance or corruption in the construction or the ma-
terials used for some of the levees as opposed to the specifications
not being adequate, but of perhaps the case where the specifica-
tions were adequate but the contractor did not comply. Did you see
any examples of the inferior materials being used in the levees as
part of your review?
Mr. NICHOLSON. We don’t have exact information to answer the
first part of that question as far as what was specified or not used
as specified. We did see what we considered to be inferior materials
in some cases, perhaps, but that may well have been allowed in the
specifications.
Chairman COLLINS. Could you give us an example of the inferior
materials?
Mr. NICHOLSON. I think the best example of that was using sand
and the so-called shell fill as embankment material, the highly
erodible materials that may have been sufficient if you had not had
any erosion, but as soon as you start that erosional process, they
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
42
quickly disappear, and we saw wide evidence of large sections of
the levees simply gone.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Thanks again.
The panel has been really superb. I thank you for your public serv-
ice and what you are doing in coming before us.
I want to take you to a different part of your investigations,
which is to say the Committee has obviously focused on why the
levees failed, but also, for various reasons, when the levees failed.
Knowing when the levees failed will help give us some under-
standing of the specific period during the storm when the breaks
happened and the different water levels and forces at work at that
time.
Second, knowing when the levees were overcome or failed will
help us understand when different parts of the city and the sur-
rounding parishes began to flood and help us assess how and when
the State, local, and Federal officials learned of these breaks and
responded to them.
So if I could start with you, Dr. van Heerden, if you would please
walk us through your best estimates this morning of when the var-
ious levees failed causing the flooding of New Orleans.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. We set up something called our stop-clock
program where we created a hotline for people to phone us when
they returned to their homes to tell us the times on hand-face
clocks, and working—this is now just preliminary data——
Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN [continuing]. But we started in the lower
Ninth Ward. It appears that they started to flood from the East,
in other words, from the area of the funnel, as early as 5 a.m., and
by 6 a.m., it had reached Tennessee Street, which is very close to
where the two big breaches occurred.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. At 5 in the morning, there was—where the
railroad crosses the Industrial Canal at Interstate 10, from the
water level record in that area, we understand that the sandbags
that they had used to seal the levees at the railroads blew out.
That was, we believe, around 5 a.m.
In terms of the two large breaches on the Industrial Canal, ap-
parently they occurred between 7:15 a.m. and 7:30 a.m., and that
is just from testimony. We don’t have the clocks here.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. In terms of the London Avenue Canal, again,
this is all very preliminary data, the Mirabeau breach, the one on
the South, the one closest into the city, we believe occurred be-
tween 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. The one at Filmore Street, between 10
and 10:30 a.m. We have got a number of clocks at 10:15 a.m. And
then at the 17th Street Canal, between 10 and 10:30 a.m. But this
is very preliminary data. We are still getting lots of phone calls.
Senator LIEBERMAN. It is very significant because based on the
data you have, the preliminary conclusions, the major levee failures
had occurred by mid-morning on August 29 and the flooding, there-
fore, had begun. Part of what we are pursuing here is when—of
course, it was a chaotic situation, very difficult in many ways to
determine what was happening, but for various reasons, word did
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
43
not apparently reach people at the top of the Federal Government
until, by some estimates, Tuesday, and that may have affected, ob-
viously, what the response would be.
Do any of the others of you on the—yes, Dr. Mlakar, do you have
some conclusions about the time of the levees——
Mr. MLAKAR. We don’t have conclusions yet, but we are looking
into that issue, exactly when it did fail.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes.
Mr. MLAKAR. That is very important to understanding how and
why it failed. Like Dr. van Heerden, we have been looking at
clocks. We have got on the order of 50. You know, the clock might
stop when it loses power, the clock might stop when it is flooded.
There are some issues there that we have got to sort through.
We have talked to 70 eyewitnesses out of an identified group of
100—that is still growing—to get their recollections. As you can
well imagine, we might have one person recall 8 a.m. and the per-
son across the street is sure that it was still dry at 10 a.m., so we
have got some issues in resolving the witness testimony.
And then finally, in addition to that, we have identified some se-
curity cameras that were operating that should have a very good
field of view on what was happening, and we are in the process of
acquiring their tapes.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Security cameras that were there for that
reason, or just for reasons——
Mr. MLAKAR. For some other reason, perhaps a 7-Eleven, a bank,
or whatever is just surveiling and you happened in the field of view
to have an area that is eventually breached and flooded. So we are
in the process of synthesizing all that information, and as part of
this, we will be getting together with my colleague from LSU and
combining their information with our information to give all of us
the best estimate of when. And while we are primarily interested
in that information for helping us understand the how and the
why——
Senator LIEBERMAN. Because you will relate it to what the storm
was doing at that point.
Mr. MLAKAR. Exactly. It will also be information useful for your
slightly different purpose.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Absolutely. Dr. Seed and Dr. Nicholson, do
you reach independent judgments about the times at which the lev-
ees broke?
Mr. SEED. We have been funneling our information in terms of
witnesses’ statements, and so on, to the other two groups because
we lack the manpower and resources to really do a full processing
of that. But the timelines described by Dr. van Heerden would
make sense with the geotechnical observations we see in the field,
and so they are consistent.
Mr. NICHOLSON. I would have to agree with that, as well.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you all. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman.
Senator COLEMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Just a couple of
other areas of inquiry.
Mr. Seed, you have talked a lot about NASA and the compari-
sons to NASA. One of the things that you have in the NASA pro-
gram is you have redundancies, and levees don’t appear to have
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
44
redundancies, though I am wondering, and perhaps you can edu-
cate me on this, what are the redundancy options, doable options?
Is it wetlands? Is it barriers? Is that what one would call a redun-
dancy? This investment, I keep coming back to the cost issue, the
former mayor in me. I guess I am going through the protection
about Category 3 versus Category 5. Does the existence of
redundancies, does that move something from a Category 3 to a
Category 5 or does it just strengthen the ability to withstand a
Category 3? Help me understand this redundancy issue.
Mr. SEED. Not necessarily. Redundancy is hugely expensive in
the context of levees. The only really thorough redundant system
in the world is that of Holland, which in the mid-1950s the entire
Nation was flooded by a North Sea storm, and so they have tre-
mendous incentive, literally the entire country was flooded. They
operate in polders, which are essentially like the containment com-
partments in a ship, so that if their exterior coastal defense is
breached, you flood only a section and then you hit a second levee.
And so they have defense in depth. But if that is the single leading
issue for your nation, you can put a large fraction of your national
resources into that.
I don’t think we can get a large fraction of our national resources
into the New Orleans levees in the next week or two. I don’t think
that is going to happen. So redundancy is very expensive. More
likely, we are going to have to build levees which are vastly more
secure. In California, we have a few places where we have sacrifi-
cial islands. We have things that are designed to fail like a fuse
in an electrical system, which will reduce water levels and take
water levels down. So there are a lot of options we can look at
there, but by and large, in the New Orleans area, given the geome-
tries, redundancy would be very difficult to achieve.
Senator COLEMAN. Do you other gentlemen want to comment on
that issue?
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. Only that restoring the wetlands would, in
essence, act in a small way as a second barrier.
Senator COLEMAN. Let me just touch on two other points. One,
is there—and this may not be for your panel, but I am interested,
are any lessons to be learned here about the relationship between
FEMA and the Corps? Is there anything anybody wants to com-
ment on regarding FEMA and the Corps in terms of interaction,
communication, efficiency of what one does helping the other, or
perhaps hindering the other?
Mr. SEED. Two separate operations, in our view, speaking for our
team, the Corps’ job is to prevent these things from happening in
the first place and then to fix them afterwards, and FEMA does the
middle piece, which is the emergency.
Senator COLEMAN. Is there a notification piece, though? What I
am hearing, clearly, the Corps has a question about timing or has
a part in saying, hey, we have a problem. And again, this may not
be your area of expertise, but at a certain point, knowing there is
a problem and then being able to respond, I think there would be
some issues there.
Mr. SEED. Well, I guess the heart of the issue we discussed ear-
lier, if the lines of responsibility and who is in charge aren’t clear,
it is very hard to decide who needs to be issuing warnings and pub-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
45
lic notices, and the Corps’ policy is to build these systems and then
turn them over to locals. They don’t remain the proprietors forever.
So there are some difficult issues there.
The turning over is also problematic. California has a great
many Corps-built levees which are now turned over to locals who
then have deep pockets liability for these kinds of things. You, of
course, can’t sue the Corps of Engineers as a Federal agency. They
have tremendous immunity for water-related and safety-related
projects. So when they get turned over to the locals, the locals
aren’t necessarily all that pleased to be getting them because they
acquire the liability, whereas while the Corps operates them, they
are a little bit protected.
Senator COLEMAN. And they acquire the maintenance responsi-
bility, also.
Mr. SEED. They do, but it is the liability which is crushing. So
there are some issues as to how levees happen in the United
States. I am hoping that all this will trigger an investigation at a
more global level of where levees are, what the conditions of levees
are, and more fundamentally, how levees happen, how they are de-
signed and built, how they are constructed and maintained, and
how people allow decisions with regard to who lives where and who
lives above sea level and the levels of protection and so on. It is
a huge, festering national issue which has been off the radar
screen.
As my wife likes to tell me, levees are currently sexy for maybe
a month or two, but by and large, when these disasters aren’t hit-
ting, levees are just big piles of dirt. They are not all that attrac-
tive. They don’t get much attention.
Mr. MLAKAR. Sir, I believe your question was about the relation-
ship between FEMA and the Corps. We certainly appreciate your
interest in that, but I think you are right. There are probably oth-
ers in the Corps that are much more qualified to speak to that than
I.
Senator COLEMAN. Let me just say, Madam Chairman, you
raised the issue about inferior materials, malfeasance, corruption,
and I just want to say, I think we really have to look into that. I
was in Armenia not too long ago, and things are falling apart there
because everything was built with, like, 15 percent less rebar be-
cause it went into the pockets of someone. That is corruption on a
clear level.
And we hear a lot of murmuring, and maybe folks don’t want to
talk about it, we hear murmuring about New Orleans, Louisiana
has had a history of corruption in public officials. It has happened.
I don’t want to offend anybody, so I think we have to get beyond
the murmuring and take a very close look, a very earnest look. Is
that an issue? Contractors, were they not putting in the materials
they were supposed to? And again, we don’t have the answers. We
clearly saw inferior materials. But I think we have to have the
courage to take a look at that and not to point a finger or to offend,
but to say we have an obligation to make sure that what was done
was done right.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Akaka.
Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
46
Let me ask this fast question before I ask my last one, and this
is to Dr. Seed. You stated that throwing money at the Corps will
not solve the problem, but you also said that the Corps is lacking
staff, or the quote is ‘‘boots on the ground.’’ To clarify, is there a
way to fix the staffing issue without additional funding, in your
opinion?
Mr. SEED. No. My comment was intended in the other direction.
I don’t think simply putting additional funding in guarantees you
are getting good boots on the ground. You can spend that money
in other ways. I am hoping that there is some oversight capability,
and I am hoping that if funding is injected, there will be some reor-
ganization and some rebuilding of some of the engineering exper-
tise, which was formerly very impressive in those areas of endeav-
or.
Senator AKAKA. My final wrap-up question, Madam Chairman, is
for Dr. Nicholson and Dr. Seed. You both made specific rec-
ommendations for what can be done to improve the New Orleans
levee system in the future, and I want to open this question also
to the two other witnesses. Which recommendations can be imple-
mented in the short term and are relatively inexpensive, and which
recommendations require more time and resources to implement?
Also, if you care to respond, which measures the Corps of Engi-
neers should have implemented prior to Katrina. Dr. Seed.
Mr. SEED. Those are three different questions. I guess I am infer-
ring a third one there. The things that can be done quickly aren’t
necessarily the ones that need to be done as quickly. There is an
urgency to some of them, and the third one is the easiest question.
The Corps of Engineers were given operating instructions. They
were given orders. They were authorized for certain things, and
they strove to fulfill those specifications. It would be good if their
instructions were more flexible. It wasn’t their job to do the kinds
of things that we see that could have been done better. That wasn’t
part of their task. It wasn’t their assignment. So it is a little bit
unfair to do finger-pointing because something was omitted. More
troubling are the three canal failures, which appear to be founda-
tion issues. That will be a tougher issue.
What can be done quickly, you can get yourself more protection
by installing splash pads on the inboard faces of a lot of the
floodwalls. That would be a very inexpensive and rapidly imple-
mentable fix.
Some things are much harder than that, but they are more ur-
gent. Getting the MRGO levee segment back up and operating is
hugely vital. That was the back door. It is across 15 miles of
swamp from the developed areas, but the water came across that
swamp, and it didn’t even slow down. It was not interested in doing
so. And so the Ninth Ward and the St. Bernard Parish were essen-
tially toast from the first time that flood hit. Getting those levees
rebuilt is hugely urgent and very difficult to do in a timely manner.
At a more global level, if the system is going to work, putting
somebody in charge is important. It is not very expensive to put
somebody in charge necessarily, but it is going to take some time
to achieve that because you are going to have to enact legislation
and take some level of control, probably at a Federal level.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
47
And finally, if the Corps of Engineers is going to be that some-
one, and they would appear to be the only suitable candidate, the
Corps of Engineers is also going to have to do some restructuring
and some rebuilding of some of its capabilities, and that will not
be a short-term issue. It is much easier to whittle down an organi-
zation than it is to rebuild it. You can do a lot of damage in 3 or
4 years that might take a decade or longer to repair.
Senator AKAKA. Dr. Nicholson.
Mr. NICHOLSON. I would agree with much of what Dr. Seed said
as far as overtopping protection and getting the MRGO length of
levee restored, as that is the front line of protection for much of
that area. Certainly the whole St. Bernard Parish area took that
as their—or lost that front line of protection.
But to go a little step further, for quick and inexpensive, those
are very difficult things. Those two options are maybe the two that
would be quick and inexpensive. But at the next level, and this
may not be quick and not all that inexpensive, would be, as I think
we both agreed earlier, would be the enactment of a National Levee
Safety Program which would oversee New Orleans at about the
same cost, and I believe that is about $10 million a year for those
two programs, to have a levee protection program in New Orleans,
as well as in California. It would help to get more attention paid
to those vital infrastructure elements.
Mr. SEED. And not just New Orleans and California. We have
levees in a lot of places. Most States have levees. We have massive
levee systems up and down the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys. We
have levees in the Charleston area. So I would hope it is something
which would have some national interest at this point.
Mr. NICHOLSON. I should say, even Hawaii has a small section
of levees.
Senator AKAKA. Dr. Mlakar.
Mr. MLAKAR. Yes, thank you. Rather than speculate as we are
just getting into this of what we need to do in the short- and the
long-term, I would like to answer your question by reiterating the
Corps’ commitment here in a thoroughly open and transparent
manner to getting to the answers and finding out the how and the
why it happened, and then I think the answers to your questions
will be clear.
Senator AKAKA. Dr. van Heerden.
Mr. VAN HEERDEN. I have two comments. One is the academics
of how the soil failure actually occurred don’t detract from the fact
that we had soil failure and you can very visually see those levee
systems slid many tens of feet. So what I would ask is that we
identify other areas in our levee systems that perhaps didn’t fail
or could have failed where we have similar soil conditions and per-
haps come in and drive a secondary line of sheetpile down to 50,
60, 70 feet, whatever the case may be, to create that barrier to stop
the seepage.
The second thing is, and very important to Louisiana, some of
our parishes, some of the levee boards do not have a very strong
or robust economic base in which to get funds. Just as the Federal
Government took over the building of the levees after the 1927
flood on the Mississippi, and they paid for them and built them,
perhaps this is a time in terms of some of our jeweled cities like
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
48
New Orleans for the Federal Government to offer the same level
of support and come in and build the levees without us having to
rely on the limited incomes of some of these parishes and levee
boards in Louisiana.
Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you.
I want to thank all of our witnesses today for truly excellent tes-
timony. Your testimony and statements have been extremely help-
ful to us as the Committee continues its investigation into the
preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina. It is absolutely
critical that we get a better understanding of why the levee system
failed and you have helped us to do so today.
I want to assure you that your full statements and any addi-
tional material that you may wish to submit will be included in the
hearing record. In addition, Members of the Committee may have
some additional written questions which we will be submitting to
you. I very much appreciate the efforts that all of you made to be
here today.
The hearing record will remain open for 15 days. I want to also
thank our staff for their hard work on this investigation.
Senator Lieberman.
Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Very briefly, I
join in the thanks. It strikes me, as I have listened to you this
morning and read your papers, that you are men of science and you
speak in technical terms and very reasoned tones, but the testi-
mony that you have given really cries out to us to act decisively.
And if I might add, generously in terms of support for the Army
Corps, to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again be-
cause you do deepen, in your testimony and your investigation, you
deepen the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina and the failure associated
with it because you now tell us that not only was it a failure of
governmental preparation and response to the flood, but the flood
itself could have been significantly prevented had the design and
construction of the levees been what they should have been.
I would ask you this as you go forward in continuing your work.
It may be that what you find not only helps us understand what
happened, but as you have suggested a few times today, you may
also come across some indications of, for want of a better term,
what I would call a ticking time bomb, some other vulnerability, as
I think you said at the end, Dr. van Heerden, that didn’t fail this
time but might again. And, we want to work together to make sure
that it doesn’t next time.
But I know most of you are working with, talk about not much
resources, a lot of you are giving your own time, and this is an
enormously important contribution you are making that only peo-
ple of your experience and expertise can make, so thank you very
much.
Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
APPENDIX
(49)
24446.001
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
50
24446.002
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
51
24446.003
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
52
24446.004
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
53
24446.005
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
54
24446.006
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
55
24446.007
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
56
24446.008
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
57
24446.009
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
58
24446.010
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
59
24446.011
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
60
24446.012
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
61
24446.013
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
62
24446.014
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
63
24446.015
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
64
24446.016
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
65
24446.017
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
66
24446.018
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
67
24446.019
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
68
24446.020
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
69
24446.021
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
70
24446.022
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
71
24446.023
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
72
24446.024
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
73
24446.025
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
74
24446.026
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
75
24446.027
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
76
24446.028
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
77
24446.029
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
78
24446.030
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
79
24446.031
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
80
24446.032
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
81
24446.033
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
82
24446.034
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
83
24446.035
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
84
24446.036
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
85
24446.037
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
86
24446.038
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
87
24446.039
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
88
24446.040
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
89
24446.041
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
90
24446.042
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
91
24446.043
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
92
24446.044
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
93
24446.045
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
94
24446.046
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
95
24446.047
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
96
24446.048
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
97
24446.049
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
98
24446.050
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
99
24446.051
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
100
24446.052
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
101
24446.053
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
102
24446.054
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
103
24446.055
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
104
24446.056
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
105
24446.057
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
106
24446.058
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
107
24446.059
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
108
24446.060
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
109
24446.061
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
110
24446.062
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
111
24446.063
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
112
24446.064
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
113
24446.065
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
114
24446.066
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
115
24446.067
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
116
24446.068
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
117
24446.069
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
118
24446.070
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
119
24446.071
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
120
24446.072
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
121
24446.073
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
122
24446.074
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
123
24446.075
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
124
24446.076
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
125
24446.077
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
126
24446.078
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
127
24446.079
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
128
24446.080
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
129
24446.081
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
130
24446.082
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
131
24446.083
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
132
24446.084
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
133
24446.085
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
134
24446.086
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
135
24446.087
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
136
24446.088
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
137
24446.089
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
138
24446.090
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
139
24446.091
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
140
24446.092
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
141
24446.093
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
142
24446.094
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
143
24446.095
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
144
24446.096
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
145
24446.097
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
146
24446.098
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
147
24446.099
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
148
24446.100
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
149
24446.101
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
150
24446.102
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
151
24446.103
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
152
24446.104
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
153
24446.105
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
154
24446.106
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
155
24446.107
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
156
24446.108
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
157
24446.109
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
158
24446.110
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
159
24446.111
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00165 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
160
24446.112
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
161
24446.113
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
162
24446.114
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
163
24446.115
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
164
24446.116
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
165
24446.117
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
166
24446.118
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
167
24446.119
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
168
24446.120
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
169
24446.121
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
170
24446.122
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
171
24446.123
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
172
24446.124
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
173
24446.125
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
174
24446.126
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
175
24446.127
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
176
24446.128
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
177
24446.129
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
178
24446.130
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
179
24446.131
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
180
24446.132
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
181
24446.133
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
182
24446.134
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
183
24446.135
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
184
24446.136
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
185
24446.137
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
186
24446.138
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
187
24446.139
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
188
24446.140
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
189
24446.141
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
190
24446.142
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
191
24446.143
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
192
24446.144
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
193
24446.145
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
194
24446.146
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
195
24446.147
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
196
24446.148
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
197
24446.149
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
198
24446.150
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
199
24446.151
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
200
24446.152
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
201
24446.153
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
202
24446.154
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00208 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
203
24446.155
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
204
24446.156
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
205
24446.157
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
206
24446.158
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
207
24446.159
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
208
24446.160
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
209
24446.161
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
210
24446.162
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
211
24446.163
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
212
24446.164
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
213
24446.165
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
214
24446.166
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00220 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
215
24446.167
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
216
24446.176
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
217
24446.177
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
218
24446.178
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
219
24446.179
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
220
24446.180
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
221
24446.181
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
222
24446.174
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
223
24446.175
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00229 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
224
24446.183
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
225
24446.184
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
226
24446.185
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00232 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
227
24446.186
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
228
24446.187
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
229
24446.188
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
230
24446.189
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
231
24446.190
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
232
24446.191
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00238 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
233
24446.192
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00239 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
234
24446.193
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
235
24446.194
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
236
24446.195
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
237
24446.196
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
238
24446.197
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
239
24446.198
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
240
24446.199
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
241
24446.200
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
242
24446.201
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
243
24446.202
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00249 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
244
24446.203
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
245
24446.204
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
246
24446.205
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
247
24446.206
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
248
24446.207
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
249
24446.208
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00255 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
250
24446.209
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
251
24446.210
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
252
24446.211
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00258 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
253
24446.212
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
254
24446.213
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
255
24446.214
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
256
24446.215
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
257
24446.216
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
258
24446.217
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
259
24446.218
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
260
24446.219
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00266 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
261
24446.220
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
262
24446.221
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
263
24446.222
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
264
24446.223
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
265
24446.224
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
266
24446.225
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
267
24446.226
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
268
24446.227
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
269
24446.228
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00275 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
270
24446.229
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
271
24446.230
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00277 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
272
24446.231
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
273
24446.232
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
274
24446.233
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
275
24446.234
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00281 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
276
24446.235
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
277
24446.236
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00283 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
278
24446.237
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
279
24446.238
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00285 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
280
24446.239
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
281
24446.240
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
282
24446.241
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00288 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
283
24446.242
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00289 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
284
24446.243
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
285
24446.244
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
286
24446.245
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
287
24446.246
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
288
24446.247
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
289
24446.248
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
290
24446.249
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
291
24446.250
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
292
24446.251
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
293
24446.252
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
294
24446.253
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
295
24446.254
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00301 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
296
24446.255
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
297
24446.256
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00303 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
298
24446.257
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00304 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
299
24446.258
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00305 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
300
24446.259
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
301
24446.260
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
302
24446.261
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
303
24446.262
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
304
24446.263
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
305
24446.264
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
306
24446.265
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
307
24446.266
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
308
24446.267
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
309
24446.268
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
310
24446.269
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
311
24446.270
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
312
24446.271
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
313
24446.272
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
314
24446.273
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00320 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
315
24446.274
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00321 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
316
24446.275
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
317
24446.276
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00323 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
318
24446.277
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
319
24446.278
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00325 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
320
24446.279
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00326 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
321
24446.280
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
322
24446.281
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00328 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
323
24446.282
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
324
24446.283
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
325
24446.284
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00331 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
326
24446.285
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00332 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
327
24446.286
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00333 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
328
24446.287
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
329
24446.288
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00335 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
330
24446.289
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
331
24446.290
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
332
24446.291
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
333
24446.292
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
334
24446.293
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00340 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
335
24446.294
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00341 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
336
24446.295
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
337
24446.296
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
338
24446.297
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
339
24446.298
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
340
24446.299
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
341
24446.300
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
342
24446.301
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
343
24446.302
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00349 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
344
24446.303
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
345
24446.304
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
346
24446.305
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
347
24446.306
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
348
24446.307
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00354 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
349
24446.308
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
350
24446.309
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00356 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
351
24446.310
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00357 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
352
24446.311
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
353
24446.312
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
354
24446.313
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
355
24446.314
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00361 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
356
24446.315
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00362 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
|
357
Æ
24446.316
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Aug 31, 2006 Jkt 024446 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6011 C:\24446.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
|
