ject the levees were still in such bad shape that they did not withstand the force of Hurricane Katrina. What this also means is that critics like Bunch feel that just two more years of federal support for the SELA project would have been enough to prevent the effects of a category five hurricane, even though the levees were reportedly sinking at a rate of four feet annually in some of the worst spots along the line. Lastly, this means that the state and local governments of Louisiana refused to pick up just two years of expenses funding the SELA project at the risk of offending their consThe National Response Plan (NRP) established in December 2004 under the guidance of Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was designed, “To establish a comprehensive, national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident management across a spectrum of activities including prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery.” (NRP, 2) If one assesses the federal government’s response based on the NRP a clearer and more accurate picture of the efforts to deal with the Hurricane Katrina incident can be painted. The effectiveness of the NRP in accomplishing the four aforementioned goals of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery in the wake of hurricane Katrina as well as the federal government’s adherence to the NRP will be discussed herein.

Prevention & Preparedness-

Will Bunch made several negative assertions in his Philadelphia Daily News column Attytood on August 30, 2005 in an article entitled “When the Levee Breaks.” Bunch, along with many others nationwide, seems to feel that the federal government could have prevented the effects of a category five hurricane from being so disastrous; the federal government could have imposed their power over nature. He and others called for a shoring up of the levees around Lake Pontchartrain and named the federal government as the party responsible for doing so, not the local or state governments. Bunch and others claim that the Bush administration cut spending on the SELA project that was designed to help improve flood control in the Southeast Louisiana area, redirecting funds to homeland security and the war in Iraq. It is important to note that not one successful terrorist attack on the United States has taken place since the inception of the Department of Homeland Security which to me indicates that there has been some money well spent on this endeavor. With regard to the war in Iraq, there was overwhelming support from both the Senate and the House of Representatives on October 11, 2002 when the vote was made to authorize a use of force, in fact both senators Breaux and Landrieu of Louisiana voted in favor of the resolution to authorize the use of force. One must also consider the fact that funding to the SELA project was only cut starting in 2003, just two years short of the intended stop date of project funding. What this means is that after eight years of funding the SELA project the levees were still in such bad shape that they did not withstand the force of Hurricane Katrina. What this also means is that critics like Bunch feel that just two more years of federal support for the SELA project would have been enough to prevent the effects of a category five hurricane, even though the levees were reportedly sinking at a rate of four feet annually in some of the worst spots along the line. Lastly, this means that the state and local governments of Louisiana refused to pick up just two years of expenses funding the SELA project at the risk of offending their const

ention, preparedness, response and recovery in the wake of hurricane Katrina as well as the federal government’s adherence to the NRP will be discussed herein.

Prevention & Preparedness-

Will Bunch made several negative assertions in his Philadelphia Daily News column Attytood on August 30, 2005 in an article entitled “When the Levee Breaks.” Bunch, along with many others nationwide, seems to feel that the federal government could have prevented the effects of a category five hurricane from being so disastrous; the federal government could have imposed their power over nature. He and others called for a shoring up of the levees around Lake Pontchartrain and named the federal government as the party responsible for doing so, not the local or state governments. Bunch and others claim that the Bush administration cut spending on the SELA project that was designed to help improve flood control in the Southeast Louisiana area, redirecting funds to homeland security and the war in Iraq. It is important to note that not one successful terrorist attack on the United States has taken place since the inception of the Department of Homeland Security which to me indicates that there has been some money well spent on this endeavor. With regard to the war in Iraq, there was overwhelming support from both the Senate and the House of Representatives on October 11, 2002 when the vote was made to authorize a use of force, in fact both senators Breaux and Landrieu of Louisiana voted in favor of the resolution to authorize the use of force. One must also consider the fact that funding to the SELA project was only cut starting in 2003, just two years short of the intended stop date of project funding. What this means is that after eight years of funding the SELA project the levees were still in such bad shape that they did not withstand the force of Hurricane Katrina. What this also means is that critics like Bunch feel that just two more years of federal support for the SELA project would have been enough to prevent the effects of a category five hurricane, even though the levees were reportedly sinking at a rate of four feet annually in some of the worst spots along the line. Lastly, this means that the state and local governments of Louisiana refused to pick up just two years of expenses funding the SELA project at the risk of offending their cons

He and others called for a shoring up of the levees around Lake Pontchartrain and named the federal government as the party responsible for doing so, not the local or state governments. Bunch and others claim that the Bush administration cut spending on the SELA project that was designed to help improve flood control in the Southeast Louisiana area, redirecting funds to homeland security and the war in Iraq. It is important to note that not one successful terrorist attack on the United States has taken place since the inception of the Department of Homeland Security which to me indicates that there has been some money well spent on this endeavor. With regard to the war in Iraq, there was overwhelming support from both the Senate and the House of Representatives on October 11, 2002 when the vote was made to authorize a use of force, in fact both senators Breaux and Landrieu of Louisiana voted in favor of the resolution to authorize the use of force. One must also consider the fact that funding to the SELA project was only cut starting in 2003, just two years short of the intended stop date of project funding. What this means is that after eight years of funding the SELA project the levees were still in such bad shape that they did not withstand the force of Hurricane Katrina. What this also means is that critics like Bunch feel that just two more years of federal support for the SELA project would have been enough to prevent the effects of a category five hurricane, even though the levees were reportedly sinking at a rate of four feet annually in some of the worst spots along the line. Lastly, this means that the state and local governments of Louisiana refused to pick up just two years of expenses funding the SELA project at the risk of offending their conshat there has been some money well spent on this endeavor. With regard to the war in Iraq, there was overwhelming support from both the Senate and the House of Representatives on October 11, 2002 when the vote was made to authorize a use of force, in fact both senators Breaux and Landrieu of Louisiana voted in favor of the resolution to authorize the use of force. One must also consider the fact that funding to the SELA project was only cut starting in 2003, just two years short of the intended stop date of project funding. What this means is that after eight years of funding the SELA project the levees were still in such bad shape that they did not withstand the force of Hurricane Katrina. What this also means is that critics like Bunch feel that just two more years of federal support for the SELA project would have been enough to prevent the effects of a category five hurricane, even though the levees were reportedly sinking at a rate of four feet annually in some of the worst spots along the line. Lastly, this means that the state and local governments of Louisiana refused to pick up just two years of expenses funding the SELA project at the risk of offending their consject the levees were still in such bad shape that they did not withstand the force of Hurricane Katrina. What this also means is that critics like Bunch feel that just two more years of federal support for the SELA project would have been enough to prevent the effects of a category five hurricane, even though the levees were reportedly sinking at a rate of four feet annually in some of the worst spots along the line. Lastly, this means that the state and local governments of Louisiana refused to pick up just two years of expenses funding the SELA project at the risk of offending their constituents with higher taxes. Why did the local and state governments not assume the responsibility of shoring up the levees if it was known how serious the situation was in advance as critics say the federal government knew?

There are two more things that should be considered when discussing prevention and preparedness with regard to the Hurricane Katrina incident. CNN, one of the biggest critics so far of the federal government’s response to the Hurricane Katrina Incident, reported on August 29, 2005 that, “About 70 percent of New Orleans is below sea level, and is protected from the Mississippi River by a series of levees.” The article went on to state that, “Forecasters predicted the storm surge could reach 28 feet; the highest levees around New Orleans are 18 feet high.” Considering these reports one must conclude that the levees protecting New Orleans would have had to be raised at least ten (10) feet in all areas (more in some areas) to withstand the surge of the storm. This strikes me as a very unachievable project to attempt within two years, especially with the reported rate of settlement (sinking rate) by members of the Army Corps of Engineers in the year prior to the incident.

One should also consider that on Sunday, August 28, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin declared a state of emergency and ordered a mandatory evacuation of the city. Those that chose to stay behind did so knowing the risk. In the Center for Disease Control’s list of Key Facts About Hurricane Readiness they say, “Because of the destructive power of a hurricane, you should never ignore an evacuation order. Authorities will be most likely to direct you to leave if you are in a low-lying area, or within the greatest potential path of the storm.” Remembering that 70 percent of New Orleans is below sea level and heeding the warnings of the mayor and other government agencies would have led most wise people to follow evacuation orders and leave the city and surrounding areas. The people who stayed are now criticizing the federal government for a slow response to the disaster in a way that indicates ignorance of the fact that they [the residents that stayed] themselves were very slow to respond to the orders for evacuation. With approximately twenty-four (24) hours notice given to residents to evacuate it is difficult to sympathize with those that did not listen