The NY Times on Flood Control

Blogger GEA3 at EU Rota spent a little face-time with Lexis-Nexis and found what the New York Times was saying about Flooding and Levee's a few years ago:

MSM: In Their Own Words, A Continuing Series
Given the hysteria enveloping the editorial pages of the NYT due to hurricane Katrina, what have they had to say on natural disasters in the past, via Lexis-Nexis:

Remember the 1993 floods in the midwest, the NYT editorialized on 14 July 1993:

For the longer term, Washington and flood-prone areas must reconsider the pro's and con's of flood control projects and flood insurance.

The billions of Federal dollars spent to construct dams and levees have doubtless prevented billions of dollars of damage to the areas they serve. But a dam or a levee in one place creates problems somewhere else. Also, by offering protection, they encourage people to live and work and develop farming in flood plains that are inherently risky.

GEA3 cites a number of other examples and then closes with this whopper:

I will leave you with this NYT editorial on 24 June 2003:

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a rare opportunity tomorrow to strike a blow for both fiscal sanity and the environment. Before the committee is a bill that would bring a measure of discipline and independent oversight to the Army Corps of Engineers, an incorrigibly spendthrift agency whose projects over the years have caused enormous damage to the nation's streams, rivers and wetlands.

And this one from 13 April 2005:

Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.

The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.

This is a bad piece of legislation.

Things to remember while the NYT histrionically bleats the opposite now.

Indeed -- the NY Times is triangulating and publishing the things it thinks its readers want to read. It has passed from being The Newspaper of Record (c) and morphed into just another medium for popular entertainment. Sad in a way...