[StBernard] MRGO

[Westley Annis]

Who are the 3 or 4 companies reaping the benefits of MRGO?  They should be
the ones on the firing line.  Seems like they are being protected from
exposure.
James 



-----Original Message-----

>-- "Sharp (Landrieu's assisstant) said. "The Corps in six months must 

>present a list of what projects must be authorized to close it and 

>protect the wetlands."  Mr. Go is used by about 650 deep-draft ships a 

>year." --

>

>It seems after having numerous public hearings and a symposium they 

>still can't get the numbers straight.  No, the MRGO is NOT used by 650 

>deep draft ships a year....it's only half that.  They are counting as a 

>"trip" one ships single passage in and out.  In other words, they 

>counting a round trip as "two" trips - what a joke!  So, in reality, 

>there's only about 325 ships that use the MRGO each year - less than 

>one per day..  But wait...even that "325" figure is very misleading.  

>Those 325 trips each year by deep draft vessels are comprised of only 3 

>or 4 different ships - ships that deliver to the same 3 or 4 tenants in 

>the inner-harbor canal of the MRGO.  So, that means each of those 

>tenants only receive their own ships about once or twice a week.  So 

>for all these many years the MRGO has been keep open by Congress (and 

>at a losing cost ratio) for each of those tenants for just one or maybe two

ship deliveries a week.  Talk about your "white elephants."

>

>How do I know this.  In February of 2004 I approached Junior Rodriguez 

>with the idea of holding a symposium on the MRGO to once and for all 

>expose its economic ineptness.  Junior gave me the green light to 

>proceed and I contacted John Grimm with Multi-Quest International in 

>Metairie, an outstanding researcher and considered by many to be the 

>naiton's best public opinion pollsters.  Our goal was to expose how an 

>earlier economic study done by Dr. Tim Ryan with UNO was inflated with 

>dollar figures as to the economic benefits of leaving the MRGO open.

>

>Four months later in June the symposium became a reality - the first of 

>its kind.  In attendance was Sen. Mary Landrieu, the commander of the 

>Corps of Engineers New Orleans, congressional staff from around the 

>state, and several state legislators from all over Louisiana, plus our 

>local delegation.  We presented the findings of our research which 

>"called the bluff" of Dr. Ryan's findings.  Ryan's study claimed the 

>region was benefiting from millions of dollars being brought in by the 

>MRGO for various services that did NOT even exist.  Through the course 

>of the presentation I paid close attention to the COE colonel and his 

>staff.  You can see it on their faces they realized they might have 

>been "duped" by the Ryan study's claims of the MRGO's economic worth.

>

>We took all the officials out on the water for a tour of the MRGO, 

>pointing out all the coastal and enviromental damage it has caused over 

>the past 40 years, then made the presentation giving copies of "our" 

>findings.  The print and tv news media also covered the event.

>

>I have no doubt the symposium was successful as the first step in 

>getting Congress to take the action it did this past week.  If nothing 

>else, it presented a "theory" of what could happen to St. Bernard parish.

>Unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina supplied the proof.  But still, even 

>with all the destruction and loss of life the MRGO brough upon St. 

>Bernard, I am absolutely confident in my belief that if the MRGO was in 

>fact an economic assest to the region, Congress would have ignored the 

>destruction and deaths it caused, and would have found an excuse to 

>keep it open.  The findings of our 2004 symposium study supplied the 

>additional justification needed for Congress to finally look at closing

this menace.

>

>John Scurich