Reply #16: So, what the article's saying is that

[Igel]

a study that was to conclude in 2-3 years would have been handy to have funded for next year. The study would have produced useful conclusions in 2008 or so, and then people would have proposed projects and funding for them. Then they could have made the repairs and use 29th century technology to transport the completed projects back to last week.

And the article also say that money was made for finishing the project on a levee that failed. Which obviously in some sort of counter-logic means that the funding never arrived and nothing was being done.

The overall impression was that the funding was inadequate and led to this disaster. As facts come out, that impression seems harder and harder to maintain.