Talk:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article clean-up: Subheading: New Orleans flood protection[edit]

In a couple of places in this article, it seems that the discussion of the controversies themselves is sometimes side-tracked by details that seem more appropriate for other articles. For example, I find the following paragraph would be better placed in an article on IPET: 

"However, according to the IPET draft final report,[16] IPET membership consisted of individuals from the Universities of Maryland, Florida, University of Notre Dame|Notre Dame]], and Virginia Polytechnic Institute, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the South Florida Water Management District, Harris County Flood Control District (Houston, TX), the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation as well as those from USACE."

A smattering of non-controversial participants' employers in the study doesn't really add much to this particular article. While I think a *complete* list of IPET participants would be interesting in an article focused on IPET, I fail to see the relevance here.

Also, the footnote link to the IPET report (currently footnote 16) is not working, does somebody know the correct web address?

(NormanFixesIt (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The only reason I added the participants is that there was a claim of lack of independence and bias. The list, therefore, shows the breadth of the task force. FWIW, all this goes along with making this article less NO,LA and less flood specific.
Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don’tKnowItAtAll,
I fail to see how your addition makes it less NOLA-centric, as it is related to the New Orleans controversy. In order for this article to be less NOLA-centric, I propose that we create a separate article focused on the New Orleans controversies which one could access from the main civil works controversies page. If we are to continue to add details about the participants of the study, we should include details about all participants, not just a selected few non-Corps participants. IPET participants would be a good subject heading in said NOLA-focused article.
(NormanFixesIt (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
What I typed above (the sentence beginning with "FWIW ...") was actually not what I meant (I hate when I do that! LOL). What I meant to say was that all of this tit-for-tat about IPET, NOLA, etc., is just more justification for re-centering this article on its main thesis. Know what I mean, Vern? LOL
And I do recognized that the addition I put back in was not making this less NOLA-centric. It was re-added to balance/NPOV the Levees.Org viewpoint that IPET was basically a USACE puppet. As long as the Levees.Org claims, numbers, and references are in the article, they should be balanced with either additional facts or "the other side" of the argument. IMNSHO, prior to some of my edits, this article was basically axe-grinding with emotional adjectives, one-sided reporting, and what appeared to be near-single source referencing (referencing media which referenced back to Levees.Org spokespeople, articles, self-written fact sheets, etc.).
I'm not disagreeing that USACE owns some --maybe even a majority -- of the blame for what happened, just that it was not just USACE but a combination of Federal, state, and local incremental decisions over 50 years that led to the Katrina disaster. It was the COMBINATION of events and decisions, not just one agency/design. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. And to imply that all of the people in ASCE, IPET, etc., were basically co-opted by the Big Bad Corps of Engineers and forced to support self-supporting USACE conclusions ... well, that's just blind Conspiracy theory without evaluating its validity. Just because someone once worked for an agency doesn't mean that
  • they are still beholden to it
  • they agree with its motives, missions, etc.
  • they have no ability to think independently
  • they really aren't an independent and/or recognized expert in their field(s).
That is why I objected to the characterizations being made.
That said, I would have no problem removing both arguments as they are more red herrings than anything else. I would concur with a separate article on NOLA controversies with one minor caveat/exception: there are several articles in Wikipedia that are full articles or have sections that are basically saying the same things about the issue with Katrina with various variations of the same thing. Perhaps they can be better edited/referenced from here as opposed to a brand new article. I also think that a separate article on IPET would be a very good idea and could be used to help remove some of this stuff.
Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

Main Articles, Expansion Articles, Summaries, etc.[edit]

I would like to discuss the editing of this article, as well as editing of the related article that is solely focused on New Orleans controversies. Just to clarify: the article on New Orleans controversies is meant to allow an expansion of the issues related to New Orleans, not for the removal of New Orleans issues from the main article on civil works controversies. The New Orleans controversies are significant to the subject of civil works controversies. I would even say that the New Orleans issues are the most visibly emblematic of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies, as demonstrated by the fact that even the overview is mainly focused on New Orleans. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an additional article as I understand it is two-fold: (1) to allow an expansion of a portion of the current article's topic and (2) allow summarization of the topic in the initial article so that it does not become too cumbersome. As noted above, this article seems/seemed Flood control and NOLA centric whereas there are a lot of controversies nationwide. For example, this article is an expansion of information that is summarized in the United States Army Corps of Engineers article which contains a summary of what is here.
When I first started editing this article, there was nothing about beach nourishment, water supply, environmental regulation, etc. And, while they aren't flattering for the Corps, I added them in because there are a LOT of controversies. And many of those were around a long time before Katrina. Katrina by its sheer size and impact brought the flood control issue and New Orleans to the forefront.
So, having an article on New Orleans is great because it helps to make this article less NOLA centric as well as allowing a summary (rather than detail) here. Anyone who wants more info on NO can follow through to that article. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When summarizing and moving information from this main article to the sub-article on New Orleans, please make sure to keep your edits WP:NPOV. Removing only the negative details about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not WP:NPOV. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I tried to balance what I moved, but I did expect you and/or Sheldonville to rebalance if I overedited. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview[edit]

That brings me to my next point, which is that the overview (now entitled “background”) still needs work. An “overview” is supposed to provide an brief synopsis or summary of what is to come in the main body of the article. The current overview/“background” does not accomplish that. It discusses two subjects – one that revisits the idea of earmarks pork spending (which is mentioned in the introductory paragraph right above the overview), and one that discusses New Orleans. Furthermore, this detail about New Orleans is not even a general introduction to the main controversies currently surrounding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the New Orleans vicinity, but rather it is a reference to a past decision-making process that is barely discussed in this article. I created a section about that past controversy in the spin-off article on New Orleans. The detail from that debate should be moved there, and expanded with more information about the context of those quotations. If you wish to provide background, please do in the subject heading of the controversy to which you wish to provide context. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: (1) The introduction to an article (the stuff before the TOC) is the really same thing as an overview of the article, and (2) There is a need for some background that is necessary for understanding all of the controversies that the Corps is involved in.
You mention above that the intro/overview to this article is mainly focused on New Orleans. Concerning flood control, Sacramento CA (and other places around the nation) is having some of the same issues as NO; NO is at the forefront only because disaster hit there first. I believe that the reason that this article's overview is mainly focused on NO is because it was written by someone deeply affected by the events in NO. However, the intro should NOT be mainly about NO and so it should be edited accordingly. This would, I think, be an incremental improvement to the article. That is not to say that NO should not be mentioned at all in the intro because most people currently associate NO with USACE controversy. When disaster eventually hits Sacramento, it will become the whip to beat USACE with then. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of Interest[edit]

Lastly, in response to your (Don'tKnowItAtAll's) previous discussion post, two things: 1. I would suggest that you consult legal counsel on the general notion of conflict of interest if you are confused as to why this is important part of this article. Problems arise when the proper measures are not taken to avoid, or at least fully disclose, all potential conflicts of interest. This is standard legal procedure in most all professions, meant as a safeguard to the integrity and credibility of the parties involved. The conflict of interest questions in the studies mentioned are an integral part of the controversy, and a recurring theme among the peer reviews. This makes the issue of conflict of interest one of the most important part of the controversies page - anything but a red herring. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wholely agree that real (and sometimes perceived) conflicts of interest are a problem. What I was trying to say is that
  • overall composition of investigating bodies is important,
  • former employees may or may not have allegiance to their former employer,
  • that the foremost experts in a topic may well, in fact, be employees of an agency under investigation and may have been on a panel just for that reason and not because they are going to guide the discussion,
  • etc.
My comment about red herrings was not about conflict of interest (because it IS important) but rather concerning the statistical interpretation of participants, findings, etc. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was the agency responsible for building the levees, by federal mandate. It is the Corps that is responsible for the design and construction of any project is authorized by congressional appropriation – the standard cost-sharing procedures do not alter that responsibility. Once the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity flood protection project was authorized, it was the responsibility of the Corps to design and construct the flood protection as specified in the appropriations bill. Failure to design and build adequate structures cannot be blamed on anyone else. While there are some noble individuals who have been forthright in admitting fault, those who wish to shirk blame for past mistakes are doomed to repeat them in the future. NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where we start to disagree. The Corps builds things at the direction, and within the parameters established by, Congress. Congress is influenced by their constituents. And Congress often -- despite authorizing a project -- will limit appropriations therefor so that they can play both sides. As LTG Heiberg's "blame it on me" letter to the media indicated, there was significant local opposition, litigation, etc., in NO to what the Corps had proposed/designed. At the same time, as a history of the projects' development shows, as problems became known -- sometimes based on new information -- there was consultation with the locals as to how to proceed. In most cases, the overall consensus was to continue marching on because it would otherwise jeopardize the future of the projects.
And, that also includes issues about funding. Cost sharing procedures are ABSOLUTELY part and parcel of the process. The Corps is legally -- and constitutionally -- prohibited from moving a project forward (or spending any funds outside of actual appropriations) if the funding mandates imposed by Congress are not met. This includes local participation.
And, in many cases, while the projects were deficient based on updated understanding of the needs, doing something was almost always better than doing nothing or going back to the drawing board. Incremental improvement provides incremental protection.
You would be right in saying, however, that does not -- nor should not -- absolve deficient construction. You would also be right in saying that actual bad engineering is not excusable. But you also have to look at the information and knowledge AVAILABLE at the time the work was proceeding (and not what is known in 2005-8) in order to classify something as bad engineering.
So, it is disengenuous to say that the sole responsibility for the Katrina disaster lies with USACE. It lies with every single person involved in every single decision over the last 60 years. Much of that, by default, does in fact go to the Corps. So, I wholely agree with you that those "who wish to shirk blame for past mistakes are doomed to repeat them in the future". We -- you, me, Congress, Corps, other Federal, state, and local officials, and special interest groups like 'Save Our Wetlands' -- can never morally let another disaster like this happen. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Keep working on this[edit]

Let's keep working on this, while discussing it here, or better yet, on the discussion page for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies (New Orleans). NormanFixesIt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will copy this discussion to the other article. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making this article more non-New Orleans and non-flood protection centric[edit]

Is it possible to make this less centric toward one specific topic and one specific location within that topic? This article appears to be heavily weighted toward flood protection and even more specifically towards Katrina and New Orleans. Can anyone provide more documentation concerning other USACE civil works controversies? What about flooding in the Sacramento CA area? What about beach nourishment on the Great Lakes? Does anyone have additional data on wetlands issues? That certainly is a very big source of contention, even in New Orleans! What about the dam around Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades restoration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don'tKnowItAll (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 December 2008 

--

I think expanding the topic in such a way is a great idea. I'll see what other documentation I can find, and I hope other people will do the same. (NormanFixesIt (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Removal of unsourced and POV material[edit]

Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, but there are some rules. Editors may not insert point of view. And when providing material must source it. Sheldonville talk) 19:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldonville -

How about this: The US Constitution, Art I, Sec 9, provides that "[N]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of an Appropriation made by Law."

Congress, by that same Constitution, makes appropriations and laws. And since Congress is filled with Congressman, and one of the article's tenets is " projects have been characterized as being riddled with patronage (see pork barrel) or a waste of money and resources", it follows that

(1) Corps of Engineers projects can be found in all fifty states, making its budget and project authorizations ripe for earmarks and other pork. (not my words, BTW, but some other editor) (2) Corps projects are either authorized specifically or as part of a Congressionally authorized category of projects.

Now, I cannot specifically source "Many times, local citizen, special interest, and political groups lobby Congress for authorization and appropriations for specific projects in their area" but it logically follows when talking about patronage and pork (not my words) and the political process. To cite that or prove it in this forum would be akin to proving a detailed mathematical theorem; it is possible, just not necessarily productive.

The statement, "These projects may or may not be considered sound from an engineering standpoint." presents a neutral point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV) which Wikipedia editing policy demands. After all, it presents both sides ("mor" and "may not") in the same sentence.

Since appropriations are law, and Congress makes laws, it follows that it is a legal requirement to perform. Now, my comment "it is then up to the Corps of Engineers to do the best that they can" may be a bit soft stated, but it is certainly no less neutral than "riddled" and "profound detrimental effects" and other inflammatory wording that has been used in this article. And, in fact, "Whether or not they actually do the best they can with what they've got is part of the controversy" is a true statement, am I not right? In keeping with dispute resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes), I didn't just delete something I disagreed with -- like you di -- but presented information that gave another, possibly more balanced approach to the situation.

If this is truly to be a neutral article, then it should quote sources on BOTH sides of the story. It should provide ACTUAL examples of unnecessary pork and Congressional interference with good Engineering discipline rather than just railing at USACE. It could provide a listing of various bills introduced in Congress that have attempted to reform the USACE business process AS WELL AS the voting that prevented those bills from becoming law. THAT is part and parcel of the controversy and that truly represents a balanced and neutral POV.

Instead, this is a New Orleans-centric axe-grinding. USACE, FEMA, and the politicians of Louisiana over the years stumbled ... BADLY. But that is not to say that it is without redemption. Please allow for a neutral POV at least here. Use your biased sources on your side but don't just delete my content, please.

Thanks. Beave 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)~

Installation of "The Plaque"[edit]

History of the editing:

  • User:Sheldonville put the verbiage in
  • User:Don'tKnowItAtAll took it out with a reason given
  • Sheldonville put the verbiage in with no reason given
  • Don'tKnowItAtAll took it out with a reason given and request to discuss

I don't want to get into a revert war, but ....

I took out the information about the installation of the plaque for several reasons:

  • Installation of the plaque is not a USACE civil works controversy and doesn't advance the topic
  • Installation of the plaque is not a flood issue and doesn't advance the topic
  • Installation of the plaque is not a legal issue in New Orleans and doesn't advance the topic
  • Installation of the plaque by Levees.org primarily is used to promote Levees.org and its agenda.
  • Installation of a historical plaque is not really notable event. A Google search indicates that installation of the plaque is primarily notable mostly on levee.org's website or in media covering its unveiling.

In other words, mentioning of the plaque neither advances the article, the section, the topic, etc. Just because it is a fact that levees.org installed a plaque about a controversial situation does not make its installation notable.

One might argue that the picture is used primarily to support a certain POV since the verbiage on the plaque was never proposed or vetted by a NPOV source; arguably by extension, inserting any such picture of a certain viewpoint in any article could therefore otherwise be done to circumvent POV issues. However, other than that I don't have a problem with the picture itself. Having a picture can highlight the fact that the one particular issue is indeed controversial. And it breaks up the monotony of an otherwise prose-only article. However, the verbiage about installing it doesn't aid the topic and is not notable; IMNSHO it only serves to show off how Levees.org's efforts is keeping the focus only on the Corps of Engineers and not on any other player involved in the Katrina disaster (and there were many others, to include those at the State and Local levels, who were culpable as well). Damning just one organization does nothing to prevent such a tragedy in the future.

I consider the fact that the image, its caption, and the verbiage on the plaque within the picture to carry the weight of the sufficiency of controversy of the issue the plaque represents.

So ... before we get into a revert war ... why is the verbiage necessary? Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Installation and its details may be superfluous, but the plaque's very existence is a public, permanent acknowledgement by one of the government agencies implicated in the disaster's causes. The plaque is about as far from POV as is possible: the verbiage was vetted in the public record by an official historical commission of State of Louisiana (which is actually one of the other non-Corps entities often cited as a culpable agency).

Surely you are not implying that the State of Louisiana would never try to spin the issue in its favor?? History is written by the victors, and the historical records branch of any agency has just as much of a propensity as the "lying engineer" that Editilla decries. Despite the myth that continues to pervade society and the politicians, the Corps of Engineers is governed by laws. And yes, USACE can break those laws just like Louisiana can and New Orleans can and many citizens can. But USACE does not dream up stuff to do all on its own. Its projects are DIRECTED by Congress and the parameters are either set in law (by Congress) or established in standards and regulations. As Louis Brown of the St Louis District said in 1993, "the levees are built at the direction of Congress based on a perceived need by the citizens." In the case of the varioius flood control projects, Congress has made it a part of the law that the local boards/sponsors/municipalities be involved and participate as a vital and important members of the team. And those individuals, promising to do stuff that they don't always keep (e.g., maintenance), are just as culpable as the Corps of Engineers is. And those individuals, making agreements as fiscal shortcut, are just as culpable.
I get extremely mad at the Corps of Engineers when some of its employees abuse the system or when it takes shortcuts that don't make any sense. And I get mad when Federal employees fail to do the job that they are paid to do (e.g., the construction inspectors who didn't hold the Contractor to the contract design). But to say it is all the Corps fault is just as much BS as to say "that there is nothing more dangerous than a lying engineer". In fact, there is: a lying politician. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This fact is what qualifies the photograph as relevant to topic, but no one would know this without a caption. A photo of a yard sign, billboard, or graffiti scrawl on a fence would be POV. This plaque passed through multiple reviews and public hearings under the auspices of a state agency. That verbiage is about as vetted as one could ask for.

I never said that the picture couldn't/shouldn't be captioned. That would be silly. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any article concerning USACE civil works controversies would be incomplete if official statements on the topic by another government agency were omitted. That is what the plaque is, and as such this writer would have a problem with the picture itself, without caption. The plaque and its verbiage are relevant precisely because of their origin, not despite of it. The details regarding date of dedication and perhaps the involvement of a citizen's group could be superfluous, but the plaque and a caption indicating its status as an official position should be included. Wistlo (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would have a problem of the picture without the caption as I stated in my original post here. I don't disagree with what Wistlo has said here. One of the challenges that I've found over the last six years on the Katrina issue is that everyone makes it sound as if it were solely the Corps of Engineers' fault. The Corps itself does not try to absolve itself; but everyone else -- city, mayor, levee boards, local sponsors, etc., have also tried to divest themselves of ANY responsibility. The whole history of this debacle is a history of how seemingly small consensus-type decisions (e.g., the "Keep going rather than stop to redesign" mentality of ALL the stakeholders) led to a senseless and needless tragedy that could have been averted. But if you do not consider ALL the facts, then you have NOT solved the problem, only solved some of the symptoms. Tell me ... what have the levee boards done to correct their behaviors? What have to local sponsors done to correct their behaviors? As far as I can see from what has been reported in the media, the Corps has at least attempted to be transparent in correcting its deficiencies. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each word on the Historic Plaque was fact checked and verified by scholars with the Louisiana Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). Furthermore, the SHPO has extremely detailed specific requirements on what can and cannot be included. After the state approved the plaque text, the state requested its manufacture by the company which makes all state plaques, Sewah Manufacturing. Levees.org requested - and received - permission from the N.O. Sewage and Water Board, N.O. Parks and Parkways, Dept of Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to install the Plaque on the property of the City of New Orleans. Sheldonville (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe in Artifacts Not Politics. The verbiage and placement of these Historical Plaques will stand the test of time, the elements and any attempts by the Corps of Engineers to rewrite these wiki pages. Short of a nuclear strike, the vital truth on those Historical Plaques will survive the next flood.

Indicating that something is "the vital truth" when it only tells half the story is, IMNSHO, tantamount to lying by omission. It's kind of like telling a phone caller that my wife can't come to the phone because she is lying down (thus implying sleep) when she is lying on the floor playing with her children. It's technically the truth but is misleading at best. Perhaps that is why Stephen Cobert talks about Wikipedia being all about truthiness. And if you rely on what you call "artifacts", then you can also be misled. In fact, Wikipedia has reported (and it would take me more than one editing session to find them) that there are artifacts that have been shown to be false in and of themselves. And to believe that these wiki pages hold the truth and only the truth is to ignore what Wikipedia has said about some articles within its electronic pages (e.g, Wikipedia:Silly Things among others). Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These Historical Plaques are necessary to the cultural and societal cohesion of New Orleans after the Corps flooded 80% of the city and killed 1000s. Had they been upfront and honest at the beginning --instead of deceitful and manipulative of the studies of their failures-- then perhaps any arguments to the contrary might stand in the way of this vital Historical Marker. But the fact is the Corps tried to tell many lies about why New Orleans flooded.

And what about the lies and hidden agendas of the local boards? What about the failures of FEMA? What about the failures of NO and its may Nagin? The whole Katrina debacle is marked by lies at ALL levels, but it won't change the future if we continue to perpetrate lies. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we need these Markers and the verbiage upon them. Because there is nothing more dangerous than a lying engineer, because then all you're dealing with is the last word of a liar. Editilla (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Editilla[reply]

Editilla, it must be nice to be perfect enough to make such a sanctimonious statement. There are many things more dangerous than "lying engineers" ... in fact I would say that ALL liars are dangerous. IMNSHO, the most dangerous thing is for people to operate solely on emotion, refuse to think critically and impartially, refuse act rationally, and refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. And the disaster in 2005 in New Orleans highlights that: there was a collective brain fart by all those responsible -- Federal, state, local, and levee boards -- that cumulatively led to the horrific loss of thousands of lives. But to pin that on one organization is to allow for history to repeat itself. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each word on the Historic Plaque was fact checked and verified by scholars with the Louisiana Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). The SHPO has extremely detailed requirements on what can and cannot be included. After the state approved the plaque text, the state requested its manufacture by Sewah Studios - Manufacturer of Cast Aluminum Historic Markers in Marietta, Ohio. This plaque is vetted fact, not opinion. Levees.org requested - and received - permission from the N.O. Sewage and Water Board, N.O. Parks and Parkways, Dept of Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which owns the property behind the plaque) to install the Plaque on the property of the City of New Orleans. Sheldonville (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers_civil_works_controversies&oldid=1201356198"