Never Again: Lessons from Louisiana's Gustav Evacuation

A report by STAND, a grassroots project of NOWCRJ, that exposes the impact of Lousiana's unjust and inequitable evacuation policy during the Hurricane Gustav on the state's poorest evacuees, based on hundreds of interviews with evacuees.This report exposes Louisiana's differential treatment sheltering policy which directs that in disasters, the state shall segregate evacuees relying on city/ state transportation in state-run warehouse shelters separate from evacuees using their own cars. Pursuant to this policy, the state advisory system directs self-transporting evacuees to separate parish, Red Cross, and church shelters with better conditions. Those who evacuate by bus are primarily the residents who do not have the economic means (or the cars) to self-evacuate, including homeless residents, public housing residents, low-wage workers, low-income renters, and their families -- almost all African American.This report's findings are based on assessments of the state-run warehouse shelters and extensive interviews of hundreds of affected residents. The findings expose startling inequity. In the Gustav evacuation, the state's differential treatment policy subjected the most vulnerable state residents to extremely inhumane shelter conditions. In each of the four state-run warehouse shelters, over a thousand evacuees were housed in a single large one-room space. Women, infants, children, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled were all using the same space, without privacy, and sharing the same bathrooms -- outdoor portable toilets. They had no access to running water inside the facilities. The only showers -- until close to the end of the evacuations -- were the portable toilets outside, in which mothers were washing themselves and their babies with bottled water. Residents had limited access to medical care, and no access to counselors or to news from the state about the hurricane and its aftermath

The Role of Futureproofing in the Management of Infrastructural Assets

Ensuring long-term value from infrastructure is essential for a sustainable economy. In this context, futureproofing involves addressing two broad issues: i. Ensuring the ability of infrastructure to be resilient to unexpected or uncontrollable events e.g. extreme weather events; and ii. Ensuring the ability to adapt to required changes in structure and / or operations of the infrastructure in the future e.g. expansion of capacity, change in usage mode or volumes. Increasingly, in their respective roles, infrastructure designers/builders and owners/operators are being required to develop strategies for futureproofing as part of the life cycle planning for key assets and systems that make up infrastructure. In this paper, we report on a preliminary set of studies aimed at exploring the following issues related to infrastructure / infrastructure systems: • What is intended by the futureproofing of infrastructural assets? • Why and when to futureproof critical infrastructure? • How can infrastructure assets and systems be prepared for uncertain futures? • How can futureproofing be incorporated into asset management practice? In order to seek answers to the above questions, the Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction (CSIC) has conducted two industrial workshops bringing together leading practitioners in the UK infrastructure and construction sectors, along with government policy makers. This paper provides an initial summary of the findings from the workshops (part presentation, part working sessions), and proposes a simple framework for linking futureproofing into broader asset management considerations. To begin, an overview of futureproofing and motivate the need for futureproofing infrastructure assets is provided. Following this, an approach to futureproofing infrastructure portfolios is presented that organisations in the infrastructure sector can use. Key barriers to futureproofing are also presented before examining the ISO 55001 asset management standard to highlight the interplay between futureproofing and infrastructural asset management. Finally, different ways by which an effective futureproofing strategy can enhance the value of infrastructure are examined

Rethinking the externality issue for dryland salinity in Western Australia

Dryland salinity has been conceived of as a problem involving massive off‐site impacts and therefore requiring coordinated action to ensure that land managers reduce those off‐site impacts. In economic terms, salinity is seen as a problem of market failure due to externalities, including external costs from one farmer to another and from the farm sector to the non‐farm sector. In this article, we argue that, at least in Western Australia (WA), externalities are much less important as a cause of market failure than has been widely believed. If all externalities from salinity in WA were to be internalised, the impact on farm management would be small.Land Economics/Use,

Silicon Steel Sheets - An outline of Properties Applications and Recent Developments

SILICON steel should be regarded as something more than just another alloy steel. It is a basic necessity of modern civilization. Industrial development, as we know it today, has been made possible very largely by the harn-essing of electrical energy to provide power and light, heat and cold, wherever they are required

IAOS Bulletin 26

xvii, 287 hlm., ilus., 24 cm

Water erosion on potato land during the 1983 growing season Donnybrook

Soil losses over a three month period varied from 10 to 49 mm.. Soil loss was most highly correlated with length of slope of the plots. Other important factors appeared to be slope angle and soil textures. Grade furrows appear to be the best method of breaking-up long slope lengths. The low capacity of the furrows requires them to be on grades of about 4 to 4 per cent to prevent siltation and overtopping during high density storms