Failure to heed the warnings

"NYC was warned by the Army Corp of Engineers in 1995 of just such a storm. They were also told how to prevent the damage. Did they follow the Army Corp of Engineers recommendations? If not why?

NYC cant say it wasn't warned.

Article in Popular Mechanics detailing Army Corp of Engineers reports is here...." - anonymous

Oh and then there's this from earlier this year from The Capital:

But let's say, in a worst-case scenario, that parts of the city or one or some of its systems flood completely in an event like what planners call a "100-year storm" (a storm so severe its likelihood is estimated at one percent in any given year).

Many of them will not rate under the economic definition of "risk," because the value is too low. And this is where the standard risk-assessment falls apart: It is scientific and political; it does not factor in entire low-lying neighborhoods with low-rise housing under water.

Then there are infrastructure systems, which, compromised in one place, can spread mayhem far and wide. Water supply, sewage treatment, and energy supply, all built largely underground, mostly many years ago, are potentially vulnerable.

Bragdon said the administration is really beginning in earnest this year to assess risks to those three key areas. Any institution that has assets that could be affected by climate change is in his purview, which means not only the city's own, but those of private providers, like Con-Ed, which be a part of the process.

Imagine a scenario in which a 100-year-storm flooded all of the parts of the subway system that are most susceptible — the tunnels that carry trains under the East River to and from Manhattan, and the major connection points in Lower Manhattan. Then Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island would essentially be cut off from the mainland for the millions of commuters who pass through those links every day. And not for a short time.

The NY Times has a summary of the warnings.