Dam Inspection Data Withheld From Press Under Patriot Act
By Joe Strupp
Published: June 25, 2008 11:15 AM ET

NEW YORK News outlets seeking inspection and safety data on local dams, in light off the recent string of floods in the Midwest, have been stonewalled by government officials who have withheld such data as part of the Patriot Act, according to Investigative Reporters and Editors.

IRE Data Base Library Director Jeremy Milarsky, who oversees the group's handling of data requests from news organizations, said at least a dozen news outlets requested such background data on dam inspections from IRE in the last week. He said that is up from the usual three or four in any given year.

Such information, however, has been unavailable since 2002, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began rejecting such requests as part of a U.S. Patriot Act stipulation.

"Among other things, the data included when each dam was last inspected, whether there was an evacuation plan for the area, and whether there was populated area close to the dam that would be impacted," Milarsky said. "It is basically a list of dams with information about how safe the dams were."

more...

So, who has a suggestion as to how meaningful, real oversight can be provided in a manner that also doesn't effectively announce, "Here are the weak points, and here's here's data on what damages one could expect to generate by hitting here?"

Meaningful oversight means exactly announcing in the loudest possible way: "Here are the weak points, and here's here's data on what damages one could expect to generate by hitting here"

How else to warn people?

No, I mean meaningful oversight as in assuring that any work that should be done is actually being done, and that a process exists to reliably determine whether work should be done.

I'm not trying to be a smartass. I see two concerns that I think are legitimate, and I don't know how to address both of them simultaneously.

How can citizens be a part of oversight if it's not public? And if it's not public, then it's not oversight...You are talking about quality control - I think fundamental to over sight is ... SIGHT.

An ingenious, brilliant, flawless restatement and expansion on half of the problem as described in my first post.

i guess I am arguing that there's no legitimate need for hiding oversight due to fear of terrorism. I am saying that lack of oversight is the more serious threat to human life and liberty. I am trying to say that there is no increase in danger of terrorism from having information about damns being decrepit be publicly available.

An "agent of evil" will be able to find a target whenever it becomes suitable to do so. There aren't cases where terrorists go home because they just couldn't find a good enough target.