So as Jeff said and the ENR link confirms, the water overflowed the Levee which resulted in erosion at the base of the Levee which resulted in failure.
As I understand it, the entire Levee is built to the same height and there is no control over the location where it will overflow and no ability to predict it.
So, knowing that the Levee might possibly be exposed to levels beyond it's capacity, why wouldn't we have designed the Levee with strategically placed overflow "notches" at perhaps a level of 1' below the top. The Levee could be reinforced in this area with some structure to guide the water away from the Levee to minimize erosion.
Presumably with this type of setup we might have topping of the Levy slightly sooner, but when the surge subsides and the Lake drops below the level of the notch, the water stops flowing.
It seems to me a necessary design feature. A parallel situation is a pressure vessel whose purpose is to contain pressure. If the design pressure is approached, a relief valve actuates which reduces pressure... momentarily disrupting the function of the pressure vessel but preserving it's ability to function after the overpressure condition is relieved.
Of course the ideal solution now is to build the entire Levee greater than the category 5. But I am looking in retrospect at the Engineers that were designed the resources for the full category 5 and knew there was a possibility the level might exceed the top. Wouldn't notches have been a good low-cost design feature?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.