After the Festival, the Celebration
New Orleans made the good kind of news this past week, reams of stories about Jazzfest, the wave of music overcoming the rainy deluges, and the consequent boost to the city's still-fragile economy.
What didn't make national news, though, was a court decision that has the potential for much greater long-term benefit to the city, especially some of its poorest residents. Last Friday, Federal judge Stanwood Duval--who did break out of the bubble when he ruled, earlier this year, that the Corps of Engineers couldn't be sued for damage caused by the collapse of its hurricane-protection structures--ruled that the Corps can indeed be sued for damage caused by its construction, starting in the 1950s, of the MRGO shipping canal. As the T-P story points out, the neighborhoods savaged by the funneling of Katrina's surge into the heart of the city were primarily lower-income areas: Eastern New Orleans, the Lower Ninth ward, and suburban St. Bernard Parish. Those would be the residents to get compensated should they prove their case.
So, for all those who've reflexively said, "You can't sue the Corps"--tell it to the judge.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Harry,
Could you elaborate a bit on the apparent dichotomy of the same judge ruling that the Corps could NOT be sued over construction failure, but they COULD be sued over the decision to construct in the first place.
How utterly bass ackwards.
On the first part, plaintiffs should be allowed to have their day in court on the facts of whether the failure of an engineered structure was due to act of god, failure of design, or failure of construction.
P.S. I got a number of apologies from HuffPo for "accidental" bannings. ;-)
Duvall explained his ruling:
http://abc
Basically, he said the Flood Control Act of 1928 made the government immune from lawsuits stemming from failures of flood control projects.
Nice, huh?
ROFLMAO
Sue all you like.
Simple truth.
Let me think... should I build my house under sea level where hurricanes are yearly events. Anyone who answers yes does not understand that questions about their sanity may just be valid questions.
Give me a break people. Why would anyone think that building below sea level along any coast is acceptable???
No wonder people hate paying taxes. To allow anyone to live in such an area is criminal. To encourage people to return to areas you know will flood is foolish.
I shall have to hope that someone with common sense will put an end to the very stupid idea of rebuilding a city that is dead before it is rebuilt.
This just in! No hurricanes hit New Orleans in 2006 and 2007. (That means hurricanes are not "yearly" events.)
News flash! Most of the areas flooded on August 29, 2005 were never flooded by a hurricane after the levees and pumps were built. (That means those are areas people do not "know will flood.")
Something like a million people live in metro New Orleans. (That means it is not "a city that is dead.")
How many times must we rebuild Hilton Head Island? California? Oklahoma?
Do you live near a river - they flood by the way.
Perhaps you live way up north - should I pay for your poorly constructed roof when it caves in from a 6 foot snow?
Live near a faultline - shame on you.
Live near a dormant volcano - MOVE!
Live in tornado ally - well those hit EVERY year.
Get over it. NO PLACE IS SAFE - Mother Nature could careless where you live!! Come cry to me when you have lost everything to a tornado, a fire, a flood, or an earthquake.
Sounds like a class-action project John Edwards could coordinate!
And now back to the labored sarcasm...
Who wanted that channel built? If I hire a contractor to remove a wall, then my neighbor is flooded because I had the wall removed...
Who had that channel built? was the Mayor for it? Was the states senator for it? was the governor for it? Did they push and lobby for it?
Maybe the city of New Orleans should sue itself?
Lots of details not here.
There's a false premise in you analogy: the Corps is not a contractor. The Corps is the owner.
The Corps hires contractors, then - theoretically at least - supervises the contractors to ensure the work is done according to plans and specifications.
So, yeah, your neighbor sues you.
But, there's more. The Corps is also the engineer. The engineer has a statutorial obligation - not to mention moral and ethical obligations - to put forward designs that do not reduce protection of life and property.
Whether the City or the State or your Aunt Sally wanted the MRGO is not relevant. The Corps as the owner and the engineer, designed and built structures that flooded downstream property owners, thereby causing fatalities and property loss. The Corps is liable.
Huzzah.
Many state DOT's, btw, function as both owner and engineer.
Harry, you have it correct in all your posts. Engineers from the ACE all decided that New Orleans should be flooded and followed direct orders from President Bush. And now those engineers are all conspiring to keep New Orleans from being re-built.
Ed, I don't know where you heard that, but we've been hearing about an Iran strike for 2 years -- I suspect it will happen in the next eight months, but many will doubt (for whatEVER reason, given this President's history!) until the bombs fall.
I'd suggest rallying the troops, but they're blissfully ignorant of what's likely to happen.
Harry: I realize I'm asking you to speculate, but do you think (1) the ACE will appeal the judge's decision, and (2) that if the case reaches the Supreme Court, it will be upheld? Even though the Supreme Court has what could be called a "conservative" majority (with Kennedy the swing vote), I can see them siding with New Orleans here. It's a property issue; it's citizens vs. the "government"; it's an instance of an agency taking responsibility for its actions. In other words, angles that excite conservatives.
Sorry, it's *poor* citizens vs. the government, so don't expect them to get any love from this Supreme Court.
In typical Anglo-American legal fashion, you can sue for damages but you cannot sue to get it fixed.
Does that mean that a court verdict could result in a bunch of property owners someday getting individual checks, but there will be no collective solution (fixing the canals)?
The buzz is that Bush will attack Iran after returning from Israel's 60th birthday bash. If that happens it will drive the price of gasoline into space, if you can get any at all. So, just in time for hurricane season there will be no gasoline available for evacuations. Even without the war, I can see a perfect storm of a heavy hurricane season and extreme gasoline prices or even shortages in the event of an emergency evacuation on a large scale. If you thought Bush had done all the damage he could do, just wait. It could get ugly on a biblical scale.
As if the damage to New Orleans has not been staggering enough, it now has been reported that the Corps is using newspaper to repair the levees. Engineers. Hurricane levees. Biodegradable newspaper. Pardon my incredulity, but that's un-effing-
Do you think a judge can similarly force the federal government to get serious about coastal restoration?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
