Judge rules Corp of Engineers Failure led to Katrina Flooding

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34028940/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

Judge: Corps’ failure led to Katrina flooding
Ruling says navigation channel wasn't properly maintained

NEW ORLEANS - A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Army Corps of Engineers' failure to properly maintain a navigation channel led to massive flooding in Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a decision that could make the federal government vulnerable to billions of dollars in claims.

U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval sided with six residents and one business who argued the Army Corps' shoddy oversight of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet led to the flooding of New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward neighborhood and a nearby Parish. He said, however, the corps couldn't be held liable for the flooding of eastern New Orleans, where two of the plaintiffs lived.

Duval awarded the plaintiffs $720,000, but the government could eventually be forced to pay much more in damages. The ruling should give more than 100,000 other individuals, businesses and government entities a better shot at claiming billions of dollars in damages.

The ruling is also emotionally resonant for south Louisiana. Many in New Orleans have argued that Katrina, which struck the region Aug. 29, 2005, was a manmade disaster caused by the Army Corps' failure to maintain the levee system protecting the city.

'Preventable'
"Total devastation could possibly have been avoided if something had been done," said Tanya Smith, one of the plaintiffs. "A lot of this stuff was preventable and they turned a deaf ear to it."

The 36-year-old registered nurse anesthetist lived close to the channel when Katrina hit. She was awarded $317,000 in property damages, the most of any of the plaintiffs.

Duval referred to the corps' approach to maintaining the channel as "monumental negligence."

Joe Bruno, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, said the ruling underscored the Army Corps' long history of not properly protecting the New Orleans region.

"It's high time we look at the way these guys do business and do a full re-evaluation of the way it does business," Bruno said.

He said he expected the government to appeal.

The corps referred calls seeking comment to the Justice Department. Spokesman Charles Miller said the government would review the judge's ruling before making any decision on how to proceed.

During trial testimony, government lawyers and experts argued the levee system was overwhelmed by the massive storm, and levee breaches couldn't solely be blamed on the shipping channel dug in the 1960s as a short-cut between the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans.

'Utterly convinced'
The corps had also unsuccessfully argued that it is immune from liability because the channel is part of New Orleans' flood control system.

In his 156-page ruling, Duval said he was "utterly convinced" that the corps' failure to shore up the channel "doomed the channel to grow to two to three times its design width" and that "created a more forceful frontal wave attack on the levee."

"The Corps had an opportunity to take a myriad of actions to alleviate this deterioration or rehabilitate this deterioration and failed to do so," Duval said. "Clearly the expression 'talk is cheap' applies here."

The corps has been sued before over levee failures and flooding, but it had always walked away untouched. That included after Hurricane Betsy in 1965 over alleged flooding by the outlet. Ahead of Duval's ruling, experts had said it would likely have consequences for the way the Army Corps does business nationwide.

Pierce O'Donnell, another lead plaintiffs lawyer, said the ruling was the "first time ever the Army Corps has been held liable for damages for a major catastrophe that it caused."

Push for compensation fund
The plaintiffs lawyers would like Congress to set up a compensation fund to speed up payments to the thousands of other claimants, whose claims must still be heard in court.

At a one-month trial in May, experts clashed over the causes of flooding and the channel's contribution to it.

Government experts argued the levees and floodwalls would have failed regardless of whether the MRGO had been dug.

By contrast, the plaintiffs' team of experts said the outlet became a "hurricane highway" that funneled storm surge into New Orleans. They said that without the channel, the flooding would have been minimal.

The lawsuit was the first major case against the federal government over Katrina flooding to go to trial. A decision rested with Duval because a jury cannot try a case against the federal government.

 

Except that this opens the door to a ton of lawsuits.
[rquoter]Duval awarded the plaintiffs $720,000, but the government could eventually be forced to pay much more in damages. The ruling should give more than 100,000 other individuals, businesses and government entities a better shot at claiming billions of dollars in damages.[/rquoter]

 

Not that I am aware of from legal damages.

 

They did a pretty good job on the Panama Canal. They screwed up on NOLA but I think overall the history of the Corps of Engineers has been pretty good.

 

Its not just one caveat. They have generally done a pretty good job on building the levees along the upper Mississippi, dredging, land reclamation and a ton of other projects. They obviously have problems with projects being pork barrel and political footballs but in general from what I have seen of the Corps over their history is that they have done a good job.

 

Obviously the Corp can't stop a hurricane but the question is whether the adequately anticipated what sort of damage a hurricane, at CAT 3 since its practically impossible to design for something stronger. This lawsuit isn't that the Corp is directly responsible but their failure to anticipate and plan for the damage was negligent.