Katrina negligence case against Army Corps of Engineers goes to trial

[babylonsister]

Katrina negligence case goes to trial

Hurricane Katrina

Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times

The lawsuit alleges that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to protect New Orleans from the flooding in August 2005. “This is sort of the Exxon Valdez litigation of the government liability field,” one expert said.

The civil suit against the Army Corps of Engineers will be heard after others have been thrown out. It could result in settlements to tens of thousands of storm victims.

By Richard Fausset
April 20, 2009


Reporting from Atlanta -- A federal judge in New Orleans today will hear what lawyers call "the last case standing" against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for its alleged failure to protect New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters nearly four years ago.

The civil negligence suit was originally filed in April 2006 by five New Orleans-area residents.

They are limited to relatively small damages from the government if they win.

But a victory could result in settlements for tens of thousands of New Orleans residents who have filed claims for personal injury, property damage and wrongful death since the epic flood on Aug. 29, 2005.

"This is sort of the Exxon Valdez litigation of the government liability field," said Oliver Houck, director of Tulane University's Environmental Law Program. "There's never been a case for this much in damages to so many people from such a gross act of government malfeasance."

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-katrina-lawsuit20-2009apr20,0,5230335.story

[imdjh]

1. predicting this case goes no where. n/t

[peace13]

2. How did they get left out on the hook?

Really, name some group or person who is being held accountable other than the Army Corp of Engineers. My guess... not guilty due to misunderstanding of their superiors directions.

[imdjh]

3. Not guilty due to the case being bullshit and being heard by a judge not a jury

You can work on a jury's compassion much easier than you can a judge. We can have compassion for the people of NO, and still say, 'Hey, you got hit by a monster fucking hurricane. We're sorry, but it's not going to be someone's fault."

As the article noted, huge amounts of money have already been spent, money that isn't required under the law.

Look, I live near the Gulf of Mexico myself. I know the danger. I have lived on low land all of my life. I don't have flood insurance and my mortgage company doesn't require it. I do have hurricane insurance. I'm going to be screwed if the big one comes, and the water is rising instead of wind driven or whatever bullshit game the insurance companies play. I accept the risk on behalf of myself and the mortgage company I am going to screw over if I can't collect from the insurance company.

But I'm not going to sue the people who built Treasure Island, or who dredged the bay for Whispering Palms Estates because I can get a scientist to say that if the government had allowed the inlets to fill in and the bay to fill up then it wouldn't have happened.

[babylonsister]

4. You must have forgotten all about this 'fun' fact...

Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control

By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 2, 2005; Page A16

President Bush repeatedly requested less money for programs to guard against catastrophic storms in New Orleans than many federal and state officials requested, decisions that are triggering a partisan debate over administration priorities at a time when the budget is strained by the Iraq war.

Even with full funding in recent years, none of the flood-control projects would have been completed in time to prevent the swamping of the city, as Democrats yesterday acknowledged. But they said Bush's decision to hold down spending on fortifying levees around New Orleans reflected a broader shuffling of resources -- to pay for tax cuts and the Iraq invasion -- that has left the United States more vulnerable.

The complaints showed how the Hurricane Katrina disaster is prompting the same recriminations that surround nearly all subjects in the capital's current angry mood. The reaction was in contrast to the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when for a season partisan politics was largely suspended and Bush had the backing of the opposition party.

A main point of controversy hinges on what until now were obscure decisions in the annual budget process, marked by routine tensions between agencies and local congressional delegations on one side and White House budget officials on the other.

In recent years, Bush repeatedly sought to slice the Army Corps of Engineers' funding requests to improve the levees holding back Lake Pontchartrain, which Katrina smashed through, flooding New Orleans. In 2005, Bush asked for $3.9 million, a small fraction of the request the corps made in internal administration deliberations. Under pressure from Congress, Bush ultimately agreed to spend $5.7 million. Since coming to office, Bush has essentially frozen spending on the Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for protecting the coastlines, waterways and other areas susceptible to natural disaster, at around $4.7 billion.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102261.html