[StBernard] Katrina case raises costly question

[Westley Annis]

Katrina case raises costly question 




By Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
NEW ORLEANS - The recent ruling here by a federal judge confirmed what
victims of Hurricane Katrina have been arguing the past four years: the
catastrophic floods in 2005 were a manmade disaster, not a natural
phenomenon.
The landmark ruling blames negligence by the Army Corps of Engineers for
some of the worst flooding from Hurricane Katrina.

The ruling could lead to billions of dollars in other legal action from
storm victims, but it also leaves regional leaders with a dilemma: Should
they ride the lawsuit's momentum and try to extract potentially billions of
dollars from the federal government to compensate Katrina victims? Or should
they keep the focus on getting federal help for Louisiana's
multibillion-dollar coastal restoration efforts?

Asking the federal government to pay what could amount to billions of
dollars in payback for Katrina victims could derail the state's effort to
fund coastal restoration that could prevent future storms from causing
similar devastation, said Oliver Houck, a Tulane University law professor.

"If there's anything this administration doesn't need right now is another
$100 billion tab," Houck said. "The money that would go to coastal
restoration will now go to these plaintiffs."

In a searing 156-page decision, U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. ruled
Wednesday that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' "gross negligence" in
maintaining a 76-mile navigational canal that connects the Gulf of Mexico to
New Orleans led to the collapse of levees and destroyed two neighborhoods,
the Lower 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish.

"The Corps' negligence resulted in the wasting of millions of dollars in
flood protection measures and billions of dollars in congressional outlays
to help this region recover from such a catastrophe," Duval wrote. He
awarded $720,000 in property damages to four individuals and one business.

"It is my sincere hope that this decision is upheld and the people of the
region are finally vindicated and receive a full and just compensation from
the U.S. government for their damages," Sen. Mary Landrieu said in a
statement. Landrieu, a Democrat, said she will meet with President Obama to
determine how to compensate flood victims.

Joseph Bruno, a New Orleans attorney who represents the plaintiffs in the
case, said he will travel to Washington after Thanksgiving to meet with
lawmakers and propose compensation for the more than 400,000 individuals in
the greater New Orleans area affected by the floods. "You can't just pay one
section of town," he said. "You have to pay it all."

Louisiana's coastal marshes act as natural buffers against storms and are
vital to preventing future disasters, said Garret Graves, head of Republican
Gov. Bobby Jindal's office of coastal activities. Since 1930, the area has
lost about 2,100 square miles of coastal marshes - an area larger than the
size of Delaware. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita mauled an additional 217
square miles of coast in 2005.

Rebuilding the marshes, along with armoring New Orleans' levee systems, will
cost about $100 billion, Graves said. Since Katrina, the federal government
has spent about $15 billion on the levee system, he said.

Leaders have lobbied Washington for years to invest more in revitalizing the
coast. The Obama administration has been proactive, including forming a Gulf
Coast interagency working group to come up with solutions, Graves said. Last
week's ruling could steer attention away from that effort, he said.

"There's a relation between extraordinary land loss in Louisiana and the
exacerbated impact of hurricanes," Graves said. "That's what we're remaining
focused on."

Those living in the affected area are similarly divided. Residents of St.
Bernard Parish, which lost virtually all of its 26,000 homes in the floods,
would like to be compensated for their damaged homes but realize rebuilding
wetlands will protect them from future storms, said Craig Taffaro Jr.,
parish president.

"There needs to be a balance between individual compensation and a global
solution," he said.

Tanya Smith, 36, one of six plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, said she's
happy with the $317,000 the judge says she is owed for the loss of her home.
Even more important than the cash, she said, is the recognition that the
Corps was at fault.

"Finally, they got what was coming to them," Smith said.