Tuesday, March 6, 2012

In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation

Mar 2: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case Nos. 10-30249, 10-31054 & 11-30808. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. As explained by the Appeals Court, decades ago, the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) dredged the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), a shipping channel between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as levees alongside the channel and around the city. The Corps's negligence in maintaining the channel, grounded on a failure to appreciate certain hydrological risks, caused levees to fail and aggravated the effects of 2005's Hurricane Katrina on the city and its environs.
    Claimants filed hundreds of lawsuits, many of which were consolidated before the district judge a quo. That court worked with plaintiffs' litigation committees to identify several categories of plaintiffs and individual "bellwether" plaintiffs. The opinion concerns three groups of bellwether plaintiffs, all suing the United States for flood damages. One group went to trial; three of its plaintiffs prevailed on all claims, and four did not. Another group was dismissed before trial when the government was found immune. The third has survived motions to dismiss and is proceeding to trial. All losing parties have appealed; the government has also petitioned for a writ of mandamus to stay the third group's trial pending issuance of this opinion. The Appeals Court ruled, "We affirm each of the judgments and deny the petition."
    The Appeals Court concluded, "The district court's careful attention to the law and even more cautious scrutiny of complex facts allow us to uphold its expansive ruling in full, excepting our minor restatement of FCA [Flood Control Act of 1928] immunity. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments in Robinson and Anderson, leaving each party as he was before this appeal. Similarly, we deny the government's petition for a writ of mandamus to stay the Armstrong trial."
    A report on the case in the New York Times (NYT) indicates that the Appeals Court, "upheld a ruling that the Army Corps of Engineers is liable for property owners' claims, saying shoddy work on a shipping channel caused billions of dollars in damage during Hurricane Katrina. The court ruled that the federal government is not immune from lawsuits blaming flood damage on the corps' operation and maintenance of the New Orleans navigation channel." Another report on the Jurist website indicates, "In upholding the district court's ruling, the Fifth Circuit allowed five plaintiffs to recover approximately $720,000."
    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the NYT article (click here). Access the Jurist article (click here). [#Water, #CA5]
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water v. Department of Interior

Mar 2: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 09-17594. Appealed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. As explained by the Appeals Court, the appeal arises from a long-running conflict which has devolved to the present remaining dispute as to the classification of approximately 9,000 acre feet (AF) of water released between June 17 through 24 of 2004 from the Nimbus and New Melones reservoirs within California's Central Valley Project (the CVP or Project) by Defendant-Appellee United States Department of the Interior (Interior), acting through the United States Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau).
    Plaintiff-Appellants San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority and Westlands Water District contend that Interior abused its discretion in failing to apply the latter June 2004 releases against the 800,000 AF of CVP yield especially designated for fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration under section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA).
    The Appeals Court ruled that, "Because we find that the Water Agencies have standing and the accounting which Interior conducted for the latter June 2004 releases did not constitute an abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Federal Appellees and against Appellants.
    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Water, #CA9]