The Stormwater Blogs

The Blogger

Janice Kaspersen Janice Kaspersen Stormwater Editor

More from this blogger

  1. Dam Breach in Iowa
  2. Two Weeks to StormCon
  3. Mosquitoes and Malaria
  4. More Mosquitoes
  5. Storms in the Gulf
  6. Seeking StormCon Moderators
  7. Never Flooded Before
  8. Storms in the Midwest
  9. Restoring the Penobscot
  10. Hurricanes and Oil
  11. The Uninvited
  12. Half of Our Trees Are Missing
  13. A Hairy Solution
  14. Oil in the Gulf
  15. A Multitalented Plant
  16. Where It Falls
  17. Floating BMPs
  18. Regulating Copper in Brake Pads
  19. EPA Addresses Water Contaminants
  20. Getting Along With the Neighbors
  21. Local Voices in Washington
  22. Out of Sight
  23. Sentinel Species
  24. Collection System
  25. Living Underground
  26. Keeping Stormwater Onsite in LA
  27. Appealing the New Flood Maps
  28. EPA Sets Nutrient Limits for Florida
  29. Some Like It Hot
  30. Skip the Bag, Save the River
  31. Maintenance The Unglamorous Necessity
  32. Put the LID on Stormwater
  33. Certifying Performance
  34. EPA's Construction Effluent Guidelines Released
  35. StormCon Abstracts Due December 2
  36. Reclassified
  37. Reusing Runoff
  38. More Than Just Pipes
  39. Two Announcements from EPA
  40. Separation Anxiety
  41. Federal Funding for Local Projects
  42. Undoing Progress
  43. StormCon 2010 Call for Papers
  44. A Decimal Point Makes a Difference
  45. Lovely as a Tree
  46. Stimulus Funds and Stormwater
  47. Thanks to the StormCon Session Moderators!
  48. Live From StormCon..
  49. StormCon '09 More You Should Know About
  50. Counting Beach Closures
  51. Still Growing
  52. Density Done Well
  53. A Combination Problem
  54. One Driveway at a Time
  55. Underground
  56. Making Sure Infrastructure Doesn't Become a Hazard
  57. A Beach Comes Back
  58. With a Grain of Salt
  59. Blocking Out the Storm
  60. LID in Washington State
  61. Florida Gains Land in Public-Private Partnership
  62. A High-Density Debate
  63. Stormwater Management in Plain Sight
  64. Charging More for Potential Pollutants
  65. At Home in the Watershed
  66. We Have Met the Polluter - He Is Us
  67. Mobile Car Wash Runoff
  68. Red River Rising
  69. Summer School
  70. Rain Barrels, Anyone
  71. Getting Serious About the Weather
  72. Taking the Pulse of Utilities
  73. Not Your Ordinary Utility Debate
  74. How Dangerous Is Chitosan, Really Do We Need Certification
  75. Debating Dollars
  76. Demonstrating Green
  77. Paperless Stormwater
  78. Looking for Shovel-Ready Projects
  79. Online Erosion Control Training - Let Us Know What You Think
  80. No Relief Yet for the Northwest
  81. Happy Holidays From Stormwater
  82. Remedying Retention Pond Dangers
  83. New Funding on the Way
  84. The Case of the Missing Manhole Cover
  85. StormCon '09 Abstracts Are Due December 3
  86. A New Plan in the Everglades
  87. Down the Drain
  88. Gunk in the Ocean Our Problem
  89. Save the Date December 3 Is Closer Than You Think
  90. Watershed-Based Permitting
  91. Looking Outside Our Own Backyard
  92. The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
  93. Show Me the Money, If You Can Find It
  94. The Safety Issue
  95. StormCon '09 Call for Papers
  96. Worse Weather Or Does It Just Seem That Way
  97. Gustav a Reminder of What's Left To Do
  98. Recovering After the Storm
  99. Who Owns the Rain
  100. BMPs and the Bigger Picture
  101. How Are Your Pipes
  102. Regulations We've Got Those Covered, Too
  103. You Asked for BMPs - We've Got 'Em
  104. Simplifying Public Outreach
  105. New Terminology
  106. Buying Time and Space for the Everglades
  107. The Worst Is Over
  108. Midwest Flooding - Could This Have Happened Differently
  109. EPA's Message to Homebuilders
  110. StormCon '08 Is Less Than Two Months Away
  111. Welcome to our new Website!
  112. The State of Water Quality
view all

SW Editor's Blog

December 7th, 2009 2:01pm PST

Federal Responsibility for Katrina Flooding

Posted By Janice Kaspersen 1 Comment

The news is a few weeks old but still creating waves: a federal judge ruled in November that “gross negligence” by the Army Corps of Engineers was responsible for some of the flooding from Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

US District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. said that the Corps was aware of, and had admited, problems with the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet but failed to fix them, and he awarded a total of $719,000 to a group of flood victims from New Orleans’ Lower 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish. It was the first time the government has been held responsible for any flood damage from Katrina, and the decision (which the government has said it will appeal) opens the door for other suits.

However, Judge Duval did draw a distinction between the damage resulting from the MRGO and other Katrina-related claims. He ruled in 2008 that under federal law, the Corps has immunity from damages caused by the failure of various flood-control structures. The difference in this case is that the MRGO is a navigation channel, not primarily a flood-control structure, and the immunity does not apply. He said essentially that the Corps’ activities in the MRGO—such as failing to armor the channel’s banks to protect against ship wakes and allowing saltwater to encroach on and destroy wetlands—contributed to the destruction of a section of levee.

What do you think of the precedent this ruling sets—not only for Katrina-related damage, but for federal responsibility for maintenance of infrastructure? Do you agree with the judge’s ruling?

What Do You Think?

Post a Comment

mi ms4

December 9th, 2009 5:48 AM PT

I visited the Lower 9th Ward in July 2006. I'll never forget the large "X" painted on the outside of each remaining home showing when it was inspected, by whom, and how many, if any, bodies were found. Those were the remaining homes, but the three streets closest to the failed levee were completely devoid of structures. That area did not have the visible evidence of how many had perished but it must have been the most deadly area. I work for government, and I am well aware that my agency is not immune to prosecution for any action where I or a coworker are neglegent. Government serves the people, and it should have accountability for its actions. I'm not saying that the resources are always there to keep our infrastructure working and safe. If failures can be tracked to a clear inability of government to do its job because of lack of funds, then the courts should show that they are not liable. But if neglegence is identified, a penalty is appropriate. A few hundred thousand dollars for the loss of multiple lives and a whole section of a town? That's the part I don't get.

Post a Comment

Not a subscriber? Sign Up
 
 
*  
 




 

Get Stormwater E-mail Updates!

Get weekly news and updates through our Stormwater e-mail newsletter!