|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2009 14:21:05 GMT
A US Federal judge has ruled(for the first time)that the US Army Corps of Engineers was indeed negligent in their maintenance or lack thereof the levee system built to protect the City of New Orleans from flooding. Deemed a man made disaster,Katrina's flood waters were ruled a direct result of forty years or more of gross negligence on the part of the Corps. The case which was brought before a federal judge after five people from the Lower 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish sued the Corps. The judge ruled that $700,000 be rewarded to the plaintiffs in punitive damages. While this is only a pittance,the victory is monumental,is a vindication of sorts and opens the door for the Federal Government to take responsibility at long last and perhaps focus a little more seriously on restoration of the wetlands. www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=120563031&m=120562827 |
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Nov 19, 2009 15:50:42 GMT
I read the NYTimes story ( here) this morning before I saw your OP. While I was initially overjoyed upon seeing the headline, the more I read, the more I became concerned that none of the people slated for redress because of the ruling will ever get anything other than more heartbreak, struggle, and frustration. What is your take based on local news stories? For those with questions about points mentioned in the links, here is the Wikipedia article on the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Canal. Here is the lawsuit story from Bloombergcom.. If you prefer less reading, for a good overview go to this local tv news broadcast. Those viewing the tv video might recognize the name of Ivor van Heerden, who became a voice crying in the wilderness which, if heeded, could have prevented a great deal of the suffering caused by Katrina. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2009 17:30:59 GMT
I haven't had an opportunity to see or read any of the local stuff on this yet. Only heard the ruling on NPR early this a.m. before setting off to work. My initial reaction is,I share the same sentiment as the plaintiff's attorney in that it offers a measure of vindication and paves the way for future decisions. I never believed that these people would see anything at all so my hope is that the ruling will if anything secure the next generation from having to suffer the same sorrows.
Federal funding to help restore the wetlands here and all other major coastal areas is the most I can hope for at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2009 19:25:46 GMT
$700,000 is a pitiful amount, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2009 0:23:32 GMT
$700,000 is a pitiful amount, isn't it? Seems like a very lame arbitrary amount doesn't it? All I could find with reference to this was that the judge did not reward the plaintiffs for mental anguish because all of them had evacuated and some of the water that caused flood damage was not from the MRGO. |
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Nov 20, 2009 2:10:02 GMT
Thanks for the info. $700,000 seems ridiculously small.
I was in Amsterdam when this happened. The Dutch just couldn't believe it, when the low-lying lands were in another modern, wealthy country.
|
|
