"It’s a very simple case, a very simple case, and that is why they’re trying to kill it through the political process, because they are scared to death that if they go to court they will lose. And when you look at the statewide implications, potentially this is the biggest environmental lawsuit in the country’s history."
A followup to last year's interview of John Barry regarding the New Orleans East Bank levee board lawsuit. Podcast here; transcript below the fold. I actually got to hear someone say start building land. And the gold standard is a cypress tree. Read below the fold...
August 2012. New Orleans. Hurricane Isaac. First real test of the $14 billion rebuilt flood protection system since Katrina. You have reporters from the New York Times and the Times-Picayune embedded in your control center, and you're getting reports of failures in your pumps, your gates, your water level gauges, and your electrical system. Water's rising and the public is watching. What do you do?
Answer: Turn the data off and tell the reporters everything's working fine.
You are the Army Corps of Engineers.
Louisiana flood protection board sues Big Oil for wetlands loss: Harry Shearer interviews John Barry
On Le Show this past Sunday, Harry Shearer interviewed John Barry about Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - East's lawsuit filed against 97 oil companies, using a 200-year-old Louisiana statute.
"The Louisiana legal tradition comes from the French and Spanish. It’s civil law as opposed to common law, which is the English tradition for the rest of the country. And there’s a provision that goes back to the Romans in civil law called 'servitude of drain,' and that provision – and it’s also in statute in Louisiana, has been for 200 years – says that one neighbor cannot send more water from their property onto someone else’s property, period. And by destroying the marsh, the oil industry clearly is sending more water, increased storm surge against our levees, than would otherwise be the case. And I think that’s a very, very powerful claim."
"There has been zero substantive attack on our position. No one has said we are wrong about the land loss and no one has denied the fact that the oil industry agreed in writing when they were given permits for nearly all of this work that they would fix it when they left."
"We want them to stop sending more water our way and either do what they already promised to do in written agreements when they got permits to dredge these canals, or pay us some money so we can build better flood protection."
I'm not sure if this is as bad as it looks, but I'm interested in seeing what other people think. In danps's post on emergent party laziness, I commented that Greens were irrelevant in California, because other than the presidential race, there are none on our ballot. Boy, was I wrong.
Here's "top two" in a nutshell: Read below the fold...
"I'd like to cover everyone -- that would be the moral thing to do -- but it would be immoral to bankrupt the country while doing so," Landrieu said. The public option as currently conceived is expected to be a deficit reducer.
Now as we know, HR 676 would save the US Treasury $400 billion a year. That is $400 billion a year that Landrieu and others are willing to spend to prop up health insurance parasites. Read below the fold...
Many Douglass supporters accept that some high schools should move to more state-of-the-art buildings, but they argue the disappearance of Douglass' program altogether would mark the loss of an institution that has stood as a symbol of community resilience in the 9th Ward for decades.
Nantrell Malveo, a 2008 graduate, compared her experience at Douglass favorably to her time at a Jefferson Parish school generally considered to be better.
"I learned more at the run-down school (Douglass) because I could relate to it, and it taught me to fight for what mattered," Malveo said.Read below the fold...