Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Lawyer & Attorney : Erich P. Rapp : Kean Miller Law Firm : Serving New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Shreveport, Louisiana

I have long contended that the federal government is subject to suit in tort for the damage that they have caused to Louisiana's coastal wetlands. United States Federal District Court Judge Stanwood Duval entered a ruling on Friday May 2, 2008 supporting this position.

On Friday, Judge Duval held that the United States Army Corps of Engineers is subject to suit for alleged defects in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet ("MRGO") that destroyed wetlands and are alleged to have turned MRGO into a funnel for hurricane storm surge. MRGO is a navigational canal build and operated by the Corps connecting the Gulf of Mexico to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal also known as the Industrial Canal in New Orelans via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

Judge Duval rejected the Corps' claim that federal law makes the agency immune from lawsuits over damage caused by its flood protection projects. The judge found that because the navigational channel is not part of the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan, the Corps is not immune from suit.

The ruling on Friday is not a final decision in the case. It does not find that the Corps is liable for damages caused from flooding in East New Orleans, the 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish. This determination will only be made at the conclusion of the trial.

For a more detailed account of the decision, see Susan Finch's article in the New Orleans Times Picayune entitled: Judge: Corps can be sued for flood.  

If ultimately upheld, this decision would support other tort suits against the federal government and the Corps of Engineers related to damage that the Corps has caused to Louisiana's coastal wetlands.

Erich P Rapp

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Barry, the author of Rising Tide, has published an Op-Ed piece in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday April 23, 2008 entitled: Who Should Pay to Protect New Orleans. I have never seen the cause of the coastal land loss problem described more succinctly or the solution described more accurately.

Barry points out what I have been saying less artfully for many years. The most fundamental reason that the coastal wetlands in Louisiana has been lost, particularly below New Orleans, is the reduction in the sediment load in the Mississippi River drainage system. This reduction has resulted from the construction of dams in the tributaries with particular emphasis on the dams built in the Missouri River in North and South Dakota. The lower portion of Louisiana's "bird's foot" did not erode to open water because of levees in Louisiana. Below a point, no levees separate the wetlands from the river and yet the land continues to dissolve into the Gulf. The problem is not the result of a local action.  

Louisiana derives no direct benefit from those Corps dams in the Dakota's and Montana. They were built to control flooding and improve navigation on the Missouri River. In fact, the Corps of Engineers claims that it has no authority to manage the Missouri River system and those dams for the benefit of the Mississippi River or its users in any way. The Mississippi River is treated as disconnected and unrelated to the Missouri River for all purposes that the Corps of Engineers considers.

John Barry is exactly right when he says the coastal land loss problem in Louisiana has been caused as the result of actions that benefited other parts of the nation far removed from Louisiana. The protection and restoration of coastal Louisiana is a national problem requiring federal action.

Erich P Rapp

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As discussed in earlier entries, the coastal wetlands of Louisiana have been built and in the past maintained by sediment transported in the Mississippi River and deposited in the coastal wetlands. This natural process creates a relationship between the riparian lands in the upstream course of the river and the delta of the river. The existence of the wetlands depends on this relationship and the law protects it.

Louisiana law provides for predial servitudes. These servitudes concern the legal relationship between different "estates" or tracts of land or real property with different owners. In a predial servitude, a "dominant" estate has a right in relation to a "servient" estate. For example, one who builds a wall near a property boundary has an obligation as a servient estate to keep the wall in good repair so as to prevent damage to the neighboring "dominant" estate. This is a legal  servitude found in a Louisiana civil code article. Louisiana law recognizes legal servitudes, i.e., predial servitudes imposed by statute and conventional servitudes, i.e., predial servitudes created by contractual agreement between the owners of the separate estates. 

Louisiana law also recognizes a natural servitude. A natural servitude arises from the natural relationship between different estates. The statutes creating natural servitudes are found at Louisiana Civil Code arts. 654 to 658. These articles give the courts the power to examine the facts about how two estates or tracts of land relate to each other, and these articles allow the courts to find the existence of a servitude even though no contract or statute provides a specific description of the servitude.

These civil code articles create a natural servitude between the riparian landowners upstream on the Mississippi River and the coastal wetlands of Louisiana. In this natural servitude, the coastal wetlands are a dominant estate and the riparian lands upstream in the Mississippi River drainage basin (including the river's tributaries) from the coastal wetlands are servient estates.

The historic basis for the natural servitude is found in the Napoleonic Code and was ultimately derived from Roman law. Interestingly, this natural servitude bears a striking resemblance to riparian water rights recognized in the majority of the other states. The law of riparian water rights provides that riparian landowners can use the waters of a river, but cannot change any characteristic of the flow of the river to such an extent as to be detrimental to the interests of the riparian owners downstream. 

Also of note, the concept of a riparian water right entered the common law of the United States in a decision written by Justice Story in 1827 in the case of Tyler v. Wilkinson and subsequently referenced by Chancellor Kent in his commentaries on American law in 1828. Justice Story is said to have based his decision on Roman law.  The decision of Story as cited by Kent was widely relied upon by courts in the United States and England in giving form to riparian water rights.

The protection of all characteristics of the flow of a river including the quality of its sediment transport and the relationship of the sediment transport to the riparian land has a long basis in legal history of the common and civil law. In fact, this legal tradition dates back to the very beginning of law as recognized in western civilization, i..e, Roman law.

The existence of a natural servitude raises issues of choice of law between states, interstate legal conflict, federal immunity and countless other related issues. Nevertheless, a long legal history rooted in the very beginning of law, as we know it, which is now common to most of the states and the federal government of the United States has formed a basis for protecting the sediment transport in the Mississippi River that creates and maintains the coastal wetlands of Louisiana.

Of course, this entry barely touches the surface of the many legal issues that impact on a property damage claim based upon such a natural servitude. More later.

Erich Rapp.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

No one disputes the existence of property rights in coastal wetlands of Louisiana. People own wetland property. Nevertheless, the federal government destroys this property everyday and does not pay damages.  A claim for this damage could be made. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said a claim against the federal government required "turning square corners."  That may be so, and this claim is complex, but it exists. One of the purposes of this blog is to discuss  federal liability for damage to the coastal wetlands in Louisiana. That discussion will take many entries. Today, I begin with the philosophical.

When one owns property, what does one actually own. The Louisiana Civil Code art. 462 speaks of "tracts of land" as constituting immovable property. The coastal wetlands are tracts of land, and the government grants property rights in these wetlands.  The coastal wetlands, however, are not typical tracts of land. They exist not as a static thing but as the result of a dynamic process. The wetlands are continuously subsiding, and the flood waters of the Mississippi River were in the past depositing new sediment on that wetlands to offset the subsidence. When that process is disrupted, the land is destroyed. At present, the amount of sediment being deposited by the Mississippi River is not offsetting subsidence and thus, the coastal wetlands are lost to the open water.

I, thus, began wondering if the federal government had ever recognized and protected an interest in real property as a process, and not as a static tract of land. Amazingly, I found an answer to this question, not in a law book, but in a book on the Mississippi River written by landscape architects.

On page 48 of Mississippi River Flooding - Designing a Shifting Landscape by Anuradha Mathur and Dilip da Cunha, the authors describe the Stack Island Supreme Court case. 

In 1995, the United States Supreme Court decided the Stack Island case. The case involved 2200 acres of mud in the water course of the Mississippi River. In the early 1800's, the muddy acres were an island near the bank of the river on the Mississippi side. By the time of the case in the 1990's, supposedly the same muddy acres were no longer an island and were instead attached to the bank of the river on the Louisiana side. Nevertheless, the court found that these muddy acres on the Louisiana bank of the river were the same property that was an island in the river in the 1800's. The New York Times reporter, Hubert B. Herring writing about the case on November 5, 1995 asked, “Existential Geology Anyone?”

The Stack Island case gave me a new vision of the coastal wetlands. The coastal wetlands are not static land washing away. They are a dynamic process of subsidence offset previously by sediment deposit from the Mississippi River. Yet to the casual look, the wetlands are perceived as land just as any other land. With the Stack Island case, now in the eyes of the law, perception is reality or in this case "real property."  The property owners have a property right in the wetlands even if the soil making up the land changes in the dynamic process of subsidence and sediment deposit.  The Louisiana coastal wetlands are an “existential” property and legally protected as such. The wetlands are real property because they are perceived to be real property and not because they are once and always made up of the same soil.

Erich P Rapp

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks