You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
US Army Corps of Engineers liable for Katrina flooding? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Log in

View Full Version : US Army Corps of Engineers liable for Katrina flooding?


sr71blackbird
11-19-2009, 02:03 PM
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/US/11/18/louisiana.katrina.lawsuit/t1larg.nola.flood.file.gi.jpg

Court: Army Corps of Engineers liable for Katrina flooding

The Army Corps of Engineers' failure to properly maintain a shipping channel linking New Orleans, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico led to catastrophic flooding during Hurricane Katrina, a federal court ruled Wednesday.

"It is the court's opinion that the negligence of the Corps, in this instance by failing to maintain the MRGO properly, was not policy, but insouciance, myopia and short-sightedness," U.S. District Court Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. wrote in his lengthy ruling, referring to the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet canal.


LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/18/louisiana.katrina.lawsuit/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

What is your feeling on this? The whole area is practically below sea level anyway, and it should not exist as a dry land mass. Because these levees failed and flooing occured, should the US Army Corps. of Engineers be liable? The potential for lawsuits as a result of this ruling is possible in the trillions of dollars. If they are forced to pay, doesn't it stand to logic that the country (us) would have to cough up that money?

Chigworthy
11-19-2009, 02:08 PM
The Army Corps of Engineers' failure...led to catastrophic flooding during Hurricane Katrina, a federal court ruled Wednesday.

I thought the abnormally powerful hurricane caused all the flooding. Silly me. I guess from this point on, if our government doesn't prevent any and all damage from natural disasters, it's their fault.

Dude!
11-19-2009, 02:12 PM
the people who lived there
knew full well
that one day there would be
a huge problem

that a disaster happened
surprised no one

you live in a hole
next to the Mississippi
you bound to get wet

ridiculous suit

unless you think the govt
should forcefully evict
from California everyone west
of the San Andreus fault

are those fools gonna sue too?

Chigworthy
11-19-2009, 02:15 PM
the people who lived there
knew full well
that one day there would be
a huge problem

that a disaster happened
surprised no one

you live in a hole
next to the Mississippi
you bound to get wet

ridiculous suit

unless you think the govt
should forcefully evict
from California everyone west
of the San Andreus fault

are those fools gonna sue too?

Why everyone west of the fault? Earthquakes aren't directional.

Dude!
11-19-2009, 02:16 PM
Why everyone west of the fault? Earthquakes aren't directional.

i was just thinking about
the part that will slide into
the pacific

yojimbo7248
11-19-2009, 02:16 PM
just wondering how long before someone makes this Obama's fault

boosterp
11-19-2009, 02:20 PM
just wondering how long before someone makes this Obama's fault

I blame Obama!

yojimbo7248
11-19-2009, 02:26 PM
I blame Obama!

thank you!

KnoxHarrington
11-19-2009, 02:30 PM
I thought the abnormally powerful hurricane caused all the flooding. Silly me. I guess from this point on, if our government doesn't prevent any and all damage from natural disasters, it's their fault.

Except everyone keeps forgetting that Katrina actually missed New Orleans, so it only actually hit with the force of a grade II or III hurricane, not with its full force.

The levee system was supposed to be more than capable of handling it.

sr71blackbird
11-19-2009, 02:40 PM
Are you saying that the levee system was suppose to be able to handle what it was hit with? Either way, it does not take a rocket scientist to point out that that land is only there because of manmade measures and nature has a way of reclaiming what is hers. Imagine how much all our taxes can go up now to pay for a settlement from this? Is the ACOE even obligated to construct such things and can they be forced to be liable if it fails? This seems crazy to me, we should not have allowed that area to be rebuilt then!

Chigworthy
11-19-2009, 03:13 PM
I hold the ACOE liable for all the lures I lost in Lake Sonoma because they didn't take all the trees out before they flooded the valley.

Devo37
11-19-2009, 03:13 PM
bullsh!t bloodsucking lawyers and woah-is-me plaintiffs!! the government is not supposed to be an insurance company that pays out every time something bad happens!!!!!!!!!!!! :furious:

but let me guess: "It's not about the money..."

opie's twisted balls
11-19-2009, 03:25 PM
When someone loses their house through no fault of their own then I'm very sympathetic and have no problem opening up the wallet to help out. However, if you build in a flood plain, earthquake zone, hurricane alley, etc. and you come with your hand out when the flood, earthquake or hurricane fucks up your house I say piss off.

Its not like the USACE maliciously damaged the levees to cause the flooding.

Tall_James
11-19-2009, 03:26 PM
"Thank you Army Corps of Engineers!"

http://myspacecomedy.com/images/funny/katrina-beer-loot.jpg

yojimbo7248
11-19-2009, 03:27 PM
Isn't ACORN somehow responsible? Seriously, I heard that Glen Beck made that connection.

boosterp
11-19-2009, 03:34 PM
When someone loses their house through no fault of their own then I'm very sympathetic and have no problem opening up the wallet to help out. However, if you build in a flood plain, earthquake zone, hurricane alley, etc. and you come with your hand out when the flood, earthquake or hurricane fucks up your house I say piss off.

Its not like the USACE maliciously damaged the levees to cause the flooding.

Hence why we have insurance that includes flood protection. Never dealt with FEMA and never want to.

landarch
11-19-2009, 03:36 PM
Didn't the COE warn everyone for years that this would happen? There was no funding to improve the levee system or shipping channels or whatever.

GregoryJoseph
11-19-2009, 03:37 PM
Funny how Mississippi is completely forgotten. Of course New Orleans is the most well known place to be affected, but it got the remnants of Katrina.

Parts of Mississippi were utterly destroyed.

TheMojoPin
11-19-2009, 03:38 PM
Funny how Mississippi is completely forgotten. Of course New Orleans is the most well known place to be affected, but it got the remnants of Katrina.

Parts of Mississippi were utterly destroyed.

Only parts? That Katrina was good for nothin'.

opie's twisted balls
11-19-2009, 03:40 PM
Hence why we have insurance that includes flood protection.
EXACTLY!!! I'm sure like everywhere else there's the same story a few times a year. Some family's house/condo/trailer burns down right before their kids birthday or christmas and wouldn't you know they have no insurance. Or there's a flood and they have no insurance. The media plays the tears and asks for donations. Not a fucking chance! Home owners or tenant insurance isn't that expensive and just like all your other household expenses needs to be worked into your budget.

Aaron Rodgers
11-19-2009, 03:41 PM
Funny how Mississippi is completely forgotten. Of course New Orleans is the most well known place to be affected, but it got the remnants of Katrina.

Parts of Mississippi were utterly destroyed.

But yet Kiln, Mississippi escaped unscathed.

Fucking useless Hurricane.

JohnCharles
11-19-2009, 03:43 PM
Funny how Mississippi is completely forgotten. Of course New Orleans is the most well known place to be affected, but it got the remnants of Katrina.

Parts of Mississippi were utterly destroyed.

That is true but, the majority look at a metropolitan area of close to 2 million people losing 40% of it's population.

Chigworthy
11-19-2009, 04:14 PM
Funny how Mississippi is completely forgotten. Of course New Orleans is the most well known place to be affected, but it got the remnants of Katrina.

Parts of Mississippi were utterly destroyed.

I'm sure the ACOE fucked up all the levees in Miss. as well. We need more levees, everywhere. I wan't a levee around anything of value. And an automatic guardrail.

boosterp
11-19-2009, 04:17 PM
EXACTLY!!! I'm sure like everywhere else there's the same story a few times a year. Some family's house/condo/trailer burns down right before their kids birthday or christmas and wouldn't you know they have no insurance. Or there's a flood and they have no insurance. The media plays the tears and asks for donations. Not a fucking chance! Home owners or tenant insurance isn't that expensive and just like all your other household expenses needs to be worked into your budget.

My apartment complex requires renter's insurance and wants proof when it's renewed. Mortgages here require insurance, etc. so why is this type of insurance not mandatory?

Furtherman
11-19-2009, 04:28 PM
The hurricane caused the flooding, and as Knox pointed out, it could have been much, much worse. No one could have predicted what was going to happen, only what might. It's a BS ruling that just points the finger at the ACOE. The gov't of New Orleans past is more guilty of not taking the right precautions due to protecting the money districts, but those people aren't around anymore. There may have been some small things they could do, but nothing matters vs. the strength of nature. This should not even have been brought up and the money would have been better spent helping the poor of NO.

Tallman388
11-19-2009, 04:35 PM
How long ago were the levees originally built? Is it safe to say that maybe somebody forgot about the expiration date on them and didn't let anyone know?
You can't make the COE liable for something that the current members didn't build or weren't ordered to inspect.

SatCam
11-19-2009, 04:40 PM
Im just going to go ahead and blame Steve Jobs and his Apple Core of Faggoteers


i just came up with that

Chigworthy
11-19-2009, 05:24 PM
Im just going to go ahead and blame Steve Jobs and his Apple Core of Faggoteers


i just came up with that

You have created a lexiconic diamond. I still blame Steve Jobs and his Apple Core of Faggoteers for my wife's garbage ipod and second-party peripherals that broke within 3 months.

opie's twisted balls
11-19-2009, 06:47 PM
My apartment complex requires renter's insurance and wants proof when it's renewed. Mortgages here require insurance, etc. so why is this type of insurance not mandatory?
Because "we" (as in the entire human race) are stupid and don't make people accept the consequences of their actions.

Syd
11-20-2009, 02:34 AM
Didn't the COE warn everyone for years that this would happen? There was no funding to improve the levee system or shipping channels or whatever.

Any engineer that is remotely involved with any sort of infrastructure has been saying for years it's crumbling. From the levees in New Orleans to the I-35 bridge in Minnesota. States constantly take money from DOTs budget and expect things to keep working perfectly. We're going to be seeing a great deal many more bridge collapses and levees failing in other areas as people refuse to raise taxes to properly fund for basic maintenance.

Jujubees2
11-20-2009, 07:52 AM
Did anyone read the article? The blame with Corps is that they didn't properly maintain the shipping channel, which is their job.

Duval ruled that because the Corps failed to maintain the shipping channel, erosion widened it, and its banks -- which helped protect the levees -- deteriorated, leaving the levees unprotected, undermined and more vulnerable to waves coming off Lake Borgne. The Corps also failed to take other actions, such as armoring the banks with rocks, the attorneys said.

And as for insurance, flood insurance isn’t required and it difficult to get. And in a case like his, the insurance companies will claim that the damage was done by the winds and therefore, not covered by flood insurance. Regular renters insurance wouldn’t cover a hurricane.

angrymissy
11-20-2009, 07:54 AM
Anyone with a mortgage on their house is usually required to obtain flood insurance as per their mortgage company. We lapsed on ours and our company was like "OH HAI, we'll buy it 4 u then and tack it onto your mortgage!! KTHX!", it was going to be like 4x what we paid on our own. It's pretty easy to get, you get it through the Govt actually. I'm in the highest flood plain and it costs me $650/year.

I guess if you own your house outright, you wouldn't be required to have flood insurance, but you'd be kind of dumb to not get it.

topless_mike
11-20-2009, 10:06 AM
i say the blame goes to each and every owner in that area.
you live below the water line. you know this and still choose to live there.

i also have no sympathy for those that build their houses on the side of the mountains for that gawjus view in california and then cry when their house is sliding down into the pacific from a mudslide.

Serpico1103
11-20-2009, 01:02 PM
i say the blame goes to each and every owner in that area.
you live below the water line. you know this and still choose to live there.

i also have no sympathy for those that build their houses on the side of the mountains for that gawjus view in california and then cry when their house is sliding down into the pacific from a mudslide.

I agree. Add to that list anyone who parks a nice car on the street and it gets stolen or a pretty girl who dresses sexy and gets raped. Be responsible for yourself.

keithy_19
11-20-2009, 01:12 PM
I agree. Add to that list anyone who parks a nice car on the street and it gets stolen or a pretty girl who dresses sexy and gets raped. Be responsible for yourself.

There is a difference between being raped and living in an area where it is very likely that your house can be damaged by a flood.

If you own a house in an area where it is very likely to be flooded and do not take an OBVIOUS step in protecting your assets, than who is there to blame other than your faulty decision making? Besides the earth for showing you its power, of course.

SatCam
11-20-2009, 01:26 PM
There's a reason everyone in new orleans is poor

Freakshow
11-20-2009, 01:59 PM
Anyone with a mortgage on their house is usually required to obtain flood insurance as per their mortgage company. We lapsed on ours and our company was like "OH HAI, we'll buy it 4 u then and tack it onto your mortgage!! KTHX!", it was going to be like 4x what we paid on our own. It's pretty easy to get, you get it through the Govt actually. I'm in the highest flood plain and it costs me $650/year.

I guess if you own your house outright, you wouldn't be required to have flood insurance, but you'd be kind of dumb to not get it.

Only if you're in the floodplain, though. People who live on a mountain don't need flood insurance.

And since someone claimed the government isn't an insurance company, that's basically what FEMA is, and why it couldn't really run a cleanup of the area (basically only the military can do this, and eventually they brought Gen. Honoroe in and he started giving order and everybody listened, or whatever Nagin said. They determine if you need assistance (individual assistance and public assistance) and cut you a check.


And they should have let nature take it course and the Mississippi make a new channel around the Atchafalaya to the gulf, way east of New Orleans...

Serpico1103
11-20-2009, 02:43 PM
There is a difference between being raped and living in an area where it is very likely that your house can be damaged by a flood.

If you own a house in an area where it is very likely to be flooded and do not take an OBVIOUS step in protecting your assets, than who is there to blame other than your faulty decision making? Besides the earth for showing you its power, of course.

If the Army Corps. negligence is what caused people to lose their house, than it is the Army Corps fault and not the homeowners. I do not think that people can be asked to take precautions in case a government agency fails to act reasonably.

keithy_19
11-20-2009, 04:15 PM
If the Army Corps. negligence is what caused people to lose their house, than it is the Army Corps fault and not the homeowners. I do not think that people can be asked to take precautions in case a government agency fails to act reasonably.

Would the victims families of 9/11 be able to sue the government because the government did not prevent an attack?

Serpico1103
11-20-2009, 04:41 PM
Would the victims families of 9/11 be able to sue the government because the government did not prevent an attack?

Did the government act reasonably? If the Army Corps job was to maintain the channel, and they were "monumentally negligent", then I think the people have a viable claim.

If the US government was "monumentally negligent" in securing the country than the 9/11 victims have a viable claim.

The question, as I see it is, did the Army Corps make the situation worse than it would have been through their negligence. People assumed the risks of a storm, but they should not assume the risks of a "monumentally negligent" party.

midwestjeff
11-20-2009, 04:48 PM
You can lead the Us Army Corps of Engineers to water...

boosterp
11-20-2009, 07:42 PM
Did anyone read the article? The blame with Corps is that they didn't properly maintain the shipping channel, which is their job.

Duval ruled that because the Corps failed to maintain the shipping channel, erosion widened it, and its banks -- which helped protect the levees -- deteriorated, leaving the levees unprotected, undermined and more vulnerable to waves coming off Lake Borgne. The Corps also failed to take other actions, such as armoring the banks with rocks, the attorneys said.

And as for insurance, flood insurance isn’t required and it difficult to get. And in a case like his, the insurance companies will claim that the damage was done by the winds and therefore, not covered by flood insurance. Regular renters insurance wouldn’t cover a hurricane.

I live in a flood plane, I have to have flood insurance says my state.

If the Army Corps. negligence is what caused people to lose their house, than it is the Army Corps fault and not the homeowners. I do not think that people can be asked to take precautions in case a government agency fails to act reasonably.

But the people still lived in a flood plane and were vulnerable.