Landowners in flood plain file lawsuit over flooding

[carlfense]

Weren't some levees purposely breached by the corp of engineers to relieve stress on other levees around some cities? in those cases the farmers and other residents affected would surely be entitled to compensation whether they had flood insurance or not since the corp decided that they were expendable.

Not that I know of . . . but I'd be interested in reading about it if you find something.

 

found this on wiki. not sure if there is anything else out there but i am not the best at knowing how to find this stuff. was just going from memory when i made the first post

 

during record-breaking flooding in 2011, the US Army Corps of Engineers blew up a section of a Mississippi River levee with dynamite to open the New Madrid Floodway. The floodway was used for farming and had about 200 residents at the time. The levee at Bird's Point was designed to be removed if necessary so that Mississippi water levels would be lowered taking pressure off levees for miles upstream in more populated areas such as Cairo, IL and New Madrid, MO.

That'd be a much stronger case . . . but it turns out that the property near the Bird's Point levee was subject to a flowage easement. (See here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-farmland-swamped-after-levee-breach-to-help-cairo-ill/article_3c73c9f8-74ff-11e0-a74d-0019bb30f31a.html )

 

As far as I know the plaintiffs in the recent case don't have this sort of overt act on which to base their claims. In fact, they're trying to do the opposite and blur the lines between intentional pulses in years other than 2011 to show causation and then focus on the catastrophic losses of 2011 to show their damages.

[commando]

Weren't some levees purposely breached by the corp of engineers to relieve stress on other levees around some cities? in those cases the farmers and other residents affected would surely be entitled to compensation whether they had flood insurance or not since the corp decided that they were expendable.

Not that I know of . . . but I'd be interested in reading about it if you find something.

 

found this on wiki. not sure if there is anything else out there but i am not the best at knowing how to find this stuff. was just going from memory when i made the first post

 

during record-breaking flooding in 2011, the US Army Corps of Engineers blew up a section of a Mississippi River levee with dynamite to open the New Madrid Floodway. The floodway was used for farming and had about 200 residents at the time. The levee at Bird's Point was designed to be removed if necessary so that Mississippi water levels would be lowered taking pressure off levees for miles upstream in more populated areas such as Cairo, IL and New Madrid, MO.

That'd be a much stronger case . . . but it turns out that the property near the Bird's Point levee was subject to a flowage easement. (See here: http://www.stltoday....19bb30f31a.html )

 

As far as I know the plaintiffs in the recent case don't have this sort of overt act on which to base their claims. In fact, they're trying to do the opposite and blur the lines between intentional pulses in years other than 2011 to show causation and then focus on the catastrophic losses of 2011 to show their damages.

 

i am just a poor carpenter, not a lawyer so not sure why i am getting so involved in this thread....but i read it that they are claiming a change in corp policies is the problem. this link states their claim a bit better then the first article in this thread IMO.

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20140305/NEWS/303050120/Landowners-along-Missouri-River-sue-U-S-Corps-over-flooding-seek-damages

[carlfense]

i am just a poor carpenter, not a lawyer so not sure why i am getting so involved in this thread....but i read it that they are claiming a change in corp policies is the problem. this link states their claim a bit better then the first article in this thread IMO.

 

http://www.desmoines...ng-seek-damages

Hey, I was a poor carpenter before I was a poor lawyer and many days I wish that I was still building.

 

They are claiming that the change in corps policies caused the damage. The problem is that most of the damages that they list comes from 2011 . . . and they have to show that it wasn't the record rainfall that caused the flooding but rather those changed policies. That's going to be awfully tough . . . which explains why they're muddying the waters with the talk about "pulses" in years other than 2011.

 

I read the lawsuit. I'd be surprised if it's a winning argument but we'll see what a jury does with it. I sure can't see it getting resolved prior to trial.

[JJ Husker]

How is this significantly different than people in the New Orleans area who live below sea level and lower than lake Pontchetrain (sp) crying and whining that the government owes them housing and relief after they get swamped by yet another hurricane? I won't even go into them being warned to get out, ignoring the warnings, and then needing to be rescued on our dime.

 

I think most people's unhappiness with Katrina was with the immediate response to the storm. Maybe some people are expecting a free house.... But I think most people really just thought the United States government would at least get supplies to the stranded.

 

I would agree with that but I think it also goes to a deeper mindset and conditioning of the people affected. In NO there were a lot of poorer inner city people affected that were used to the government providing housing, food assistance, etc. We had terrible flooding here in the Greeley/Evans CO area last year. Many of the people affected also tended to be lower income but, there was no big out cry about the lack of response by FEMA as in NO. It's not because the response was any better because it wasn't. My business was about 3 blocks from the waters edge and I travelled all around the area and never saw jack from FEMA. Some faith based charities rushed in to help with food and water but FEMA and the Red Cross were late to the party and had virtually no detectable presence. There are still whole neighborhoods abandoned, fenced off with chain link, and no sign of any demolition or rebuilding by anyone. To be honest, I have no idea where all those people went. I really think most of the squawking from Katrina was simply because the majority of the people affected were not used to having to do/provide anything for themselves. Well that and the fact that Bush was never cut any slack in the press. People need to realize that when disaster strikes, there is only so much any government entity can do to help out. There will still be a whole bunch of suffering and inconvenience no matter how quick or extensive the help. People need to buck up and do what they can for themselves. When they're not willing to do anything for themselves, then you see what happened in Katrina.

[tschu]

How is this significantly different than people in the New Orleans area who live below sea level and lower than lake Pontchetrain (sp) crying and whining that the government owes them housing and relief after they get swamped by yet another hurricane? I won't even go into them being warned to get out, ignoring the warnings, and then needing to be rescued on our dime.

 

I think most people's unhappiness with Katrina was with the immediate response to the storm. Maybe some people are expecting a free house.... But I think most people really just thought the United States government would at least get supplies to the stranded.

 

I would agree with that but I think it also goes to a deeper mindset and conditioning of the people affected. In NO there were a lot of poorer inner city people affected that were used to the government providing housing, food assistance, etc. We had terrible flooding here in the Greeley/Evans CO area last year. Many of the people affected also tended to be lower income but, there was no big out cry about the lack of response by FEMA as in NO. It's not because the response was any better because it wasn't. My business was about 3 blocks from the waters edge and I travelled all around the area and never saw jack from FEMA. Some faith based charities rushed in to help with food and water but FEMA and the Red Cross were late to the party and had virtually no detectable presence. There are still whole neighborhoods abandoned, fenced off with chain link, and no sign of any demolition or rebuilding by anyone. To be honest, I have no idea where all those people went. I really think most of the squawking from Katrina was simply because the majority of the people affected were not used to having to do/provide anything for themselves. Well that and the fact that Bush was never cut any slack in the press. People need to realize that when disaster strikes, there is only so much any government entity can do to help out. There will still be a whole bunch of suffering and inconvenience no matter how quick or extensive the help. People need to buck up and do what they can for themselves. When they're not willing to do anything for themselves, then you see what happened in Katrina.

Whoa whoa whoa....flooding in Greeley and a Category 4/5 hurricane hitting New Orleans are not remotely comparable.

[JJ Husker]

Uh actually they are. The scope and scale of the damage was very similar. Do a little research if you doubt me. However, I can understand why you may think that. It was much more spread out here and the national news let it go extremely quickly. Plus it was seemingly much more palatable for the media to constantly harp on FEMA and Bush for Katrina. I know you are doubting my claim but the flooding in this area was on par with Katrina for damage and displaced people.

[tschu]

But it was not on par with the suddenness and massive scope of a single-event, major-impact disaster. Katrina utterly destroyed an extremely high-density metropolitan area, as well as the surrounding area for hundreds of miles around. The difference is the very high density of very poor people concentrated directly in the middle of the worst of the damage, an area left literally overnight with zero infrastructure, no shelter, no food, and no water. And no way to get any of that to anyone in this high-density area aside from government and disaster relief agencies literally helicoptering it in.

 

Flooding was a problem whose scope and damages were certainly comparable, but the number of people affected and the immediacy of impact were not nearly as bad as Katrina. A flooding event like that - you go several miles away and you have access to electricity, food, water. With Katrina, you had thousands essentially trapped inside a city, overnight, with an area hundreds of miles around utterly decimated, with no clean water, no food, no power. You aren't looking at this logically. You're trying to make a story fit your narrative that you think it's the poor people's fault for being dependent on the government already or something.

[tschu]

2013 Colorado flooding: $2 billion in damage, 8 deaths

 

2005 Hurricane Katrina: $81 billion in damage, 1,833 deaths

 

should I spend the rest of the night humoring your ridiculous statement

[JJ Husker]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

[tschu]

Their response was based on the fact that relying on the government for help was their only option, not because they were somehow conditioned for a handout.

[Junior]

Their response was based on the fact that relying on the government for help was their only option, not because they were somehow conditioned for a handout.

 

"Them who got got out of town, them who ain't got left to drown." - Springsteen

[Junior]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

 

You're not blaming the people for being poor, you're just blaming them for being poor.

[JJ Husker]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

 

You're not blaming the people for being poor, you're just blaming them for being poor.

 

Acknowledging the reality of being poor in the inner city is a far cry from blaming people for being poor but whatever makes you feel good.

[Junior]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

 

You're not blaming the people for being poor, you're just blaming them for being poor.

 

Acknowledging the reality of being poor in the inner city is a far cry from blaming people for being poor but whatever makes you feel good.

 

The "reality" of being poor that you are acknowledging is "people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything." That's not blaming people for being poor? "It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting." That's not blaming people for being poor? I understand that you are wanting to sound magnanimous, like you aren't really "blaming" the people of New Orleans, but your choice of words betrays you.

[strigori]

I realize Katrina was a more devastating event and much of that was due to hitting a large metro area with a higher concentration of poor people. But the response and reaction of the affected people was markedly different. Sure some of that is due to the sheer number affected in the NO area but I don't see how a person can deny the nanny state mindsight prevalent. I am not "blaming" those people for being poor. I am simply trying to point out that people easily lose the ability to do much of anything for themselves when they become too dependent on the government for everything. It is the difference of a do it yourself western attitude and what manifests itself in a poor urban setting.

Most of NOLA was not "depending on the Gov" There are a ton of 'working poor' people who work at least as hard as you do, with a lot less to show for it, and often receive nothing from the gov. And what little they had was destroyed, with no money to 'get out of town' to go.... where? Packing up and leaving the state for a few days, with a cost in the thousands of dollars is simply not an option. Try walking in someone else's shoes.

 

You want to blame someone, blame American Business Culture. Make money for the top dogs and stock holders while the Gov picks up part of the employees' tab to get by, to protect those profits rather than pay living wages.