Rep. Scalise questions historic levee authority suit against oil and pipeline firms

WASHINGTON - The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East is getting push back from a Republican Louisiana House member for its lawsuit demanding that 97 oil, gas and pipeline companies restore damages to wetlands that make coastal areas vulnerable to flooding.

The damages could be in the billions of dollars.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, clearly not happy with the suit, said he's demanding transparency from the authority about its contract with the trial lawyers who filed the historic lawsuit. The suit was filed last week in New Orleans Civil District Court.

"As a public body, the SLFPA-E has a responsibility to be open and transparent," Scalise said. "According to the contract, the trial lawyers' meter is now running and our flood protection assets will be in jeopardy if the lawsuit is dropped. Louisiana has fought too hard for levee board reform to have our flood protection assets placed in jeopardy by the whims of some unelected body."

"If funding isn't available to cover the legal expenses incurred, Scalise said. "The levee board could be forced to sell flood protection assets in order to pay"

John Barry, vice president of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East, said no flood protection assets are in jeopardy.

"The whole point of the suit is to get the money needed to protect people from hurricanes," Barry said. "The choice really is simple: protect oil companies from having to keep their written word and also obey the law, or protect people's lives and property from hurricanes. It really is that simple."

Scalise isn't the first Republican to criticize the lawsuit. Gov. Bobby Jindal has demanded the authority drop the lawsuit. Barry and other authority members have refused.

The historic lawsuit asks the court to order the companies to immediately begin filling in canals and restoring wetlands, and to provide money to the authority to compensate for past damage. Part of the compensation asked for by the suit also could be used to pay part or all of the local levee districts' share of the $14.6 billion levee improvements being made by the Corps of Engineers, and for future storm surge protection projects, Barry said.

Attorney Gladstone Jones, who specializes in environmental and class action suits with the firm of Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison LLC, is the lead attorney for the authority. Three law firms were hired by the authority to handle the suit, and are working for a contingency fee of 32.5 percent of the first $100 million paid by the companies, if the authority wins.

The firm would receive a smaller percentage of amounts above $100 million, and nothing if the case is lost.

A provision in the contingency contract requires that the lawyers' expenses be paid if the authority unilaterally drops the lawsuit.

In his letter to the authority, Scalise asked what would happen if the board decides to drop the suit. Barry responded this way:

"We would withdraw the lawsuit only if it is shown to us that it is in the best interest of flood protection to do so," Barry said. "The only thing we care about is protecting people from hurricanes and river flooding. We did this after a lot of consideration because we thought it was the only way to protect people from this threat."

Political pressure, he said, won't cause the authority to drop the suit.

Scalise sent a letter to the board Wednesday with questions about the lawsuit: Among them: Where would the authority come up with money if it decides to drop the lawsuit? How were lawyers selected for the suit? What is the billable hourly rate? Were other lawyers considered and who has the authority to sign contracts for the authority?

Barry said he went through a lengthy process that included looking for recommendations from a diverse group of legal experts on the best lawyers to bring a complicated environmental lawsuit. He said that process included looking for a lawyer, law firm or academics willing to mount the litigation "pro bono."

But Barry said the suit is likely to cost millions of dollars of legal work and that he could not find any lawyers with the needed background and resources willing to conduct the suit for free. The authority couldn't finance the suit itself, he said, and therefore agreed to a contingency arrangement: It will pay a percentage of proceeds collected by the litigation.

Barry said Scalise has been helpful to the authority over the years, and that it looks forward to continuing to work with him on issues "we agree on."

Source: http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/rep_scalise_questions_historic.html

megamillions winner kansas jayhawks mega millions results susan powell lotto numbers megamillions winners university of louisville