Katrina: MRGO Litigation

The "Mr. Go" litigation, as it is commonly referenced, grew out of the flooding which devastated St. Bernard Parish, Chalmette, the Lower 9th Ward, Violet, and other areas adjacent to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. The United States Army Corps of Engineers’ has claimed immunity from liability for the flooding based on legislation called the "Flood Control Act" which exempts the U.S. Government from liability for flooding when a flood control project is involved as a potential cause of the flooding. The Flood Control Act is based on the principle of Sovereign Immunity and "discretionary function" of government agencies, as well as the public policy concern that if the Federal Government was going to pay for flood control within the several states, it would not also expose the federal coffers to extensive liability caused by forces of nature. The Corps, however, is not entitled to immunity from separate negligent conduct unrelated to flood control. Because the MRGO was constructed by the Corps as a navigation project, and not a flood project, the Corps is liable for damages caused by its negligent design of that navigation project. The often cited example is one where the United States would not be immune from liability if a Coast Guard Cutter were to negligently ram into the levee separating St. Bernard from the MRGO, thereby causing flooding.

The original design of the MRGO called for a 600 ft. width, and a depth of 20 ft. Due to dredging activity in maintaining the MRGO, and a lack of "fore shoring" protection, over the years the channel has morphed into a channel with widths in some areas of over 2300 ft. That erosion was, in the Court’s view, a separate act of negligence, unrelated to the original design and construction which allowed for wave action to promulgate into a much higher impact than could have occurred in a 600 ft. of width channel.

Lambert & Nelson, PLC was involved in discovering the underlying conduct responsible for the erosion, and in the proof of how that led to the destruction of wetland areas vital to flood protection. We also uncovered the use of a method of dredging called "box cut" verses the original channel profile that was, in part, responsible for the accelerated erosion.

The decision is currently before the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, having been appealed following a favorable ruling by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Once that case is decided, the Court may consider the property damage claims of thousands of our clients that filled a "form 95" notice with the government regarding their damages.