Lawsuit - Save Our Wetlands vs. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in 1974

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 74-2912
FILED: October 29, 1974 SECTION H

SAVE OUR WETLANDS

On their own behalf and on behalf of all those people whose beneficial rights and interests in subaqueous lands, tidal marshes, tidal waters and related natural resources are being irreparably diminished, permanently damaged and destroyed by indiscriminate dredging and filing and other deleterious activities in and around the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne (MPCB) ecosystems; and on behalf of all those people who are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of their environment free from damage caused by the failure of certain Federal, State and local government agencies to prohibit the filling, dredging, and other activities adversely affecting the subaqueous lands, tidal marshes, tidal waters and related natural resources of the Lake Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne (MPCB) ecosystem; and on behalf of all those entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the unique natural resources of United States and the Lake Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne ecosystem in which plaintiffs reside; and on behalf of all those people similarly situated.

VERSUS

UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS ET AL

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES

Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1343(3), 1343(4):

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

1343(3)-To redress the deprivation, under color of any state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.
1343(4)-To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights...

and, under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or territory, subjects or cause to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action of law, suit in equity, or other proceeding for redress.

and, under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1337:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies.
This action also arises under Article VI,

Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in very state shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding and involves the declaration and interpretation of the rights of the plaintiffs and all the People of the United States secured by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

...nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law...

and under the due process, equal protection, and rights, privileges and immunities clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and under the commerce clause, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States.

This action also arises under the following Federal statutes:

The national Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 4331-47:

The purposes of this act are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation; and to establish a council of environmental quality.

And, under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C.A. Section 661, et seq.:

Except as hereafter stated in subsection (h) of this section (not applicable), whenever the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the stream or other body of water otherwise controlled or modified for any purpose whatever, including navigation and drainage, by any department or agency of the United States, or by any public or private agency under federal permit or license, such department or agency first shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the particular state wherein the impoundment, diversion, or other control facility is to be constructed, with a view of the conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of an damage to such resources as well as providing for the development and improvement thereof in connection with such water-resource development. (Section 662(a)).

And, under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,

Title 33, United States Code, Section 403:

The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of , any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure, within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army prior to beginning the same.

And under the Refuse Act of 1899, Title 33, United States Code, Section 407:

It shall not be lawful to throw, discharge, or deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, or other floating craft of any kind, or from the short, wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of any kind or description whatever other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state, into any navigable water of the United States, or into any tributary of any navigable water; and it shall not be lawful to deposit, or cause, suffer or procure to be deposited material of any kind in any place on the bank of any navigable water, where the same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water, either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise, whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed: Provided, That nothing therein contained shall extend to, apply to, or prohibit the operations in connection with the improvement of navigable waters or construction of public works, considered necessary and proper by the United States officers supervising such improvement or public work: And provided further, That the Secretary of the Army, whenever in the judgment of the Chief of Engineers anchorage and navigation will not be injured thereby, may permit the deposit of any material above mentioned in navigable waters, within limits to be defined and under conditions to be prescribed by him, provided application is made to him prior to depositing such material; and whenever any permit is so granted the conditions thereof shall be strictly complied with, and any violation thereof shall be unlawful.

And under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1361 (Mandamus); and under the Interstate Land Sales Act, U.S.C. 15:1701...
And under the Administrative Procedure Act, Title 5, United States Code, Section 702(a);
And under Executive Order No. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, 35 Fed. Register 4247, March 7, 1970;
And under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.

Jurisdiction of this court is invoked according to the concepts of justice, due process, and equity as established in the traditional and ancient principles of natural law. Man has a basic right to his lands, his waters, his wildlife resources—to nourish himself both physically and mentally; and these lands and waters cannot be illegally appropriated from him by a government of men—rather than a government of laws. These principles are established in rights guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution of the United States of America and of the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all citizens of the State of Louisiana, demand these rights:
1. A return of their Louisiana wetlands illegally seized and ripped apart;
2. Restoration of the ecological disasters on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana caused by such governmental agencies as the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury and the United States Corps of Engineers;
3. Protection of the invaluable Lakes Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne (MPCB) ecosystem from illegal acts of governmental, corporate and political agencies.
REQUEST FOR DECLATORY RELIEF
Plaintiff seeks a declaration of rights under 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 and Section 2202.

CLASS ACTION

The members of the class are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all before this Court. There are substantial questions of law and fact common the class and common relief on behalf of all members of the class is sought.
This action is brought by the plaintiffs Save Our Wetlands, Inc. (SOWL) and Francois Jelalian on their own behalf and on behalf of all those people whose beneficial rights and interests in subaqueous lands, tidal marshes, tidal waters and related natural resources are being irreparably diminished, permanently damaged and destroyed by indiscriminate dredging and filling and other deleterious activities in and around North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana; and on behalf of all those people who are entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of their environment free from damages caused by the failure of certain Federal, State, and local government agencies to prohibit the filling, dredging and other activities adversely affecting the subaqueous lands, tidal marshes, tidal waters and related natural resources of the Lakes Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne ecosystem in which plaintiffs reside; and on behalf of all those people similarly situated, not only of this generation, but of generations yet unborn.
The claims of the representative being typical of the claims of the members of the class, and the defendants’ actions having substantial effect upon all members of the class thereby making appropriate final injunctive and corresponding declatory relief with respect to the class as whole, this action is a proper class action under Rule 23(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the defendants, so that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23(b)(1)(A).
Adjudications with respect to individual members of the class would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of the other members of the class not party to this litigation so that this litigation so that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23(b)(1)(B).
The members of the class are fairly and adequately represented by these plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have no interest adverse to that of any individual who might be entitled to the relief sought herein.
Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of all other persons, too numerous to be joined, who shrimped, fished, crabbed, hunted ducks, coots and geese; watched alligators; and listened to the croaks of frogs in the wetlands in question; or otherwise have derived benefit from the Lake Pontchartrain estuary area, by catching red fish, bull croakers, bass, speckle trout, flounders, sheephead, and softshell crabs; or have eaten the same or otherwise have received enjoyment from the Lakes Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne ecosystem (MPCB).
PARTIES/PLAINTIFFS
Plaintiff SAVE OUR WETLANDS, INC. (SOWL), is a non-profit membership corporation organized under the laws of the state of Louisiana. Its office is 4821 Prytania Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. Save Our Wetlands, Inc. is organized exclusively for charitable, educational, and literary purposes. The functions of SOWL are to explore, enjoy, preserve the state’s wetlands, estuaries, forests, waters, streams, wildlife and wilderness, especially, but not necessarily limited to Lake Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne (MPCB) estuary. It is the intention of SOWL to regularly conduct recreational outings on Lake Pontchartrain and its estuaries. SOWL is dedicated to work for the improvement of the Louisiana environment in all of its aspects, by disseminating information on ecology issues to the public, preparing scientific research reports, sponsoring educational programs, participating in litigation, and assisting other organizations of similar purposes.
SOWL and members will be affected in their activities and pastimes by the proposed projects and action of defendants. SOWL and members have a sufficient and personal stake in the collapse of the Lake Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne (MPCB) ecosystem; consequently, causing the plaintiffs to suffer immediate and irreparable damage and harm.

Therefore, plaintiffs are among the injured, adversely affected and aggrieved parties. Plaintiffs allege they are suffering legal wrong because of actions by defendants, and plaintiffs have a direct stake in the outcome, and can suffer individualized harm to itself and members.
SOWL and members are residents of the City of New Orleans-North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain-Slidell-St. Tammany Parish-Louisiana area. It has always been the custom and style of the New Orleans-Creole-Cajun-Spanish-speaking people to participate in the fine tradition of cooking and eating seafood such as boiled crabs and shrimp Creole; seafood such as boiled crabs and shrimp Creole; seafood gumbo and oysters on the half shell.

However, it is more than traditional and cuisine, as it is an ECONOMICAL REALITY! The seafood industry to this area is a multi-million dollar business. The plaintiffs will be directly and economically affected and aggrieved if the estuaries of the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain are destroyed and the MPCB ecosystem collapses.
Plaintiff, Francois Jelalian is a resident of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana. He works constantly six days a week in a photo dark-room. Mr. Jelalian attempts on as many Sundays as possible to journey to the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish in the rustic village of Mandeville, Louisiana to relax and to swim. He has been swimming since a child and this is extremely important for his physical and mental well-being. Mr. Jelalian alleges that if the rustic village of Mandeville is permitted to become a center of high rise condominium and apartment buildings, this will cause him immediate and irreparable damage and harm. Mr. Jelalian also believes his swimming in Lake Pontchartrain will be adversely affected and consequently, Mr. Jelalian has a sufficient and personal stake in the outcome, and can suffer individualized harm to himself.

Mr. Jelalian repeats all allegations as found in paragraphs 1 through 14, et seq.
There are members of SOWL who are commercial fishermen on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, and at one time actually fished for a living in the area now known as the eastern and western portions of Eden Isles. These fishermen are now dependent upon the wetlands and estuaries on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, and their survival is contingent upon the MPCB ecosystem remaining productive and viable. These plaintiffs feel and allege they among the adversely aggrieved parties.
There are also members of SOWL who are duck hunters and duck lovers. It is documented that each winter there are approximately 500,000 lesser scaup and smaller numbers of other ducks periodically inhabiting the MPCB estuarine complex from October to March. This appears to be a direct result of illegal dredging, draining and filling of valuable wetlands. The duck hunters and bird watchers feel they are aggrieved party with a direct interest, and will be affected in their activities and pastimes by the proposed project in question.
Plaintiffs have a viable interest in the continuation and life of the MPCB ecosystem and in the beauty, commercial and recreational continuation of the streams, bayous, marshes, wetlands, and surroundings, on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain. Plaintiffs allege that they will be adversely affected if the defendants are permitted to continue their piecemeal projects on the perimeter of the MPCB ecosystem without the preparation of a regional cumulative Environmental Impact System. In particular plaintiffs allege they will be adversely affected if the permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers on December 20, 1973 to Bradley-McDonald Corporation is permitted to stand without first requiring an Environmental Impact Statement.
Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the State of Louisiana, and since the areas of the development now known as Eden Isles was covered with water for so many years, it has become the property of the State of Louisiana. The state is prohibited in its constitution from alienating the beds of navigable waters, and prescription does not run against the State of Louisiana. That is, no person may obtain title to state property by adverse possession; consequently said plaintiffs and citizens of the State of Louisiana are losing their lands without due process of law, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Plaintiff citizens and residents of Louisiana allege they are suffering a direct and economic interest, and are among the adversely affected and aggrieved parties.
And finally, but certainly not least, there are plaintiffs of Rangia cuneata (clam), Acartia Tonsa (copepod), Rhithropanipeus Harrisii (crab), Anchoa mitchilli (bay anchovy), Brevoortia patronus (Gulf menhaden), Micropogon undulates (Atlantic croaker), Trineetes Maculatus (hogchoker), Bairdella chrysura (silver perch), Cynoscion arenarius (san seatrout), Arius felis (sea catfish), Menidia beryline (silverside), Leiostomus xanthrus (sport), Pogonias cromis (black drum), Archosargus probatocephalus (sheepshead), Cynoscion nebulosus (speckled trout), Paralichthys lethostigma (southern flounder), and Sciaenops ocellata (red fish).

It is the proposition of the plaintiffs that these creatures have standing to sue as outlined by the dissent of Justice Douglas, Sierra Club v. Morton 92 Supreme Ct. 1372 (1972); and therefore, are actual parties in interest, SOWL brings this complaint on their behalf. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that acts of the defendants are destroying countless millions of these creatures and their habitat.
DEFENDANTS
Defendant, United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al, is an agency of the United States and a branch of the United States Army, 10 U.S.C., Section 1063. It is charged by statute with the accomplishment of certain civil functions of the Department of Army, such as the construction of canals, dikes, dams, and the issuance of permits.
In Zabel v. Tabb, 430 F.2d 199, the court held that consideration must be given to ecological matters and federal agency decisions. Their authority to carry out such civil functions, however, is delimited by the statutes and other laws referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this complaint. Accordingly, the defendants must comply with these statutes and laws with respect to the project in question. The individual defendants and their predecessors in office are and have been responsible for the illegal and ultra vires actions…Relief is sought against them to enjoin them from further illegal and ultra vires actions and they are joined as defendants, in their official capacity.
Each defendant, by virtue of maintaining an office in the United States Army Corps of Engineers headquarters, New Orleans, Louisiana, resides in the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division. The defendants may be served by certified mail in Washington, D.C. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 (3), or by service on their agent, servant, and employee, Col. E. R. Heiberg, District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Colonel Richard Hunt was the District Engineer, New Orleans Division, who issued aforesaid illegal permits to Leisure Inc. (Eden Isles), et al and to Bradley-McDonald Corporation, and performed other illegal acts. Colonel Hunt has subsequently been shipped off to the Panama Canal Zone. The address of Colonel Richard Hunt is: Lt. Governor, Panama Canal Co., Box 227, Babylon Heights, Canal Zone, Panama.
Captain James Paul King was the Environmental Officer for Colonel Richard Hunt and for the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans Division at the time of aforesaid illegal activities. Subsequently, Captain James Paul King has been transferred to Frankfort, Germany. His address is: Office of Engineering Headquarters, U.S.A. R.E.U.R., APO, New York 09403.
Colonel E. R. Heiberg has replaced Colonel Richard Hunt as the District Engineer, New Orleans Division and is presently acting in this capacity.
Lt. Colonel Harry Collins is the Deputy New Orleans District Engineer and is presently acting in this capacity.
General Charles C. Noble is the former Division Engineer of the Lower Mississippi Delta Valley and acted in this capacity at the time of aforesaid illegal activities, and Major Gen. Frederick Clarke was Chief of all Engineers at the time of aforesaid illegal activities.
E. Manning Seltzer is an officer and agent of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and acts in this official capacity within the Office of General Counsel.
Mr. J. I. Boswell is an officer and agent in the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Delta Valley, Vicksburg Mississippi.
C.J. Nettles is Chief of New Orleans District Operations Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers.

Plaintiffs, under information and belief, by letter signed by C.J. Nettles on January 26, 1972, allege that a meeting was scheduled in Biloxi, Mississippi in the latter part of January, 1972, to be attended by Colonel Hunt, General Noble, J.I. Boswell, E. Manning Seltzer and probably others to establish policies adversely affecting MPCB ecosystem and the estuaries on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain and the State of Louisiana.
Defendant, Howard Callaway, is Secretary of the Army and is charged with supervision of all Army activities including the issuance of permits under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403, et seq.
Defendant, Lt. General William C. Gribble, Jr. is Chief Engineers of the Corps of Engineers and is charged with the supervision of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and its activities, including the issuance of permits under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403, et seq.
Defendant St. Tammany Parish Police Jury is the governing authority of Drainage District #2 and is responsible for illegally draining and seizing valuable wetlands; and permitting private individuals to profit at the expense of the public good. Its headquarters is located in the courthouse at Covington, Louisiana. Defendant Ralph Privette is President of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury.
Defendant Earl Broom is Vice-President of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury.

Other members of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury are:

Malcom Stein, Sr.
Walter Smith, Jr.
W.A. Fitzmorris
J.H. Thompson
Ogise Richardson
Claude Polk
Sidney G. Crawford
A.P. Link
Angelo B. Bosco
M.W. Hart
Robert Innerarity
Robert Pecoraro

Each member of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury is sued individually and in his official capacity.

Defendant Woodrow Erwin is the District Attorney of St. Tammany Parish. District Attorney’s Office of St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Assistant District Attorney Mr. Julian Rodrigue, acted as legal counsel and advisor to the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in their alleged aforesaid illegal activities.
Leisure Inc. and its agent corporation partners, First Fidelity Mortgage Company and Palomar Financial, Inc. performed work on areas involving valuable wildlife resources without benefit of a Department of Army permit and are presently operation with a permit issued to them from the United states Army Corps of Engineers, which permit plaintiffs are alleging under information and belief to be null and void.
Honorable Russell Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, D.C.; and Honorable Arthur W. Busch, Regional Administrator, E.P.A., Region VI, Dallas, Texas, are administrator officers required to give necessary permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL92-500; 86 Stat. 816; 33 U.S.C. 1152 et seq. Said permits were in fact never issued and notice under Section 505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 were mailed defendants on March 1, 1974 by certified mail.
Defendant Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through its Secretary, James Lynn, and Administrator, George Bernstein, is required to give under the Interstate Land Sales Act U.S.C. 15, Section 1701 et seq. approval to subdivisions. Under information and belief plaintiffs allege that in the matter known as the Eden Isles Subdivision aforesaid defendants violated the Interstate Land Sales Act.
Defendant Bradley-McDonald Corp. on Dec. 20, 1973, received an illegal permit from United States Army Corps of Engineers to develop the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain in Mandeville, Louisiana without an Environmental Impact Statement.
GENERAL CHRONICLE AND CAUSES OF ACTION LAKE MAUREPAS, PONTCHARTRAIN, CATHERINE AND BORGNE ESTUARTY SYSTEM (MPCB)
The estuary formed by Lakes Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne (MPCB) in Louisiana is a vast resource invaluable both for its commercial and recreational uses. Exhibits_____________
It is well documented that this MPCB estuary is presently on the verge of ecologic collapse due to man’s indiscriminate development of its margin. Exhibits_____________
It is well documented that the MPCB estuary is in immediate need of a regional, cumulative environmental impact study, and that a moratorium should exist on all permits and developments affecting the MPCB estuary for a period of at least 30 months. Exhibits____________
The United States Army Corps of Engineers has not only disregarded the need for a regional, cumulative environmental impact study and moratorium, but has granted, and are granting permits in a piecemeal fashion, on projects affecting the MPCB estuary without environmental impact statements. Exhibits____________
The Army Corps of Engineers have, in fact, issued illegal permits on project adversely destroying valuable wetlands and greatly aiding the collapse of the MPCB estuary, resulting in federal action greatly affecting the human environment. Exhibits___________
The United States Army Corps of Engineers is issuing illegal permits which do not include the interior canal systems as required by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Wildlife and Fisheries, in violation of the Wildlife Coordination Act. These canal systems accumulate anaerobic and septic conditions, which aid and will result in the collapse of the MPCB estuary. Exhibits__________
Said determinations in issuing these permits by the United States Army Corps of Engineers are arbitrary capricious, lawful, unreasonable, unwarranted, in bad faith and are causing the destruction and death to countless millions and millions of shrimp, crabs, fish, and the loss of duck hunting as a favorite sport in the MPCB estuary; consequently resulting in immediate and irreparable damage and harm to plaintiffs. Exhibits_____________
The United States Army Corps of Engineers is acting in conjunction with the illegal activities of local state governments, which are controlled and managed by powerful interests to illegally seize wetlands; to illegally dump spoil on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain and to the rape and destruction of millions of shrimp, crabs, and fish. These activities will lead to the end of duck hunting and commercial fishing in the MPCB estuary system. Exhibits_____________
NORTH SHORES OF LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA---THE EDEN ISLE DEVELOPMENT
The Eden Isles development consists of approximately 6,000 acres of one-wetlands in the MPCB estuary, on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. It is located in Township 9, South, Range 14, South, Sections 28, 33, 32, 34 and 35. It is divided by Interstate Highway 10. One portion is located east of Highway 10 and one portion is located west of Highway 10. The western portion is presently being developed. The eastern portion is undeveloped. Exhibits_____________
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 47.
BACKGROUND
This area is originally described as a “sea marsh” in an 1852 map approved by the state land office. It was deeded to the state under the Swamps and Rivers Act. In approximately 1927, Drainage District #2 was created, and constructed a levee system and pumping stations. A small part of this area was drained in approximately 1929. No permit was issued by the Corps of Engineers for work performed by Drainage District #2 in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Exhibits____________
The economic depression caused a forfeiture of bonds, and the area soon restored itself to her natural position of wetlands. Aerial photographs from 1913 to 1969 show it under water. As the affidavits indicate, this area was a spawning and hatching ground for billions of shrimp, fish, and crabs (especially the green female soft-shell crab); and in the winter was a favorite feeding and stopping grounds for millions of wild ducks, especially scoup (dos-gris) and coots (Poule d’eau).
It was surely a “sportsman’s paradise” used freely by the people and wildlife resources of the area. And without a doubt is and was beautiful Louisiana “wetlands.” Free-flowing tidal action made this area highly productive for shrimp, speckled trout, red fish, flounders, croakers, mullet, bass, alligator gars, Louisiana bullfrogs, nutria, rabbits, and other marine life as well as habitat, nursery and feeding grounds essential to the fisheries of the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, which is in close proximity to and essential to the food chain of the MPCB ecosystem. Exhibits_________
The entire 6,000 acres of what is now known as Eden Isles are, or at one time were, laced with minor and unnamed tributaries which are, or at one time were, in fact and in law “navigable,” and subject tot the ebb and flow of the ordinary mean high tide. Exhibits ______________
THE ROLE OF THE ST. TAMMANY POLICE JURY IN RELATION TO EDEN ISLES
On approximately February 21, 1963, the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury with the guiding hand of the District Attorney’s office of St. Tammany Parish, became the governing authority of Drainage District #2 as authorized under L.R.S. 38:1677 and 38:1601 et seq. Exhibits________________
The St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, as their predecessors Drainage District #2, never receive a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers to illegally drain and dike these wetlands in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Exhibits________________
On June 9,1970, the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury entered in an agreement with Palomar Financial, Leisure Inc., and First Fidelity Mortgage Company to begin development of this area. As of March 19, 1974, Palomar Financial was not registered with the Secretary of State to do business in Louisiana. And Leisure Inc., et al began work without benefit of a United States Department of Army permit in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Exhibit______________
Plaintiffs attempted on October 7, 1974, to review the “general correspondence” file of St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in relation to Drainage District #2. Plaintiffs’ attorney drove from New Orleans to the courthouse in Covington, Louisiana and requested from Mrs. Janice Stein, secretary of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, to review the aforesaid “general correspondence” file. Plaintiffs’ attorney was informed by said secretary of the Police Jury that he could not see, view or inspect the “general correspondence” file of Drainage District #2 until she had checked with a Mr. Julian Rodrique, Assistant District Attorney of St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana and attorney for the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in matters relating to Drainage District No. 2. Plaintiffs’ attorney was informed that Mr. Rodrigue could not be reached by telephone. Plaintiffs’ attorney drafted a letter confirming this fact and requested that he be advised in writing within three (3) days of Mr. Rodrigue’s decision. As of this date, plaintiffs have not been advised in writing and have consequently been denied access to review aforesaid “general correspondence” file.
Under information and belief, plaintiffs allege that strong possibilities exist that the “general correspondence” file contains documents and evidence purporting to show that St. Tammany Parish Policy Jury, with the guiding hand of the District Attorney’s office of St. Tammany Parish, did not act in the behalf of the public good, but in behalf of the select few within the political-corporate world of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury.
Under information and belief, plaintiffs allege that strong possibilities exist that the “general correspondence” file will show bonds issued by the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in the sum of One Million, Two Hundred Thousand and NO/100 ($1,200,000.00) Dollars to illegally drain and dike wetlands on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, to enable certain land developers and owners and lawyers and corporate individuals to profit.
Plaintiff’s attorney was permitted on October 7, 1974 to review and to xerox the official minutes of business conducted by the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in matters relating to Drainage District 32, but was charged Fifty cents for each xerox copy requested. Plaintiffs allege that this excessive price is a tool used by the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury to deny ordinary citizens access to public documents, and establishes a pattern of aforesaid Police Jury not acting for the public good in matters relating to Drainage District #2 and the destruction and slaughter of wildlife resources on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain. Exhibits_____________
On June 9,1970, the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury entered in agreement with Palomar Financial, Leisure Inc., and First Fidelity Mortgage Company to begin development of the area now known as Eden Isles. As of March 19, 1974, Palomar Financial was not registered with the Secretary of State to do business in Louisiana. And Leisure Inc., Palomar Financial and First Fidelity Mortgage Company began work without benefit of a United States Department of Army permit in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Exhibits_____________
ST. TAMMANY PARISH POLICE JURY IN RELATION TO THAT PORTION OF EDEN ISLES COVERING APPROXIMATELY 3,000 ACRES OF WETLANDS EAST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10, NOW KNOWN AS THE EASTERN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF EDEN ISLES
During or prior to Hurricane Carmen, September 7, 1974, the illegal dike and levee system constructed by St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in approximately 1964, broke. Exhibits___________
Thereafter, water, fish, crabs, shrimp, wild ducks, (especially teak, dos-gris, pould-eau) and wild egrets have reflooded this area. And it has immediately refurbished and restored to the natural condition of beautiful Louisiana wetlands. Once again flounders, speckled trout, redfish, shrimp, softshell crabs, croakers, alligator gars and mullet swim in fast rising widgeon grass. Teal, scaup, coots and wild egrets are utilizing the area as a feeding ground on their migration to the south. Duck hunters once again massed on these popular wetlands to engage in sport shooting. (See aerial photographs taken on October 12, 1974). Exhibits______________
On March 9, 1973 the Corps of Engineers issued a permit to Leisure Inc. (Eden Isles) which did not include this eastern undeveloped portion. Therefore, it is automatically clear that any present cutting of canals, dredging, draining, diking of this eastern portion, without a permit from the Untied States Army Corps of Engineers is clearly in violation of the Harbors and Rivers Act, National Environmental Protection Act, Wildlife Coordination Act, Art. 4, Section 2 of Louisiana Constitution, etc. Exhibits___________
However, the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in conjunction with Leisure Inc. and obviously sanctioned by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is presently in the process of illegally diking and draining these valuable wetlands in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Federal Water Pollution Act, Wildlife Coordination Act, Natural Environmental Protection Act, Article 4, Section 2, Constitution of the State of Louisiana, etc. Exhibits_______________
Under information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, with the guiding hand of the Parish District Attorney, in total and in blatant disregard to practically every important national environmental legislation, is presently destroying, illegally seizing, and ravaging the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, and invaluable wetlands. They are presently dumping dredge and spoil into navigable waters of the United States of America. These illegal actions are leading to the death and destruction of millions of fish, crabs and shrimp in what is now known as the eastern portion of Eden Isles. This aforesaid illegal action is aiding and will result in the collapse of the MPCB ecosystem causing plaintiffs immediate irreparable damage and harm. (See photographs of dying fish, etc., taken on October 2, 1974). Exhibits___________
Plaintiffs assert that it is feasible to remove the dykes surrounding the eastern portion of Eden Isles, which are still in existence, so as to aid in the restoration of this portion and the public resources thereof. Exhibits______________
EDEN ISLES DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO PERMIT ISSUED BY UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON MARCH 9, 1973 TO DEVELOP WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE WESTERN PORTION OF EDEN ISLES—APPROXIMATELY 3,000 ACRES OF WETLANDS WEST OF HIGHWAY INTERSTATE 10
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66.
BACKGROUND
As previously alleged, the St. Tammany Police Jury with the guiding hand of the District Attorney of St. Tammany Parish, began illegal procedures and maneuvers to become the governing authority of Drainage District #2, and to dyke and drain the area of what is now known as Eden Isles. Drainage District #2 received no permit for the work performed by them in approximately 1927-1929. And the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury received no permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers to dyke and drain this land in 1964; and are presently still performing illegal operations on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain. Exhibits_____________
Approximately on June 9, 1970, St. Tammany Parish Police Jury entered an agreement with Leisure Inc. (Eden Isles), Palomar Financial Bound and First Fidelity Mortgage Company to begin work and development on what is now known as the western portion of Eden Isles. Leisure Inc., et al illegally constructed approximately 4.2 miles of sewer line, 4.8 miles of water line and 13 miles of canals and other developments in what is now known as the western proportion of Eden Isles. No permit was obtained by said parties in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and this aforesaid illegal work was constructed prior to the issuance of the March 9, 1973 permit. Exhibits_____________
THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
On December 27, 1971, and January 17, 1972, the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, contacted the Corps, and notified them of an apparent illegal dredge and fill operation by Eden Isles, which apparent illegal dredge and fill operation was actually photographed by the Department of the Interior on December 16, 1971. Exhibits________________
It is apparent that the St. Tammany Police Jury and Eden Isles performed illegal dredge and filling in violation of Section 10 of the Harbors and Rivers Act for at least two year without benefit of Department of Army permit...

“These investigations so far indicate that western portions of development has been under construction for past two years without benefit of Department of Army permit.” Exhibits_________________
On October 22, 1971, the developer for Eden Isles, through its engineer, Mr. Buddy S. Broadway, Broadway and Seal, Engineers Picayune, Mississippi, submitted a permit application to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, applying for permission to dredge a channel into Lake Pontchartrain running southwesterly from the entrance of Grand Lagoon. Grand Lagoon had been developed in the 1920’s as a small boat harbor. The developer was apparently proceeding with the work prior to the processing of the permit application. Exhibits______________
On February 25, 1972, the United States Army Corps of Engineers noticed the permit application. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs allege that the Corps of Engineers deliberately and secretly withheld mailing notice of application and final issuance of aforesaid permit to certain major organizations and agencies, who are very active and have reputations for inquiring into the environmental issues surrounding permits that might affect the MPCB ecosystem.
On March 9, 1973, the Corps issued a permit to Leisure Inc. The permit purports to permit the applicant to dredge and maintain an entrance channel yacht basin and connecting channel and install and maintain bulkheads, rills, revetments, culverts and docks in Lake Pontchartrain and Grand Lagoon. The developer has not applied for a permit to cover the 13 miles of canals excavated as of July, 1972 nor has it applied for a permit for the 35 miles of canals it plans to excavate. The channels, according to the developer, are 140 feet wide and 20 to 30 feet deep and are accessible from Lake Pontchartrain. The United States Army Corps of Engineers concluded that no permit was required for the other work because it is on privately owned properties and within the boundaries of the Drainage District; and Colonel Hunt concluded that this area was fastlands and not wetlands. (However, see Exhibit of Dr. Paul Wagner) Exhibits_____________
Plaintiffs allege that Colonel Richard Hunt’s conclusion that no permit was required for the interior canal system because it is privately owned properties and within the boundaries of the Drainage District is a subterfuge by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to avoid their requirements under the law. Exhibits_____________
Plaintiffs, under information and belief, allege that by letter of C.J. Nettles on January 26, 1972, a rendevous meeting was scheduled in a hotel room in Biloxi Mississippi in the latter part of January, 1972 or early February, 1972 to circumvent the requirements of the interior canal system of Eden Isles coming under the jurisdiction of the United States Corps of Engineers. It is alleged that this meeting was attended by Colonel Hunt, General Noble, J.I. Boswell, E. Manning Seltzer, C.J. Nettles and probably others to establish policies adversely affecting the MPCB ecosystem and the estuaries on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain.
By letter dated September 27, 1973, from Phillip S. Morgan, Regional Director of the United States Department of Interior, addressed to the District Engineer, United States Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, it is apparent that the Bureau’s position was in direct opposition to the permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to Leisure, Inc.

Mr. Morgan pointed out to the Corps of Engineers in said letter that the permit was issued in violation of General Noble’s directive in the interpretation of 33 U.S.C. 403 by the General Counsel of the Department of the Army in that the permit did not include the interior canal system.

“We were confused to learn that the Corps does not consider it appropriate to require a permit for the interior canals connecting to Grand Lagoon. Your letter provides a sharp contrast to Major General Charles C. Noble’s letter to Acting Director Hemphill (LMVCO-O), dated March 28, 1973 regarding “dead-end” canals in upland properties. General Noble emphasized the pertinent portion of Section 10 which states…it shall be unlawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition or capacity of …any navigable water of the United States unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army prior to beginning same…” (underlining by General Noble). General Noble complained that “under existing policy with respect to ‘dead-end’ canals on upland property, the proponent of canal work which will be connected to navigable waters should submit an application for a permit including a proposed plan of development…before commencing any form of excavation work…and the existence of partially completed excavation work will not be allowed to weigh favorably in evaluation of the permit application.”

Similarly, the General Counsel for the Department of the Army in a letter dated June 20, 1972, (AEN-GCZ-C) to Assistant Attorney General Hoffman of Florida stated, “It is my position that artificial canals are clearly subject to the regulatory authority exercised by the Corps of Engineers, either when the canals constitute navigable waters of the United States, or when, through connections, the canals affect the course, condition, or capacity of the navigable waters. The connecting canals to Grand Lagoon would most definitely modify the capacity of Grand Lagoon and Lake Pontchartrain. Exhibits_______________
Plaintiffs further allege that Colonel Hunt’s conclusion that the interior canal system is not navigable is total absurdity as Eden Isles advertises on highway billboards that these 35 miles of canal systems are navigable. Exhibits______________
THE ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO THE EDEN ISLES PERMIT AND THE NECESSITY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
On March 9, 1973, in the permit issued by the Corps of Engineers to Leisure Inc., Colonel Richard Hunt concluded that no environmental impact statement was required. This was done in spite of the directives and urgings of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Corps of Engineers that an environmental impact statement should be prepared before aforesaid permit is issued. Exhibits______________
The aforesaid permit issued by the Corps of Engineers has resulted and will result in destruction of lands supporting valuable wildlife and resources. Billions of shrimp, crabs and fish have been destroyed and are being destroyed as a result of actions taken by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Exhibits______________
A favorite wintering and feeding grounds for millions of wild ducks, especially the dos-gris and poue’ deau have been virtually eliminated. Exhibits________
Actions by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in issuing aforesaid permit is resulting and will result in a collapse of the MPCB ecosystem. Exhibits_____________
Duck hunting as a sport in this area has been totally wiped out as a result of the aforesaid permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Exhibits_____________
Plaintiff alleges that the United States Army Corps of Engineers has clearly violated the National Environmental Protection Act in issuing aforesaid permit without an environmental impact statement and have perpetuated lies and fraud in concealing their issuance of permit without an environmental impact statement. Exhibits_____________
Approximately on July 30, 1973, Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, Texas, under the promptings of the Delta Chapter of the Sierra Club, inquired to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, concerning previous correspondence on recommendations that no permit be issued to Leisure Inc. without first obtaining an environmental impact statement. From internal memorandum obtained from the Corps only after threat of suing under the Public Information Act, there are reasons to believe that the attempted to “get around” the “pressure demands” of the Sierra Club and Environmental Protection Agency for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Exhibits_____________
Plaintiffs allege that the United States Army Corps of Engineers created a fictitious story concerning the reason why no Environmental Impact Statement was prepared. This fictitious story centered around the allegations that the Environmental Protection Agency would not require and Environmental Impact Statement if appropriate water quality studies were made and that no statement or studies would be required if a permit were required only for the entrance channel. (See letter from General Clarke to Hale Boggs, September 13, 1972). Exhibits_________________
Plaintiffs allege that after the facts permit issued to Leisure Inc. by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is illegal as outlined in letter to Lt. General F.J. Clarke, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., dated July 5, 1973, from Henry S. Reuss, Chairman, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee and Guy Vander Jagt, Ranking Minority Member, Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Exhibits_______________
Plaintiffs allege that Leisure Inc. (Eden Isles) is presently dickering with local, state and federal highway agencies and politicians to construct a cloverleaf expressway onto the property now described as Eden Isles. Plaintiffs allege that they will suffer immediate damage and harm if this is accomplished. Exhibits______________
Plaintiffs allege that the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to issue proper water quality certification and dredging permits as required under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1972. Plaintiffs further allege that this is a practice and pattern of deceit and fraud being perpetuated upon the people of the State of Louisiana by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Exhibits___________
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
Plaintiffs allege that in the matter knows as the Eden Isles Subdivision, the Interstate Land Sales Act, U.S.C. 15:1701 et seq, has been violated.
Plaintiffs further allege that the Department of Housing Urban Development (HUD) through the interstate lands office administrator, George K. Bernstein, and Secretary, James T. Lynn, have acted in violation of U.S.C. 15:1701, et seq in the following respects, but not necessarily limited to such. Said administrative officials approved the Eden Isles Subdivision:
1. Without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);
2. Without adequately warning and taking into consideration the damages to residents of hurricane tidal surges;
3. Without adequately warning and taking into consideration the health hazards to residents from deadened canals with anaerobic and septic conditions;
4. Approving land that is valuable wetlands and public property belonging to the people of the State of Louisiana;
5. Approving land with an illegal interior canal system;
6. Approving land and projects in violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
NORTH SHORES OF LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA WITHIN THE MPCB ECOSYSTEM. ISSUANCE OF PERMIT TO BRADLEY-MCDONALD CORP. BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON DECEMBER 20, 1973, WITHOUT REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
On December 20, 1973, defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers granted dredge and fill permit LMNOD-SP (Lake Pontchartrain) 251 to Bradley-McDonald Corporation pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403. Exhibit_____________
In connection with the issuance of said permit, defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers made a final administrative determination that no Environmental Impact Statement need be prepared and issued.
This permit was issued without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) despite:
1. The public outcries of protest from Mandeville residents;
2. The many reports and documents that the MPCB estuary is on verge of collapsing
3. The reports and documents calling for an immediate regional cumulative environmental impact study on all projects in the MPCB estuary;
4. The recommendations for a moratorium on all permits in the MPCB estuary from the Citizens Advisory Board (CAB), Governor’s Council on Environmental Quality, for a period of 30 months until a study is made on the cumulative effects of the proposed projects in the MPCB estuary. Exhibits______________
Said determination was arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, unreasonable, unwarranted by the facts and a clear refusal on the part of defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers and its officers to perform a duty owned to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that the citizens of Mandeville are blessed with the benefits of low population density, a lack of air and water pollution, and aesthetic surroundings consisting of narrow shady streets flanked by old homes of architectural and historical significance. Exhibits_______________
Plaintiffs allege that there is a noticeable lack of “high rise” buildings in the area of Mandeville. Exhibits__________
Plaintiffs allege that Bradley-McDonald Corporation is presently planning to construct a ninety-one acre real estate development, to be known as “Mariner’s Village”, within the small, exquisitely quaint and often elegant community of Mandeville, Louisiana. Exhibits______________
Plaintiffs allege that the plan for “Mariner’s Village” includes a marina and harbor area for the use of approximately 400 boats, with an access channel one hundred feet deep, extending one thousand, two hundred feet into Lake Pontchartrain and single family dwellings, townhouses, “high rise” apartment and condominiums capable of housing approximately two thousand eight hundred people.
Plaintiffs allege that “Mariner’s Village” will significantly affect the quality of the human environment in the Mandeville area because:
1. It will greatly increase population density;
2. There will be approximately thirty-three percent more sewage to be process and disposed of by Mandeville’s sewage facility;
3. The burden on Mandeville’s fire protection services will be greatly increased, especially since the Mandeville Fire Department presently has no equipment suited for fighting fires in “high rise” buildings;
4. There are not enough school facilities in the Mandeville area to accommodate the increased enrollment which will be caused by the proposed addition to the population;
5. Other municipal and parish services, including police protection, traffic capacity and control, medical, water supply, garbage and trash collection are incapable of accommodating the proposed population increase;
6. A portion of public beach will be destroyed by construction of harbor entrance;
7. The contemplated development will be aesthetically displeasing and in utter disharmony with the existing architectural style and traditional mode of land use and development in the Mandeville area;
8. The habitat of numerous plants and animals will be destroyed;
9. Due to inadequate tidal flushing action, pollutants, anaerobic bacteria and algae will accumulate and concentrate in the proposed harbor until heavy rains flush the poisonous waters into Lake Pontchartrain, killing marine organisms and making nearby beaches unsuitable for swimming and
10. In conjunction with other development and projects, both existing and planned, on the shores of Lake Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne, “Mariner’s Village” will cause collapse of the entire estuary as a viable valuable ecosystem.
As in the issuance of the Eden Isles permit, plaintiffs allege that certain direct and/or indirect pressures were placed upon the United States Army Corps of Engineers to issue aforesaid permit in total disregard to national laws passed to protect the environment. Plaintiff attaches letter from Russell Long dated January 5, 1974. This letter was obviously mistakenly addressed to Alliance for Integrity in Good Government (this Mandeville group strongly oppose issuance of permit to Bradley-McDonald without an Environmental Impact Statement).

Upon information and belief and from the contents of this letter, and other letters, plaintiffs allege that powerful political pressure is being placed upon the Corps to issue aforesaid permit in MPCB ecosystem in disregard to national legislation enacted to preserve the environment. Exhibits____________
GENERAL
Plaintiffs allege that an automatic official defense by the United States Attorney General’s office of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, without first conducting an investigation of the verified complaint supporting documents, and matters related herein and submitting facts and findings to this Court, will be a denial of plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the due process and equal protection clause of the United States of America.
Plaintiffs humbly request that Attorney General William Saxbe and Special Prosecutor’s Office be ordered to study and to investigate the aforesaid verified complaint, supporting documents, and matters related therein, and submit their facts and findings to this Court; and that this Court reserve the right to appoint an independent investigator separate from the government of the United States, if this court deems it necessary in the future.
Plaintiffs allege that the verified complaint and supporting documents filed herein justify an immediate order from this court to the United States Army Corps of Engineers to issue a chain of command to Colonel Richard Hunt and to Captain James Paul King, ordering them immediately flown back into the United States of America and to New Orleans, Louisiana, for testimony in this matter.
Plaintiffs allege that the verified complaint and supporting documents filed herein justify an immediate order from this court to the biologist for the MPCB ecosystem employed by the Department of Interior, Bureau of Wildlife and Fisheries to conduct an immediate investigation into the alleged illegal activities of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, et al on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, and to conduct a study of the verified complaint and supporting documents filed herein, and to make his facts, findings and recommendations to the Court.
Plaintiffs allege that they are the ordinary citizens of the United States, attempting to preserve and conserve their heritage to the waters and wetlands of the MPCB ecosystem; consequently, challenging a multi-billion dollar complex of governmental, corporate and political agencies. Plaintiffs allege that the matters contained herein are so complex as to warrant the appointment of a Special Master, knowledgeable in the scientific, biological aspects of wetlands; and whose integrity is unquestionable.
Plaintiffs allege that the acts of defendants in matter pertaining to the MPCB estuary are in violation of the law, aiding and resulting in the collapse of the MPCB estuary, destroying valuable wetlands and illegally seizing public properties, killing wildlife and ravaging the natural resources.
Plaintiffs allege that the MPCB estuary is changing from a “Sportsman’s Paradise” to a “Land Developer’s Dream”. Duck hunting is becoming a thing of the past and the delights of eating crabs (especially soft shell crabs) and shrimp, speckle trout and flounder will disappear to the face of corporate-political progress, causing plaintiffs to suffer immediate, irreparable damage and harm with the economic collapse of the multi-million dollar seafood industry and the MPCB ecosystem.
Petitioners allege on behalf of their brother-plaintiffs of the sea, bayous, marshes, cane reeds, minnow ponds, and potholes, who inhabit the natural habitat that their rights are also being violated under the laws of the Constitution of the United States of America:

These plaintiffs are the alligator gars, green trout, perch, sac a lait, Louisiana bull frogs, mullet, crabs, shrimp, flounder, red fish, speckle trout, croakers, drums, jack fish, sheepshead, and white trout.

These plaintiffs are the creatures of the air, wild white egrets, poule d’eau, dos-gris, canvasback, pentails, French duck, American Goldeneyes, Buffleheads.

And on behalf of the scavengers of the soaky marshes, the nutria and muskrats. And on behalf of the endangered species, American Osprey, Southern Bald Eagle, greater sandbill crane and American Alligator.

According to the dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton, Justice Douglas stated that these creatures are true parties and have a standing to sue. These plaintiffs have suffered and are presently suffering immediate, direct and irreparable damage and harm. And in fact, in the eastern portion of Eden Isles, these plaintiffs are presently dying by the millions as the wetlands are being drained and raped by the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury with the sanction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

These good plaintiffs respectfully pray for an immediate injunction against the destruction of their lands, waters, home and lives and a declaration of their rights.

APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW – GENERAL LAKES MAUREPAS, PONTCHARTRAIN, CATHERINE, BORGEN (MPCB) ECOSYSTEM

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference allegations and violations of law as found in paragraphs 1 through 109.

Plaintiffs allege that certain direct and/or indirect pressures are being placed upon the United States Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits to land developers in the MPCB estuary in violation of law, denying plaintiffs’ their due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Louisiana.
Plaintiffs allege that valuable wetlands and public properties are being seized by private interests in conjunction with local, state, and federal governmental agencies, in violation of plaintiffs’ rights as secured by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution of the United States of America and Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana.
Plaintiffs allege that permits are being issued and considered by the United States Corps of Engineers in total and blatant disregard to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, National Environmental Protection Act, Wildlife Coordination Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana, Article 453 of the Louisiana Civil Code, etc., which will aid and result in the collapse of the MPCB estuary system, resulting in direct, immediate and irreparable damage and harm to plaintiffs, denying petitioners their rights as secured by the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of Louisiana.
Plaintiffs allege that Corps of Engineers is issuing permits in total disregard to all documentation and evidence that the MPCB is on the verge of ecologic collapse and there should be a moratorium for at least thirty month on the MPCB ecosystem until such time that a regional cumulative environmental study is prepared. In particular plaintiffs assert that the Corps of Engineers issuance of permit to Bradley-McDonald Corporation on December 20, 1973, without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement is in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act and will result in the collapse of the MPCB ecosystem; and will destroy the rustic, scenic village of Mandeville, Louisiana.
EDEN ISLES, NORTH SHORES OF LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, ST. TAMMANY PARISH IN RELATION TO THE ST. TAMMANY PARISH POLICE JURY
Plaintiffs allege that Drainage District #2 never received a permit in approximately 1927-1929 to levee, drain and dyke the area in what is presently known as Eden Isles in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Exhibits_______________
Plaintiffs allege that the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury never received a permit form the United States Corps of Engineers to levee, drain and dyke the area now presently known as Eden Isles in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. No permit was issued for work performed by St. Tammany Parish Police Jury in approximately 1964, nor has any permit been issued to aforesaid police jury to perform their present illegal activities on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain. Exhibits_______________
Plaintiffs allege that the contract entered into between the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury and Palomar Financial, Leisure, Inc., and First Fidelity Mortgage Company on June 9, 1970, to begin development on the area now known as Eden Isles, is null and void.
Plaintiffs allege that the aforesaid acts of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury and District Attorney’s office of St. Tammany Parish were conducted not on the behalf of the public good, but by and on behalf of the enrichment of a select few within the political corporate world of the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury and the District Attorney’s office of St. Tammany Parish; that these acts have resulted in the mass destruction of estuaries vital to the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain and the MPBC ecosystem in violation of plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Plaintiffs allege that the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury is a governmental agency, acting as puppets for corporate and political bosses and profit, with little or no representation of the common man for the public good; and making no attempt to preserve the rivers, streams, bayous, marshes, wetlands and wildlife resources of St. Tammany Parish. And will and are ravaging the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, aiding and resulting in the collapse of the MPCB ecosystem, resulting in direct, immediate and irreparable damage and harm to plaintiffs, in violation of their due process and equal protection as guaranteed to them under the Constitution of the United States of America.
EDEN ISLES DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO PERMIT ISSUED BY UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON MARCH 9, 1973, TO DEVELOP WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE WESTERN PORTION OF EDEN ISLES – APPROXIMATELY 3,000 ACRES OF WETLANDS WEST OF HIGHWAY INTERSTATE 10
Plaintiffs allege that Leisure Inc., et al, acted illegally in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 by constructing approximately 4.2 miles of sewer line, 4.8 miles of water line and 13 miles of canals and other developments in what is now known as the western portion of Eden Isles. This aforesaid illegal work was constructed prior to the issuance of the March 9, 1973 permit.

MARCH 9, 1973 PERMIT FROM CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO LEISURE, INC.
Plaintiffs allege that the aforesaid permit issued on March 9, 1973 to Leisure, Inc. from the United States Corps of Engineers was issued in bad faith and in an illegal unwarranted arbitrary and capricious manner and is therefore null and void.
No permit from the United States Corps of Engineers exists for the system of interior canals which are obviously navigable waters of the United States and have impact upon navigable waters of the United States. In any event, the Corps of Engineers has permitting authority over the interior canal system and has not granted a permit.
Said permit was issued in violation of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Title 16 U.S.C. Section 662 (a) et seq. Said permit was issued in violation of said act and did not include the interior canal system, a navigable body of water. This was done in direct objection from the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Defendants are in violation of the judicial precedent as stated in the case Zabel v. Tabb, 430 F.2d 199. Zabel v. Tabb states that the Corps of Engineers has a duty and an obligation to consider environmental and ecological damage before issuing a permit.
Plaintiffs allege that the aforesaid permit issued on March 9, 1973 to Leisure Inc. from the United States Army Corps of Engineers was issued in violation of 33 CFR 209.(d)(1) ( see Zabel v. Tabb, p.214, footnote 27 and General Clark’s letter to Hale Boggs, September 13, 1972.)
Plaintiffs allege that the aforesaid permit issued on March 9, 1973 to Leisure Inc. from the United States Army Corps of Engineers was issued in violation of Environmental Protection Agency Guidelines promulgated pursuant to September 9, 1972, Federal Register Volume 37.
Plaintiffs allege that the aforesaid permit issued on March 9, 1973 to Leisure Inc. from the United States Army Corps of Engineers was issued in violation of directives as established by the General Counsel for the Department of the Army in a letter dated June 20, 1972, (DAWN-GCZ-C) to Assistant Attorney General Hoffman of Florida. This letter stated, “It is my position that artificial canals are clearly subject to the regulatory authority exercised by the Corps of Engineers, either when the canals constitute navigable waters of the United States, or when, through connections, the canals affect the course, condition, or capacity of the navigable waters. The connecting canals to Grand Lagoon would most definitely modify the capacity of Grand Lagoon and Lake Pontchartrain.
Plaintiffs allege that the rendezvous meeting held in a hotel room in Biloxi, Mississippi in January or February of 1972, attended by E. Manning Selzer, Office of General Counsel, Colonel Richard Hunt (District Engineer, New Orleans Division), General Charles C. Noble (Division Engineer of the Lower Mississippi Delta Valley), and probably others, to establish policies and regulations in violation of the law, resulting in massive destruction of valuable wildlife resources on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain is null and void, in violation of plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Wildlife Coordination Act has been violated by virtue of the fact that the Bureau of Wildlife and Fisheries has not evaluated the Eden Isles project to the extent required by the statute and such evaluation may be impossible due to the work performed by Leisure, Inc., et al.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers failed to prepare and Environmental Impact Statement on the Eden Isles project after such was required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Substantial evidence has been produced documenting this area as one of vast wildlife resources. The National Environmental Protection Act has been blatantly disregarded at the expense and destruction of countless billions of crabs, shrimp, fish and other forms of wildlife.
The Eden Isles project does not have water quality certification from the Environmental Protection Agency as required under 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
No permit exists for disposal of dredge or fill material under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The Eden Isles sewage treatment plant does not have the required Environmental Protection Agency permit. (Note: Plaintiffs’ attorney had to sue the Louisiana State Department of Health in order to obtain Xerox copies of the Eden Isles sewage plant proposals). Exhibit _______________
In the Eden Isles project, plaintiffs allege violation of the Interstate Land Sales Act, 15 U.S.C., Section 1701 et seq.
GENERAL
Plaintiffs allege that the United States Army Corps of Engineers is permitting dredge and fill operations to continue throughout the MPCB ecosystem in violation of Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 401 and Section 404, et seq.
DIRECT OR INDIRECT PRESSURES
Plaintiffs allege that some of the most powerful political figures in the United States of America were contacted by the corporate officials of Eden Isles and Bradley-McDonald to obtain assistance in acquiring permits from the Corps of Engineers. These political figures in turn inquired to the Corps concerning aforesaid permits.
Under information and belief, plaintiffs allege that strong possibilities exist that the Corps issued aforesaid illegal permits to Eden Isles and Bradley McDonald as a result of direct and/or indirect powerful political pressure, in violation of plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection as guaranteed to them under the Constitution of the United States of America.

REQUEST FOR DECLATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request:

A declaration of the rights of the people of the United States and of the State of Louisiana, in particular to the protection of their environment and of the natural resources of the MPCB ecosystem which are held in public trust for the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the peoples by the State of Louisiana, the several States, and the United States.
A declaration of the rights of the people of the United States and of the State of Louisiana, in particular, to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the environment and natural resources of the MPCB ecosystem without degradation from the indiscriminate dredging, filling and other related activities in the navigable waters of the United States and their tributaries in and adjacent to the northern shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
A declaration of the rights of the people of the United States and the State of Louisiana, in particular, to protection of the subaqueous lands, tidal marshes, tidal waters and related natural resources of the northern shores of Lake Pontchartrain in the MPCB ecosystem, all of which public property is held in public trust for the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the people of this and future generations.
That this Court make a declaratory judgment to the rights of the plaintiffs and to the people of the State of Louisiana and her blessed wildlife, marshes, wetlands, stream and lagoons, declaring forever the inalienable rights of citizens to the joy and pursuit of happiness in the beauty of God’s creation, and the end to the death and destruction of our shrimp, crabs, speckle trout, red fish and flounders; all rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.
A declaration that the continued failure of defendant Federal, State and local authorities to protect the ecological and commercial value of subaqueous lands held in trust for the public is in violation of the rights of the people of the United States guaranteed under the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, by the due process, equal protection and rights, privileges and immunities clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, by the Refuse Act of 1899, by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and by the Water Quality Improvement Act as amended, 1972.
That the United States Army Corps of Engineers be enjoined and ordered to revoke and suspend any and all permits issued to Leisure Inc. and any of its agents, for the purpose of dredging and filling the area which is now known as the western portion of Eden Isles on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
That this Court enjoin the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, Leisure Inc. and its agents and the United States Army Corps of Engineers from dredging, depositing spoil, cutting interior canals and illegally seizing and ravaging the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
That this Court enjoin St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, Leisure Inc. and its agents and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineers from destroying that area now known as the eastern undeveloped portion of Eden Isles.
That the United States Army Corps of Engineers be enjoined and ordered from issuing any further permits to defendant Leisure, Inc., et al for the purpose of dredging and filling the area now known as the eastern portion of Eden Isles.
That defendant St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, et al, be enjoined and ordered to remove all dykes and other impediments to the tides and navigable waters on and around the area now known as the eastern and western portions of Eden Isles.
That this Court order an immediate subpoena to the biologist responsible for the MPCB estuary in the Department of Interior, Bureau of Wildlife Fisheries, to report to this Court, and to study the verified complaint and supporting documents filed herein, and make his facts, findings, and recommendations to this Court.
That this Court appoint a Special Master, and/or Special Masters, knowledgeable in the scientific-biological aspects of the MPCB ecosystem and of unquestionable honesty, to study the verified complaint and supporting documents attached herein and make his facts, findings and recommendations to the Court.
That this Court order an immediate regional cumulative study of the MPCB estuary system by the Special Master, and a moratorium on all permits in the MPCB estuary for thirty months.
That this Court order the Corps of Engineers to issue a chain of command to Colonel Richard L. Hunt and Captain James Paul King, ordering these defendants flown immediately back into the United States of America to give testimony in this matter.
That this Court order Attorney General William Saxbe and the Special Prosecutor’s Office to study the verified complaint and supporting documents and matters related herein, and to report their facts and findings to this Court, at which time the United States Attorney’s office should declare their official position in this matter, and that this Court retain the right to appoint an independent investigator separate from the government of the United States.
That this Court order the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury to immediate produce the General Correspondence File in matters relating to Drainage District #2 and the area under development now known as Eden Isles; and that the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury be enjoined from charging fifty cents per copy to citizens, attempting to obtain records and documents pertaining to Drainage District #2 and the area of development now known as Eden Isles.
That this Court order the Environmental Protection Agency to issue water quality certification as required under the Water Quality Pollution Control Act.
That this Court order the necessary dredge and fill permits under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
That this Court order the Environmental Protection Agency to issue the necessary permit for the sewage treatment plant constructed by Eden Isles located on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain.
That this Court order the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through its secretary, James Lynn and Administrator, George Bernstein, to properly enforce the provisions of the Interstate Land Sales Act as found in 15 U.S.C. Section 1701, et seq.
That this Court order the United States Army Corps of Engineers to issue an immediate cease and desist order to Leisure Inc., et al and the St. Tammany Parish Police Jury to stop bulldozing, dredging, trucking, pushing mud and blocking levees and dykes; cutting interior canals, constructing apartment complexes, bulldozing, dragging poles on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
That this Court order the United States Army Corps of Engineers to issue an immediate cease and desist order to Bradley McDonald Corporation ordering them to stop construction on the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish, Mandeville, Louisiana, until an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared.
That this Court determine whether a temporary restraining order is necessary after the initial report of the biologist for the Department of Interior and/or Special Master and/or this Court issue immediately a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction based purely on the verified complaint and supporting documents attached herein.
That this Court order the United States Army Corps of Engineers place the sum of Three Hundred Sixty-seven Million and NO/100 dollars on deposit in this Court to be held in trust and administered by the Department of Interior, Bureau of Wildlife and Fisheries and/or Special Master, with accounting to the Court, for the purpose of aiding the protection and restoration of the marine and marine-related resources of the North Shores of Lake Pontchartrain, St. Tammany Parish and the Lakes Maurepas, Pontchartrain, Catherine and Borgne ecosystem, and for any all other liabilities owed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and other defendants herein to interested parties involved in this litigation, especially innocent purchasers of properties in the area now known as Eden Isles.
That this Court enjoin the United States Army Corps of Engineers from their refusal to include interior canal systems within their permit jurisdiction, including but not limited to the interior canal system of Eden Isles.
That this Court order a trial by jury on the matters involved therein and subsequent damages owing to the plaintiffs by defendants, which amount is to be assessed by this Court after proper fact findings and recommendations are made by the Special Master.
That this Court award plaintiffs one-half of all fines levied against defendants in violation of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, as provided in 33 U.S.C. Section 411, et seq.
That this Court award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees.
That this Court award such other relief as shall be just and proper under the circumstances.

Respectfully Submitted,

Save Our Wetlands
EXECUTIVE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Save Our Wetlands Inc.(SOWL) has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Save Our Wetlands Inc.(SOWL) endorsed or sponsored by the originator. For more information go to:www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS DIVISION

SAVE OUR WETLANDS

VERSUS UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS ET AL

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES

Jurisdiction

REQUEST FOR DECLATORY RELIEF

CLASS ACTION

PARTIES/PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

GENERAL CHRONICLE AND CAUSES OF ACTION LAKE MAUREPAS, PONTCHARTRAIN, CATHERINE AND BORGNE ESTUARTY SYSTEM (MPCB)

NORTH SHORES OF LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, LOUISIANA---THE EDEN ISLE DEVELOPMENT

BACKGROUND

THE ROLE OF THE ST. TAMMANY POLICE JURY IN RELATION TO EDEN ISLES

ST. TAMMANY PARISH POLICE JURY IN RELATION TO THAT PORTION OF EDEN ISLES COVERING APPROXIMATELY 3,000 ACRES OF WETLANDS EAST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10, NOW KNOWN AS THE EASTERN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF EDEN ISLES

EDEN ISLES DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO PERMIT ISSUED BY UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON MARCH 9, 1973 TO DEVELOP WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE WESTERN PORTION OF EDEN ISLES—APPROXIMATELY 3,000 ACRES OF WETLANDS WEST OF HIGHWAY INTERSTATE 10

BACKGROUND

THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

THE ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO THE EDEN ISLES PERMIT AND THE NECESSITY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)

NORTH SHORES OF LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, ST. TAMMANY PARISH, MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA WITHIN THE MPCB ECOSYSTEM. ISSUANCE OF PERMIT TO BRADLEY-MCDONALD CORP. BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON DECEMBER 20, 1973, WITHOUT REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

GENERAL

APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW – GENERAL LAKES MAUREPAS, PONTCHARTRAIN, CATHERINE, BORGEN (MPCB) ECOSYSTEM

EDEN ISLES, NORTH SHORES OF LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, ST. TAMMANY PARISH IN RELATION TO THE ST. TAMMANY PARISH POLICE JURY

EDEN ISLES DEVELOPMENT IN RELATION TO PERMIT ISSUED BY UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON MARCH 9, 1973, TO DEVELOP WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE WESTERN PORTION OF EDEN ISLES – APPROXIMATELY 3,000 ACRES OF WETLANDS WEST OF HIGHWAY INTERSTATE 10

GENERAL

DIRECT OR INDIRECT PRESSURES

REQUEST FOR DECLATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES

VERSUS

UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS ET AL