The History of Save Our Wetlands, Inc.(SOWL) From 1980-2004

In the past, we have seen how Save Our Wetlands filed a lawsuit to enjoin and restore the destruction of ~5,200 acres of wetlands on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain, Slidell Louisiana. There were two segments to this developement: One segment, ~2,600 acres west of I-10, was already extensively developed and drained illegally and criminally by the time Save Our Wetlands filed suit; the other segment contained 2,600 acres east of I-10, this area was still undeveloped and the land developer stopped illegal work on this portion of Eden Isles subdivision after Save Our Wetlands filed the initial lawsuit. In fact, Judge Blake West granted a temporary restraining order against the defendents from any further work in this undeveloped eastern portion of the Eden Isles subdivision.

Save Our Wetlands then attempted to get a Grand Jury to investigate the illegal dredging activities carried out by the developer. However, all of the Federal Judges involved in this litigation refused to grant such an investigation.

back to table of contents

RULING OF LACHES

U.S. District Court Judge Blake West assigned the case to U.S. Magistrate Morey Sear. U.S. Magistrate Morey Sear ruled laches. U.S. District Court Judge Blake West confirmed this ruling of laches. Plauche Villere, Jr. the attorney for Save Our Wetlands appealed this case to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed Judge Blake West's ruling of laches. Save Our Wetlands attorney Plauche Villere, Jr. took writs to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court refused the writs and denied a hearing. Therefore, laches stopped Save Our Wetlands from obtaining a proper hearing on the merits and the facts of their case.

U.S. Federal Judges allowed the western developed portion of the Eden Isles subdivision to be diked, damned, and drained in violation of state, federal, civil and criminal laws, which should have prevented the private ownershipof these navigable bodies of waters. The failure of these U.S. Federal Judges to uphold the law directly benefited the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and private land developers. As a result of this negligence 2,600 acres of wetlands on the western portion of the Eden Isles subdivision were destroyed and thousands of homes were built in a flood prone area.

OUTCOME OF SOWL'S LITIGATION AGAINST THE PROPOSED HURRICANE BARRIER PROJECT

The Corps issued themselves a permit for this project which relied on their own falsified internal engineering report. The Corps stated to the public that these barriers would not affect the salinity or velocity flow of Lake Pontchartrain. This was a lie. Save Our Wetlands was successful in obtaining an injunction against this project from Judge Charles Schwartz. The wetlands of New Orleans East and Lake Pontchartrain were saved and the proposed Orlandia subdivision was stopped. The wetlands of New Orleans East became the Bayou Savauge National Wildlife Refuge, which is the largest urban wildlife refuge in the world.

SOWL'S ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE EDEN ISLES SUBDIVISION UTILIZING THE COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION & RESTORATION ACT

In 1990, Louisiana Senator John Breaux got a bill passed in the U.S. Senate called the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA). This act funds wetland enhancement projects nationwide, designating approximately $50 million annually to purchase and restore Louisiana wetlands. This act also established a Federal Task Force to work in conjunction with federal and state agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service to oversee the allocation of funds and restoration projects to be undertaken.

This act seemed like the perfect vehicle to purchase, restore and protect the eastern undeveloped section of Eden Isles subdivision. To this end, Save Our Wetlands began to investigate what needed to be done for CWPPRA personnel to obtain the eastern portion of the Eden Isles subdivision for protection. Save Our Wetlands was informed in order for a tract of land to be considered for funding and preserved it needed to be placed on the annual CWPPRA Task Force list of high-priority projects.

back to table of contents

GETTING ON THE HIGH PRIORITY LIST

In order to get the eastern portion of the Eden Isles subdivision placed on this high priority list Save Our Wetlands hired an attorney to present its case before CWPPRA personnel to provide information and documentation indicting why this tract of land should be placed on the high priority list. For four consecutive years Save Our Wetlands lobbied to have this tract of land placed on the high priority list to no avail. Finally, withthe assistance of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, this area was recommended to be part of Louisiana's Coastal Rehabilitation Policy.

Shortly thereafter the National Marine Fisheries Service contracted a study by Dr. Ivor Van Heerden to determine if the eastern portion of the Eden Isles subdivision could viably be resored with available funds. After a two year study Dr. Van Heerden determined that the area could beviably restored into a functioning wetlands habitat, with the available funds. Finally, with this report the eastern portion of the Eden Isles subdivision was put on CWPPRA's high priority list.

These developements lead Save Our Wetlands to believe that this tract of land would be purchased and restored under CWPPRA. Remember Save Our Wetlands had filed a lawsuit in State Court, in Covington Louisiana, alleging that this land contained navigable bodies of water that are not susceptible under private ownership under the Louisiana Constitution and Civil Code. Save Our Wetlands also possesed an internal memo written by the Assistant Louisiana State Attorney General which state that the eastern portion of the Eden Isle subdivision does in fact contain navigable bodies of water. This administrative admission acknowledges the fact that this tract of land was not susceptible to private ownership under Louisiana law.

However, what Save Our Wetlands did not know was that Louisiana State Attorney General William "Billy" Guste and Louisiana Governor Edwin Edward had secretly written a legal document relinquishing Louisiana's claim and title to this tract of land. It should be noted that Louisiana Attorney General William Guste and his family own vast tracts of wetlands throughout the state of Louisiana. It should also be noted that Governor Edwin Edwards was eventually sent to prison.

Save Our Wetlands also did not know that in the 1980's the U.S. Army Corps of Egineers, New Orleans District granted a permit for a cloverleaf to be constructed leading into the eastern undeveloped area of Eden Isles. This was the same tract of land Save Our Wetlands was attempting to get CWPPRA funds to purchase and restore. This clover-leaf naturally destroyed more wetlands in the area and promoted future developements.

Save Our Wetlands let its State Court lawsuit in Covington sit idle without forcing litigation. There was a procedural question about Save Our Wetlands legal right to pursue the issue that this eastern portion of Eden Isle was not susceptibleto private ownership. Technically this is an issue that should have been pursued by the Governor of Louisiana and by the Attorney General of Louisiana to protect publicly owned water bottoms. However, Attorney General William Guste and Governor Edwin Edwards were signing contracts and deeds to relinquish Louisiana's ownership of these publicly owned lands.

Leisure, Inc. the owner of the underdeveloped portion of the Eden Isles subdivision went bankrupt. This was part of the saving and loan scandal that engulfed the Reagan-Bush administration. As a result of this bankruptcy the eastern portion of the Eden Isle subdivision was taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation, which was a federal agency.

This tract of land was on CWPPRA's high priority list. There was a scientific report stating that this area could be restored to its former state. The property is now in the hands of a federal agency and CWPPRA has begun collecting the 3.2 million dollars necessary to purchase this property.

Save Our Wetlands is under the impression that everything is looking good to have this eastern portion of Eden Isles purchased under CWPPRA and restored to its former state. Save Our Wetlands also begins a letter writing campaign to the Resolution Trust Corporation informing them that it is their legal obligation to have this area designated under a special environmental category and to permit CWPPRA to purchase it.

back to table of contents

THE STATE COURT CASE IS TRANSFERRED TO FEDERAL COURT

Then something strange happens, the Resolution Trust Corporation and their attorneys file a motion, in State Court, in Covington, Louisiana to have Save Our Wetlands case transferred to the Federal Court, in New Orleans. Their principal law is that the Resolution Trust Corporation is a Federal Agency that has taken possession of this undeveloped tract of land, and therefore this case should be heard in the U.S. District Court, New Orleans Division. Therefore, the Save Our Wetlands lawsuit filed, in State Court, in Covington, Louisiana alleging that tract of land is not susceptible to private ownership, under state law, is now to Federal Court in New Orleans under the principle that Leisure Inc. is no longer the defendant or possesor of this tract of land because it is now in the hand of a Federal Agency , the Resolution Trust Corporation.

This case is transferred and is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Charles Schwartz. Resolution Trust Corporation then files a motion to have the case dismissed because they claimed that Save Our Wetlands does not have the procedural capacity to act as a plaintiff and to raise the issue of publicly owned water bottoms. Judge Charles Schwartz rules in favor of the Resolution Trust Corporationand dismisses the Save Our Wetlands lawsuit.

Save Our Wetlands then files an appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Save Our Wetlands is of the opinion that if this litigation can just be kept alive then they can stop Resolution Trust Corporation from sellingthe tract of land to a private developer. During this litigation, Save Our Wetlands was constantly working behind the scenes with CWPPRA personnel to obtain and restore this tract of land from Resolution Trust Corporation. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would not let Save Our Wetlands file their lawsuit because it was printed in the wrong format and on the wrong size paper.

At this point Save Our Wetlands had exhausted all funds and was unable to raise the $750 needed to refile her appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals. Therefore, Save Our Wetlands' litigation on the issue of publicly owned water bottoms under Louisiana law dissappeared off of the judicial record. Unfortunately, this allowed the Resolution Trust Corporation to transfer the undeveloped eastern portion of Eden Isles subdivision to a private developer. The Resolution Trust Corporation refused to accept the 3.2 million dollars offered by the CWPPRA personnel to purchase the land. The Resolution Trust Corporation also refused to accept a higher bid from a man named Robert Torres from St. Bernard Parish based on his inability to provide adequate financing.

Instead they accepted an offer for $3.6 million from a man named Bill Garrett. Bill Garrett ran Garrett Chevrolet in Slidell, Louisiana and was a wealthy entrepreneur. Within 24 hours Bill Garrett then turned around and sold the property to Robert Torres and his Tammany Holding Corporation.

There was no legal way for Save Our Wetlands to reverse the Resolutions Trust Corporations transfer of this once vast wetland to a private land developer. It is just one more example of how governmental agencies at the state and federal levels with the assistance of the judiciary, permit the destruction of our precious natural resources. This is just another example of how governmental agencies not only permit the destruction of precious lands but do so to the economic detriment of future generations, by subsidizing housing developements in flood prone areas.

However, Save Our Wetlands still does not give up. Save Our Wetlands still had a couple of tricks up her sleeve. Save Our Wetlands is not going to make it easy for Robert Torres and his Tammany Holding Corporation to develop this tract of land.

Save Our Wetlands files another lawsuit, in the 19th District State Court, in Baton Rouge, regarding the legality of private ownership of navigable bodies of water. Save Our Wetlands argues that the State Court in Baton Rouge has jurisdiction over this issue because the state of Louisiana is a defendant in this case. Save Our Wetlands argues that the State of Louisian through its Governor and State Attorney General have failed in their obligation to take possesion of this land, under Louisiana law. Therefore, since Baton Rouge is the capital of Louisianaand the Stae of Louisiana is the porper owner of this tract of land the State Court of Baton Rougehas jurisdiction to hear this issue. Robert Torres and the Tammany Holding Corporation are also made defendants in this case. Save Our Wetlands also files this litigation in Baton Rouge because the State Court of Baton Rouge is less likely to be influenced by the political/corporate interests of St. Tammany Parish, Slidell Louisiana.

Save Our Wetlands begins to do more legal research on this issue. Remember SOWL has in her possession an internal memo to Louisiana State Attorney General William Guste stating that this area has navigable bodies of waterand therefore sections of this tract are not susceptible to private ownership under Louisiana law. Save Our Wetlands contacts various coastal study institutes, the Center for Wetland Resources, the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, for advice on this issue. Save Our Wetlands also retains New Orleans attorney Theresa DeJarnet. Theresa DeJarnet begins to extensively research the issues regarding this case.

The law is quite clear. If in fact it can be proven that there were navigable bodies of water in this tract of land before Louisiana was admitted into the Union in 1812, these bodies belong to the State of Louisiana and are not susceptible to private ownership. In 1812, navigability was defined as a route of commerce. Save Our Wetlands begins to seek historical maps of this area. This investigation leads to LSU's Cartographic Information Center located in the Howe Russell Geosciences Complex, on LSU's campus. Save Our Wetlands contacts director John Anderson. Save Our Wetlands also obtains assistance and advice from Richard Condrey of the Coastal Fisheries Institue on LSU's campus. Save Our Wetlands also contacted the National Cartographic Information Center, in Reston Virginia. Save Our Wetlands locates historical maps of the area in question and converts the maps onto a compact disc.

Save Our Wetlands then hires Dr. Gregory Stone of the Coastal Ecology Institute at LSU to do a report and study on whether or not there were areas on the eastern undeveloped portion of Eden Isles that were navigable before 1812. Dr. Gregory Stone concludes that there wereareas in this eastern portion of Eden Isles that were indeed navigable beofre 1812. Save Our Wetlands files this report into the State Court proceeding in the 19th District Court of Baton Rouge.

What does this mean? It means that Save Our Wetlands allegation that there are areas within the eastern portion of Eden Isles that are navigable and hence publicly owned water bottoms that are now under illegal private ownership is true. Save Our Wetlands files further documents attacking Attorney General William Guste and Governor Edwin Edwards for relinquishing the state control of this land . Under Louisiana law Billy Guste and Edwin Edwards did not legally have the power to give away publicly owned water bottoms. Save Our Wetlands is hoping that this litigation will eventually put enough pressure on the present landowner, Tammany Holding Corp., to relinquish possession of this property to the federal government, under CWPPRA. Save Our Wetlands is also hoping that the new Governor Mike Foster and his attorney general Richard Ieyoub would side with Save Our Wetlands in requisitioning this land for the State of Louisiana.

However, this was just a pipe-dream. The Governor and the State Attorney Generalwere no more than puppets for their masters. Richard Ieyoub filed papers not on the merits of the case but on the procedural exception that Save Our Wetlands did not have the standing to raise this issue. Save Our Wetlands believed that Foster and Ieyoub were failing to fulfill there obligation to the State of Louisiana by failing to protect Louisiana's publicly owned water bottoms. Therefore, Save Our Wetlands was the only person left standing able to pursue these issues. Save Our Wetlands concluded that in all of her dealings with Gov. Mike Foster and State Attorney General Ieyoub their efforts to protect and to preserve Louisiana wetlands was a dismal failure and catastrophe.

The only thing Gov. Mike Foster was good for was saying, "give me a billion dollars and I will restore the coastal zone of Louisiana." Gov. Mike Foster speaks with a forked tongue. Under Gov. Fosters administration the Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality issued any and all developement permits over Louisiana wetlands in total disregard to any proper studies or investigations. Gov. Foster's republican administration was a total and absolute failure at preserving and protecting wetlands of Louisiana. Gov. Fosters failure in this litigation is just another example of his environmental policies. Save Our Wetlands can not say enough bad things about former Louisiana Gov. Mike Foster.

In the meantime, while a lawsuit sists in the state court of Baton Rouge the landowner, Tammany Holding Corp., had to apply permits, under the Clean Water Act, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, to develope the wetlands contained in this tract of land. Save Our Wetlands through its attorney, Arthur Lemann IV, offered its objections. Save Our Wetlands was hoping that the past illegal activities of the Corps would embarrass them and in turn force them to command the land developer to conduct a proper Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and to divulge all phases of the study. Save Our Wetlands was also hoping to put enough pressure on the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to force them to do a full and complete of the water bottoms of Lake Pontchartrain before any dredging or draining.

To get around these pesky environmental regulations here is what the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did. Here is how the Corps got around doing an EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If the Corps required a full EIS this would necessitate a study of all surrounding developements in the wetlands connected to the particular developement put before the Corps by the Tammany Holding Corporation. The Corps' own internal regulations required that they make a complete study, bot a piece-mealed study. But the Corps simply required the developer to do an Environmental Assesment (EA) rather than an EIS under NEPA.

In regard to water quality certification, originally under the Clean Water Act(CWA), water qulity certifications had to come from federal agencies. But, thanks to Republican Congressman Billy Tauzin these water quality certifications are now issued individually by each state. This had been a disaster for the state of Louisiana. For example, under the administration of Gov. Mike Foster the LDEQ rubber stamped any and all wetland developement permits it reviewed. The LDEQ issued these water quality certifications permits without any study or investigation. They merely wrote letters of approval. These letters were sent to the Corps. The Corps would then say that there are no water quality certification problems because the LDEQ issued the developer a permit. The Corps would then issue the permit under the CWA. In other words the Corps would rubber-stamp what the LDEQ had already rubber-stamped.

The problem with challenging the LDEQ permit is this; after they issue a water quality certification Louisiana state law provided only 30 days for challenging parties to file their case in the 19th District State Court, in Baton Rouge. Stae law also does not provide any attorney fees for attorneys attempting to challenge the water quality certification. There is also no reimbursemnt of court costs to potential challengers of the water quality certification. Therefore, an individual or environmental group would need to hire a lawyer, in Baton Rouge, to file the papers in 30 days. This attorney would have to be paid by the individual or environmental group and court costs of $500.00 would also have to be paid by the individual or environmental group and they would not be reimbursed.

As a result of these regulations, the LDEQ has issued hundreds if not thousands of these ware quality certifications unchallenged. This is what happened in this particular case with Tammany Holding Corp. The Tammany Holding Corp., now has the necessary permits to begin construction of the Oak Harbor and Lakeshore Estates subdivision in the eastern undeveloped portion of Eden Isles.

Even though, Save Our Wetlands(SOWL) did not have an attorney in Baton Rouge to challenge the LDEQ water quality certification, attorney Arthur Lemann IV challenged the Corps permit in the U.S. District Court of New Orleans.

In summary here is what happened. Tammany Holding Corporation applied to the Corps to develope this area into the Oak Harbor and Lakeshore Estates subdivisions. SOWL, through Arthur Lemann IV, wrote a letter of objection. The Corps determind that a full EIS was not required under NEPA only an Environmental Assesment(EA). This decision was made in spite of their own internal requirement to conduct a full EIS. In other words, the Corps did not require Tammany Holding Corp., to come in and disclose their entire developement plan. Nor did the Corps require Tammany Holding Corp., to do a full EIS which would assess the total affect of their entire proposed developement.

After the Corps issued the permit to Tammany Holding Corp., SOWL filed a suit opposing the issuance of this permit in the U.S. District Court of New Orleans. The case was assigned to Judge Carl Barbier. The decision was made by SOWL not to seek an immediate injunction because two individuals that worked for Tammany Holding Corp., came to SOWL and divulged illegal activities.

These employees were involved in draining wetlands within this area before the proper permits had been issued by the Corps. These employees were also engaged in the operation of a dregde which was stationed in the waters of Lake Pontchartrain. The purpose of this equipment was to dredge a channel from Lake Pontchartrain to the shoreline of the Oak Harbor subdivision, which would be deep enough to allow a barge to dock at the shore. The purpose of this barge was to transport dredging equipment to the shore which could then be used to dredge internal channels of the subdivision.

SOWL determined that the testimony of these two employees needed to be presented before the Corps to get a cease and desist order. The Corps had the jurisdiction under the law to sanction, fine, and issue a cease and desist order against the Tammany Holding Corp. Therefore, SOWL met with all the legal and enforcement agents of the Corps concerning this matter. The Corps stated that proof needed to be obtained that in fact a channel had been dug in Lake Pontchartrain as alleged.

To this end, SOWL is provided with a depth-finder boat by the National Marine Fisheries Service. SOWL goes out in the boat with the two employees and the Corps enforcement officials to confirm the existence of this channel. They conclude that an illegal channel was dug in Lake Pontchartrain as described by the two employees. This boat trip was made during the second week of May. SOWL believes that this finding is grounds for the Corps to issue an immediate cease and desist order to the Tammany Holding Corp. This does not happen.

The Corps permitted the developer to continue its operation under the permit they had granted to the developer until October before they issued a cease and desist order. By this time, four months later, the developerhas sold a number of lots. So there is now an outcry by these buyers against the issuance of a cease and desist order. This public out cry causes the Corps to lift their cease and desist order after only a few days. The Corps' position was that they would pursue this matter in a criminal suit against the developer.

In fact, the Tammany Holding Corp., did end up paying a very hefty fine as a result of this criminal case because they violated the Clean Water Act but their developement still pushed foward.

SOWL then decided to present this issue in front of U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier. SOWL was hoping that Judge Barbier would enjoin any further developement until a full EIS was done under the NEPA. SOWL was of the opinion that the Corps permitting of this piece-mealing of this project was in violation of the NEPA. SOWL was hoping that Judge Barbier would order the Corps to force Tammany Holding Corp., to disclose their developmental plans in full as required under NEPA and the Corps' own internal guidelines.

The Tammany Holding Corp., also had plans to dredge an entrance channel into the shoreline of Lake Pontchartrain, which would have connected the internal canals of the proposed subdivision into Lake Pontchartrain. Dr. Barry Kohl donated his time and expertise to help determine if the dredging of this canal had the potential to kick up mercury from underlying sediments. Mercury was known to occur in high concentration where the West Pearl River empties above the Rigolets. High concentrations of mercury are present in this area because of the flow of pollutants from Gaylord Bogalusa Paper Mill located upstream. Mercury contents in the sediments of Lake Pontchartrain had also been discovered in Bayou Liberty and north shore areas of Lake Pontchartrain.

SOWL was able to prove before Judge Barbier that neither the Corps nor the LDEQ had done any testing for mercury in the sediments of Lake Pontchartrain where dredging was proposed for the entrance channel. Judge Barbier issued an order to Tammany Holding Corp., preventing them from dredging an entrance channel into Lake Pontchatrain from their Oak Harbor subdivision until the area was tested for mercury.

Unfortunately, SOWL did not have the funds to perform the necessary tests. So, the testing was conducted by personnel selected by the Tammany Holding Corp., and the Corps. Their test results did not indicate that mercury was present in the proposed area. Judge Carl Barbier lifted the injunction and Tammany Holding Corporation was permitted to slice an entrance channel to the Oak Harbor subdision into the shorleine of Lake Pontchartrain.

SOWL did attempt another maneuver around tthis same time to stop the destruction of the Lake Pontchartrain shoreline. To this end, SOWL went directly to the Louisiana State Land Office(LSLO). The LSLO is obligated to protect the public shoreline of Lake Pontchartrain. Louisiana Civil Code is quite clear in stating that the shoreline of Lake Pontchartrain belongs to the public. The LSLO is mandated to protect this publicly owned shoreline.

In the beginning of SOWL' negotiations with the LSLO rgarding this issue, key personnel agreed that the Tammany Holding Corp., should not be permitted to slice into the shoreline of Lake Pontchartrain. However, after several months of negotiations the LSLO reversed its initial assesment and stated that the Tammany Holding Corp., would be allowed to cut a channel into the shoreline of Lake Pontchartrain for the proposed Oak Harbor and Lakeshore Estates subdivisions.

Concerning the issue of the Tammany Holding Corp., to divulge their entire developement scheme and enjoining their present operation until such time as a complete EIS was conducted under the NEPA and the Corps failure to require such a study, Judge Carl Barbier ruled that the expertise of the Corps did not permit him to over rule the Corps piece-mealing of this project.

Some thing should be noted here about the weakness of the Federal Judiciary to overrule the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decisions and the lack of adequate enforcement of the mandates of the NEPA. There have been a line of cases coming from the Federal Courts ruling that the Federal Judiciary cannot supercede the expertise of the Federal Regulatory Corps of Engineers Agency. Unforetunately, this precedent has weakened the NEPA. Federal couurts have set a precedent that the Corps can do almost whatever they want without being reversed later by federal judges.

This case is a good example of this precedent. The Corps under their own administrative requirements are prohibited from piece-mealing projects. The Corps is obligated to force a developer to provide his entire developement project rather that one part at a time. The Corps is obligated under NEPA to require a full and complete EIS. To get around this the Corps permitted the developer to come in and give only a small piece of their developemental scheme. To get around having to force a developer to provide a complete EIS the Corps with the flick of a pencil states that the developer only has to do an Environmental Assesment rather than a full and complete EIS under NEPA. Time and time again after these Corps half-assed decisions are made the Federal Courts have ruled that they will not supercede the regulatory expertise of the Corps.

By the time Judge Carl Barbier, who was a newley appointed Federal Judge by former President Bill Clinton, this judicial precedent had been clearly established in case law. There is also the pratical problem of the defendant already having obtained the permit from the Corps and having spent millions of dollars. The developer was outraged that the judge could issue an injunction and could cause them to lose a multi-million dollar investment.

The history of the developement of these 5,200 acres is a classic example of how the whole set of laws to protect wetlands does not work. The key problem is giving away the regulatory jurisdiction of wetlands, estuaries, water bottoms, and natural resources to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This regulatory jurisdiction should be transferred to those federal agencies legislated by the United States Congress to protect and preserve wetlands. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of the Interior.

In the past. SOWL has written letters to U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu and U.S. Represenative Bob Livingston requesting that the U.S. Congress conduct an investigation of the Corps failure to protect and preserve the wetlands of Louisiana. Senator Mary Landrieu and Rep. Bob Livingston did not even bother to respond to SOWL' urgent plea for such an investigation.

As this being written, in the year 2004, corporations have taken complete control over the government. The Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency has been revamped by corporate mogul United States President George W. Bush in an effort to dismantle all forward looking environmental laws.

Also this is being written in the year 2004 when Louisiana is losing 35 square miles of its coastal zone annually. And Louisiana politicians like Mary Landrieu are standing up on white horses screaming to give the state of Louisiana billions of taxpayer's dollars to rebuild Louisiana's coastal zone. In reality, Sen. Mary Landrieu should be screaming that the petroleum industry should be required to spend the billions of dollars to restore the Louisiana coast.

One of the lawsuits filed by SOWL, in the U.S. District Court of New Orleans concerned enjoining the Corps from issuing permits to oil companies for cutting canals into the wetlands of Louisiana without requiring the oil companies to do an EIS under NEPA. In this litigation Dr. Paul Templet, then director of LDEQ, appointed by Governor Charles "Buddy" Roemer, testified that Louisiana loses 35 square miles of its coast annually and that 50% of the loss is due to the thousands of miles of oil company canals that have been dug through the wetlands of Louisiana. These canals have caused saltwater erosion. So, again we have a Louisiana state politician like Senator Landrieu screaming, 'give us billions of taxpayers' dollars to restore Louisiana's coast.' When they should be screaming, 'force the petroleum industry to spend billions of dollars to restore Louisiana's coast,' which they have profited from destroying. You can bet your bottom dollar that U.S. Senator Huey P. Long would have been ordering the oil industry to pay for the damages they have inflicted upon Louisiana's coast.

In reality Sen. Mary Landrieu and Represenative Billy Tauzin are no more than puppets for their corporate masters.

As this is being written in the year 2004 lets take a quick look at the flood potential to New Orleans and the surrounding parishes of St. Bernard and St. Tammany. The Oak Harbor, Eden Isles, and Lakeshore Estates subdivisions are situated on what once was a vast 5,200 acre wetland estuary, which are now sitting ducks for a potential hurricane. From the past history that SOWL has presented in these writings these subdivisions should have never been constructed. They have absolutely no levee or hurricane protection. It is just a matter of time before they are washed away under 10-20 feet of water. They are all subsidized by federal flood insurance programs and the American taxpayer will foot the bill when the enevitable happens. These are just a few of the subdivisions in harms way; many more in the same situations exist.

St. Tammany Parish is one of the fastest growing "counties" in the United States. The Corps of Enginners and the State of Louisiana agencies have issued permit after permit for any and all developement of wetlands for Wal-Mart, Home Depot, apartment complexes etc..Wetlands act as hurricane buffers. It's just a matter of time before St. Tammany is washed under 10-20 foot of water. This is particularly true of the North Shore, Bayou Liberty, the Thompson Road area. At a later date we will discuss SOWL's efforts to prevent developement in this area.

In regard to St. Bernard, Orleans, and Plaquemines Parishes, the Mississppi River Gulf Outlet(MRGO) which was originally 500 ft wide is now 1 mile wide and is expanding. The MRGO was constructed by our good old buddy the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and represents a vast flooding threat to St. Bernard, Plaquemines, and Orleans Parishes. These parishes also contain many canals built by the petroleum industry. While Louisiana politicians are screaming to have billions of dollars to restore Louisiana's coast, no Louisiana politicians are screaming about fillinf in the MRGO. Also the Corps is not taking any action to fill in the MRGO. The MRGO has always been their little pork-barrel project and they love the money it generates into their bureaucratic, greasy, oil-stained fingers.

Finally the 100 year weather forecast worsens for New Orleans. At this point SOWL after all these years and years of litigation feels that it has an obligation to document as much as can be documented for history to review for whatever purpose and for whatever karma there may or may not be. Save Our Wetlands in its original inception by her founders Francois Jelalian and the legendary New Orleans folk singer Jeff Dawson abbreviated Save Our Wetlands Inc. into SOWL for a spiritual and metaphysical purpose. SOWL would incorporate and transcend into SOUL. The spirit and soul of New Orleans would be the birthplace of a new environmental movement rooting from the water bottoms of New Orleans - Louisiana - Bayou Libertyto free and to keep free not only man but the spirit of the wilderness contained in our Mother Earth. After all Jesus might have died for our sins once but Frog croaks for you everyday. Hop-alleulia!

back to table of contents

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. 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.