re: Levee authority to bring suit against 100 O&G companies regarding wetland loss

quote:

---

he state permitted the land use/access so at first glance it doesn't seem as though the levee boards have much of a case.

---

At least in terms of leases, there is generally some restoration language, to the effect that they must restore the leased land/property to it's pre-lease condition. Usually it's at termination though.

This has been done by prior landowners in the past to an extent. There were several huge awards about 10 years ago, wherein private landowners had sued various oil companies to restore their land. Let's all be honest - oil companies can frick some land up. They would dump all sorts of material and debris and other shite for years and years, then at the end of the lease, their argument would be that they should not pay actual restoration costs because that would cost millions and the land is worth very little. Eventually, the courts said NO, you contracted to restore it. It doesn't matter how much it costs to restore it or how much the land is worth.

I've said for years that "they" should make the oil companies pay to fill in their canals and fix all their screwed up land. But, the bottom line is the oil companies have a shite load of money and no one will ever make them pay. But why shouldn't a company have to back fill it's canal once it's not used?