- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What happened with the lawsuit over the dam DOTD built on I-12 for the 2016 Floods?
Posted on 4/23/22 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 4/23/22 at 2:56 pm
In 2020 the courts said the lawsuit can proceed but I haven't seen anything else about it.
Did you know that DOTD/Louisiana has been sued before for the exact same thing?
In 1983 the median on the interstate dammed up and worsened floods for people near the Tangipahoa river. The initial lawsuit was for $300k per home but just this year they settled for $100k, or $100m total.
So basically the DOTD knew these were an issue, they were already getting sued for it, and they did it again anyway.
It's been almost 6 years since the flood and they haven't completely fixed it.
WTF?
LINK
LINK /
Did you know that DOTD/Louisiana has been sued before for the exact same thing?
In 1983 the median on the interstate dammed up and worsened floods for people near the Tangipahoa river. The initial lawsuit was for $300k per home but just this year they settled for $100k, or $100m total.
So basically the DOTD knew these were an issue, they were already getting sued for it, and they did it again anyway.
It's been almost 6 years since the flood and they haven't completely fixed it.
WTF?
LINK
LINK /
This post was edited on 4/23/22 at 3:15 pm
10
Posted on 4/23/22 at 2:58 pm to BeepNode
Someone got paid off to stop pushing the issue.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:11 pm to BeepNode
I thought they had already fixed it?
I mean this is LA, did you expect something different?
I mean this is LA, did you expect something different?
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:12 pm to fightin tigers
I was sympathetic to DOTD when it happened even though it seemed like an obvious bad design choice.
However, the fact that they had already been sued for the exact same thing makes it look extremely negligent.
However, the fact that they had already been sued for the exact same thing makes it look extremely negligent.
This post was edited on 4/23/22 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:13 pm to BeepNode
Why don't you ask the dam guide your dam questions?
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:13 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
I thought they had already fixed it?
Maybe they did, i dunno. I drove by there a couple of weekends ago to go to Hammond and there were still long stretches near the Amite river that were solid with no holes to let water flow through.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:15 pm to BeepNode
That suit is gonna be pending for 60 years 
Posted on 4/23/22 at 3:18 pm to TDsngumbo
quote:
That suit is gonna be pending for 60 years
Probably. The last one took 39 years and 1/3rd of the plaintiffs had already passed away.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 4:09 pm to BeepNode
The case from the 1983 flooding in Tangipahoa Parish had nothing to do with "poorly constructed barriers on I-12". That was a reporter's error. LINK to the case
The 2016 flooding was the result of historical flooding in the range of a 500-year flood to a 1000-year flood north of I-12 in Livingston and EBR Parishes. No one ever anticipated that.
The 2016 flooding was the result of historical flooding in the range of a 500-year flood to a 1000-year flood north of I-12 in Livingston and EBR Parishes. No one ever anticipated that.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 4:34 pm to BeepNode
I like how their design change is cutting tiny little openings in the bottom of the concrete median now. If you notice on the newer constructed parts they have openings at the bottom.
Like those tiny little holes are going to let the amount of water that was dammed up through. Those little holes would have a negligible effect.
Like those tiny little holes are going to let the amount of water that was dammed up through. Those little holes would have a negligible effect.
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:13 pm to BeepNode
article in paper yesterday said the amount is 75 million...wonder how much goes to the lawyers...
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:17 pm to farad
Total amount to be paid (including previous payments/appropriations) will be $101 million.
$6 million already paid
$15 million appropriated last session to be paid when settlement agreement signed.
$45 million this session
$35 million next session
$6 million already paid
$15 million appropriated last session to be paid when settlement agreement signed.
$45 million this session
$35 million next session
Posted on 4/23/22 at 5:19 pm to udtiger
wonder the status on the 2016 flood litigation...
Posted on 4/23/22 at 10:11 pm to The Boat
quote:
I like how their design change is cutting tiny little openings in the bottom of the concrete median now. If you notice on the newer constructed parts they have openings at the bottom.
Like those tiny little holes are going to let the amount of water that was dammed up through. Those little holes would have a negligible effect.
It's better than nothing but yeah I'd like to see it allow for more flow. Water does crazy shite when it hits obstacles like that. The water was going out at the overpass at Range road which was dangerous as frick for rescue crews because it was flowing so fast.
I think people assume engineers know what they're doing, but they don't.
Posted on 4/24/22 at 3:50 am to BeepNode
The Irony in all this is that the dam walls were put in place because the Local Governments wanted their high-end areas to be protected from flooding from the South.
The 2016 Flood came from the NOrth, and the very effective dam wall put in place to stop waters coming from the south stopped the waters coming from the North from continuing to flow south, and made the 2016 flooding even worse.
However, the lawsuit probably won't amount to anything.
What's the difference between 1 foot of water in your house vs three feet? Both scenarios result in a total remodel of the house, complete with ripping out and replacing drywall and floors.
And that all should have been covered by your Flood Insurance.
Oh yeah...All the plaintiffs didn't have flood insurance. That's why they want to sue.
The 2016 Flood came from the NOrth, and the very effective dam wall put in place to stop waters coming from the south stopped the waters coming from the North from continuing to flow south, and made the 2016 flooding even worse.
However, the lawsuit probably won't amount to anything.
What's the difference between 1 foot of water in your house vs three feet? Both scenarios result in a total remodel of the house, complete with ripping out and replacing drywall and floors.
And that all should have been covered by your Flood Insurance.
Oh yeah...All the plaintiffs didn't have flood insurance. That's why they want to sue.
Posted on 4/24/22 at 6:22 am to TigeeDaleC
The city/parish requires homes be built at the 25-year flood level at a minimum. The math adds up to flooding. That area will flood again and we'll within the next 100 yeas. And people will blame everyone but themselves and/or the weather.
Posted on 4/24/22 at 7:47 am to magildachunks
I'm not a plaintiff, but I got 6 feet of water in that flood. Ceiling fans were in water. I DID have flood insurance. The adjusters measure each room with a laser, and compute the amount of materials it would take to rebuild. Good so far. (Not counting in labor.) The gotcha is their pricing. They think I can find 2x4s for $1.15 each. Same for wallboard and the like. SEVERELY underpriced! I ended up selling the place because for the cost of rehab, all the permitting fiascos ahead of me. Years to restore what I had. It was easier to sell it as is and buy a new place. Best decision I ever made.
Posted on 4/24/22 at 10:58 pm to magildachunks
quote:
The Irony in all this is that the dam walls were put in place because the Local Governments wanted their high-end areas to be protected from flooding from the South.
If that's the case then that is intentional.
quote:
What's the difference between 1 foot of water in your house vs three feet?
Not everyone got 3 feet. Some got 1 inch, some 18 inches, some 6 feet. We don't know how much lower the levels would have been had the water not backed up 3 feet at I-12. Maybe just 1 inch lower, maybe 2 feet lower. It all depends on where you were at and so on.
Posted on 4/24/22 at 11:00 pm to thegambler
quote:
The city/parish requires homes be built at the 25-year flood level at a minimum. The math adds up to flooding. That area will flood again and we'll within the next 100 yeas.
Homes not in a flood zone got 2 feet of water. Some didn't come close to flooding in the floods of 1979 and 1983.
Posted on 4/24/22 at 11:01 pm to BeepNode
Still going. Will never end.
The median barriers did not cause the flooding. People building in a 25 year plain did. The water on the interstate had nowhere to go. The houses on the north were flooded from backup from the south.
Those are the facts.
The median barriers did not cause the flooding. People building in a 25 year plain did. The water on the interstate had nowhere to go. The houses on the north were flooded from backup from the south.
Those are the facts.
This post was edited on 4/24/22 at 11:06 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News