Opinion ID: 1465114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: factual, regulatory, and procedural background

Text: On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall along Louisiana's Gulf of Mexico coast. As a result, President George W. Bush declared that a major disaster existed in the State of Louisiana and initiated the federal government's involvement in the hurricane recovery effort. [1] See Notice of the Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the State of Louisiana, 70 Fed.Reg. 53,803-01 (Sept. 12, 2005). The President exercised his authority to declare major disaster areas pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5208. See 42 U.S.C. § 5122(2) (defining major disaster by reference to presidential determination); see also 44 C.F.R. § 206.38(a) (The Governor's request for a major disaster declaration may result in either a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or an emergency, or denial of the Governor's request.). After the President declares a major disaster, the Stafford Act states that [f]ederal agencies may on the direction of the President, provide assistance essential to meeting immediate threats to life and property resulting from [the] major disaster. 42 U.S.C. § 5170b(a). It permits federal agencies to assist in debris removal where it is essential to saving lives and protecting and preserving property or public health and safety. Id. § 5170b(a)(3)(A). Section 5173 of the Stafford Act likewise states that [t]he President, whenever he determines it to be in the public interest, is authorized ... to make grants to any State or local government... for the purpose of removing debris ... resulting from a major disaster from publicly or privately owned lands and waters. Id. § 5173(a)(2). The Stafford Act authorizes the President to delegate his authority under the Act to a federal agency. See id. § 5164. The President exercised this option and delegated most of his authority to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (collectively, defendants or the government). Exec. Order No. 12,673: Delegation of Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Functions, 54 Fed.Reg. 12,571, § 1 (Mar. 23, 1989). In turn, FEMA promulgated certain regulations pursuant to the Stafford Act establishing the qualifications and procedures related to federal assistance for debris removal. See 44 C.F.R. § 206.224. The implementing regulations establish that debris removal must be in the public interest in order to be eligible for funding. Id. § 206.224(a). Debris removal is in the public interest when it is, inter alia, necessary to [e]liminate immediate threats to life, public health, and safety. Id. § 206.224(a)(1). Upon determination that debris removal is in the public interest, the Regional Director [, a FEMA official,] may provide assistance for the removal of debris and wreckage from publicly and privately owned lands and waters. Id. § 206.224(a). Under the regulations, a specific project must be documented in a Project Worksheet, FEMA Form 90-91 (PW). See id. § 206.202(d). The Regional Director, or a designee, is charged with review[ing] and sign[ing] an approval of work and costs on a Project Worksheet, id. § 206.201(j), and will then obligate funds to the Grantee based on the approved Project Worksheet, id. § 206.202(e)(1). See also id. § 206.201(i)(1) (authorizing FEMA to approve a scope of eligible work and an itemized cost estimate before funding a project). The President's August 29, 2005 declaration that a major disaster existed in Louisiana as a result of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in certain areas authorized FEMA to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses. 70 Fed.Reg. 53,803-01, at 53,803. The declaration also authorized FEMA to provide... assistance for debris removal. Id. The President specifically identified St. Tammany Parish (plaintiff or the Parish) as a municipality eligible for such assistance. Id. Pursuant to the Stafford Act and its accompanying regulations, FEMA issued Recovery Policy 9523.13 to help facilitate debris removal from private property after Hurricane Katrina. See FEMA, Debris Removal from Private Property: Recovery Policy 9523.13 (Oct. 23, 2005), amending and replacing Recovery Policy 9523.13 (Sept. 7, 2005). Recovery Policy 9523.13 provides that: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in some areas created catastrophic, widespread destruction resulting in vast quantities of debris which may require state or local government to enter private property to remove it in order to prevent disease and other immediate public health and safety threats. In these situations, debris removal from private property may be in the public interest and thus may be eligible for reimbursement, when the unconditional authorization for debris removal and indemnification requirements established by Sections 403 and 407 of the Stafford Act are met. Recovery Policy 9523.13, at § 6(C). It offers guidance for reimbursing state, county, and municipal governments for costs incurred in debris removal from private property. Id. at § 7. Section 7 of the Policy provides that FEMA will work with local governments to determine areas in which such debris removal is in the `public interest' under 44 C.F.R. § 206.224 and thus is eligible for FEMA reimbursement, § 7(A); requires the local government to submit a written request seeking reimbursement, see § 7(C); and grants FEMA the authority to approve or disapprove each request, see § 7(H). To clarify Recovery Policy 9523.13's application, Nancy Ward, FEMA's Director of the Recovery Area Command, issued a memorandum to FEMA's field offices that declared that it is in the public interest to remove debris from private property because an immediate threat to public health and safety exists in the Parish, thus satisfying § 7(A) of the Policy. See Memorandum from Nancy Ward, Recovery Area Command Director, to FEMA Joint Field Offices (Sept. 10, 2005) (the Ward Memorandum). On September 12, 2005, the Parish filed a Request for Public Assistance for debris removal from public and private property within its jurisdiction. Part of the request sought debris removal from private canals in Coin du Lestin. Coin du Lestin, a private community consisting of approximately 250 residential homes, sits in the eastern part of the Parish. Coin du Lestin utilizes an above-ground drainage system that consists of drainage ditches, drains, and culverts. The drainage system is connected to a number of canals, which, in turn, drain into Bayou Bonfouca and then Lake Pontchartrain. The Coin du Lestin canals were navigable prior to Hurricane Katrina, reaching a depth of at least ten feet. Hurricane-related flooding, however, deposited construction and demolition (C&D) materials, a boat, a submerged vehicle, as well as silt, mud, and vegetative materials, into the canals. Citing a potential flood hazard due to clogging in the Coin du Lestin canals, the Parish requested funding for removal of C&D debris and for the dredging of the canals to a depth of eight feet from bank to bank. The proposed scope of work included the removal of approximately 500,000 cubic yards (CY) of debris. In response, FEMA issued PW 2981, authorizing some, but not all, of the Parish's requested funding for debris removal from the Coin du Lestin canals. See FEMA, Project Worksheet Report 2981 (Feb. 6, 2006). According to PW 2981, FEMA debris specialists conducted an assessment of the canals on February 2, 2006, to estimate the amount of debris in the canals that posed an immediate threat to improved property, public health and safety. Id. at 14. FEMA specialists determined that: [H]igh winds and storm surge associated with Hurricane Katrina ... caused an estimated 130 CY of C&D debris and one (1) recreational boat to be deposited in the St. Tammany Coin [du]Lestin canals. The canals serve as access to the surrounding area and are within close proximity to parish residences; therefore, the debris is considered an immediate threat to public health and safety. Also deposited in the canals were large quantities of marsh grass. Id. at 2. As a result of this assessment, FEMA authorized funding for removal of approximately 130 CY of C&D debris and the recreational boat. FEMA, however, determined that [m]arsh grass removal from the canal is considered not eligible as its removal is considered to be dredging. Id. at 3; see also id. at 14 (noting that some debris may not be considered eligible for funding because it is not considered to pose an immediate threat to improved property, public health and safety, such as marsh grass, soil, and debris that is not in close proximity to improved property). The approved PW 2981 authorized funding for a total of $7350 for debris removal. Id. at 1. Nearly a year later, FEMA amended PW 2981 with PW 2981-1. See FEMA, Project Worksheet Report 2981-1 (Jan. 10, 2007). The new PW altered the work description to include removal of a newly discovered submerged vehicle that FEMA determined was eligible for funding. In addition, FEMA amended the cost figure to cover the use of an amphibious crawler and a barge to clear the C&D debris, the boat, and the submerged vehicle, which could not be cleared by conventional means. PW 2981-01 thus documented the total costs to be $31,979 (the original $7350 plus new costs totaling $24,629). In an email dated May 4, 2007, Patrick W. Ruland, FEMA's Public Assistance officer, proposed an extension of the work to include the removal of some marsh grass to ensure flow within the canals. See Email from Patrick W. Ruland, Public Assistance Officer, to Joe Shoemaker et al. (May 4, 2007). Ruland notified the Parish that FEMA was willing to reconsider funding the removal of some marsh grass from the Coin du Lestin canals. Id. He wrote: FEMA understands that the Parishes [sic] two primary concerns are the removal of debris to reduce the threat of future flooding and to return the canals to a functional capacity for the residences. But with these waters being tertiary, non-navigable waterways, our concern is primarily to reduce further damages from occurring due to flood waters. The amounts of marsh grass removal FEMA PA would consider reasonable to allow the waters to flow for drainage purposes at the Coin Du Lestin area will be limited to 2' deep x 10' wide.... The debris removal will only be eligible at those areas of the waterways in which water flow is severely restricted. Id. The record does not reveal that either FEMA or the Coin du Lestin community pursued this proposal or completed a new PW before the Parish filed the present suit.
On June 22, 2007, the Parish filed a five-count complaint against FEMA and DHS based on FEMA's refusal to fully fund the Parish's Request for Public Assistance seeking removal of all debris and sediment from the Coin du Lestin canals to a depth of eight feet. The Parish's first count alleged that defendants violated the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5170 and 5173, by wrongfully refusing to fund dredging of the Parish's Coin du Lestin canals. The second count alleged that defendants were liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2674, for the same conduct. The third count alleged that defendants violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 553, and the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5165c, because FEMA's refusal to approve funding constituted a substantive rule change about which FEMA never provided the public with notice and an opportunity to comment. The fourth count alleged that defendants deprived the Parish of its right under the Stafford Act, id. § 5189a, and corresponding regulations, to appeal FEMA's denial of the requested funding. Lastly, the fifth count alleged that defendants violated the Stafford Act, id. § 5151, by failing to treat the residents of the Coin du Lestin community in a fair and equitable manner because FEMA funded similar projects in other communities. Plaintiff sought an order requiring FEMA to cover the costs of debris removal, a declaratory judgment that the government's policies violated the Stafford Act, and a monetary judgment in tort for sums required for debris removal. Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds of sovereign immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 5148 and of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In support of their motion, defendants submitted an affidavit from Eddie Williams, FEMA's Deputy Public Assistance Officer. Williams confirmed that while FEMA did not initially agree that complete removal of sediment was necessary to reduce an immediate threat of flooding, it has since determined that sufficient flood hazards exist to allow for the removal of sediment (and swamp grass) to clear a 10 ft. wide by 2 ft. deep channel at drainage culverts throughout the approximately 1.5 miles of canals in the community. He also stated that a new version of PW 2981 was being considered and that additional information from the Parish was needed. In response to defendants' motion, the Parish argued that the Stafford Act, the FTCA, and the APA waived the United States's sovereign immunity for purposes of its suit because the Stafford Act and its corresponding regulations mandated that FEMA provide funding for debris removal from the Coin du Lestin canals. Furthermore, the Parish contended that Williams's affidavit showed that FEMA determined that there was an immediate threat of flooding from the Coin du Lestin canals, thus mandating funding of the requested dredging to remove the immediate threat. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court first noted that § 702 of the APA waives sovereign immunity for claims alleging that a person suffered a legal wrong because of agency action, within the meaning of a relevant statute. The court also noted, however, that the waiver of sovereign immunity is inapplicable when statutes preclude judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). The court thus weighed whether the Stafford Act's discretionary function exception, which precludes liability for any claim based upon the exercise or performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a Federal agency, 42 U.S.C. § 5148, applied to the Parish's claims. Noting the similarities between § 5148 and the FTCA's similar discretionary function exception to its waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), the district court concluded that the same test for discretionary function applied under both statutes. It, therefore, applied the two-part test that the Supreme Court first described in Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), which defined discretionary functions under § 2680(a). Under this test, the district court held that FEMA's decisions whether and to what extent to remove the debris from the Coin du Lestin canals is a matter of judgment or choice and this judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield. [2] Thus, the district court held that the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for plaintiff's claims because they arise from discretionary functions that preclude suit under § 5148 and accordingly dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 21, 2007, the Parish filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.