Opinion ID: 1797621
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Likelihood BDF Could Have Obtained A Permit for the Construction of its Levee from 1979 to the Present

Text: Even though the landowners urge to the contrary, the evidence clearly shows that had BDF continued to reapply for permits up until the expropriation suits were filed, its permit applications would have continually been denied not because of the hurricane levee project but because of the land's inclusion in the park protection zone and the park supporters' desire to preserve the land in the park protection zone as undeveloped wetlands and, for the additional reason that the trend of emerging national policy was ever-increasingly in favor of preserving wetlands unless development was absolutely necessary. The record also shows that, for the same reasons, there was no reasonable probability in the reasonably near future after the expropriation that the landowners would have been able to obtain permits necessary for developing their land into its highest and best use of residential subdivisions had the project and the expropriation not taken place. That BDF's permit application for the construction of a levee along alignment D would have been denied for the above reasons, had BDF reapplied in the early 1980s, is supported by several sources in the record, but is bolstered most convincingly by the fact the Parish Council's own application for the construction of its hurricane levee along alignment D, as well as a compromise alignment suggested by the landowners and supported by the parish, were both rejected by the Corps. On November 20, 1980, the District Engineer wrote to the Parish Council to inform it that its application for the construction of a levee along alignment 3-C, an alignment similar to BDF's alignment in the reaches affecting BDF's property, would be denied because it encompassed too much wetlands, allowing for their development. The Parish Council's application for a permit along Alignment D, made on June 19, 1981, was also later denied. During the consideration by the Corps of the parish's permit, the park proponents continued to vigorously contest the placement of any levee, be it BDF's or the parish's, along Alignment D. [46] Several federal and state agencies wrote to the Corps, recommending it deny the parish's permit for alignment D because of its significant impact on the wetlands and on the park. Dr. Sherwood Gagliano, at the behest of the landowners and the parish, presented a compromise alignment located at the midpoint between alignments D and E to the Parish Council and to the Corps at a public hearing on April 17, 1984. The Parish Council adopted a resolution approving of the compromise alignment and urging the Corps to consider it. On June 18, 1984, the Corps denied the Parish Council's application for a permit to construct a levee along alignment D. The denial of the parish's application for a permit on alignment D was also an implicit denial of the compromise alignment. The Findings of Fact of the Corps' denial note the Parish Council had requested the Corps consider the compromise alignment. Furthermore, Dr. Lloyd F. Baehr, Jr., who has worked for the Corps since 1976 and is the current head of its permit division, testified the Corps considered the compromise because it considers all comments made during a public hearing concerning a permit application, and the Corps' rejection of the Council's permit along alignment D and its offering of a permit only along alignment E and not along the compromise alignment, indicate the Corps also rejected the compromise alignment. [47] The Corps eventually offered the parish a permit for the construction of a levee along alignment E only. [48] The record does not support the conclusion that had the District turned down the Corps' offer of a permit along alignment E, the Corps would have offered BDF a permit to construct its levee along alignment D. The landowners argue that the Corps would have been forced to offer a permit along alignment D if the District turned down alignment E because the Corps knew that a levee to protect the West Bank from hurricanes had to be built. To the contrary, the record does not reveal the Corps' primary concern was the prompt construction of a hurricane protection levee. The record is clear the Corps knew the District/Parish Council had, from the 1970s, wanted either its levee or BDF's levee to be built along alignment D. The Corps knew the District/Parish Council strongly desired to provide hurricane protection to its citizens. Yet, the above considerations did not preclude the Corps from: (1) taking four years to act on BDF's alignment D permit application, (2) from denying BDF's permit application in 1979, (3) from taking three years to act on the parish's alignment D permit application, (4) from denying the parish's permit application in 1984, or (5) from denying a permit for the compromise alignment. Nor did it preclude the Corps, and the federal government, from failing to agree to provide any federal funding for the parish's hurricane levee until 1990. Furthermore, testimony at trial bears out the conclusion the Corps would offer a permit for the construction of a levee, be it BDF's or the parish's, only along alignment E. Ronald R. Besson, president of the District from 1980 through 1990, testified the Parish Council was told by the Corps it would only grant a permit along alignment E. [T]he Corps of Engineers came back to the parish council, denied the permit for alignment D and told them that the only alignment that they would grant a permit would only be the modified alignment E. Regarding the Corps' intent, after it had denied the parish's application for alignment D but prior to the parish's acceptance of a permit along alignment E, Besson further testified as follows: Q: Had you ever been advised or the Corps, the Levee District ever been advised to your knowledge or have you ever been advised when you were president of the West Jefferson Levee District by anybody from the Corps that the reach of the levee along modified alignment E was ever in question of being changed or modified? A: No. Q: So to your knowledge there was never in your mind, in the minds of the West Jefferson Levee District any question about where this levee was going to be built insofar as it affects the property that's the subject of this litigation? A: No question at all. .... A: [I]t was never a doubt to us of where the alignment was [despite the fact that several alignments were discussed in the February 1984 EIS issued by the Corps] because the federal government and Corps of Engineers made it very very clear to us that it was either alternative alignment E or nothing. We have explained earlier why the landowners must be able to show the Corps would have offered BDF, and not the District, a permit for alignment D, had the District turned down the permit for alignment E. In any case, however, the testimony of Dr. Baehr, head of the permit division for the Corps, and one of the Corps' employees who worked on the parish's permit, indicates the Corps only considered alignment E for the hurricane levee. He testified the permit for alignment D was denied mainly because the hurricane levee was intended to protect developed areas, and landowners' wetlands property was not developed and therefore did not need protection. A: [I]t was still going to impact a great deal of wetlands unnecessarily because the basic purpose of the project was to protect developed property on the Westbank and this was not going to protect developed property but protect wetlands and we saw that as an unnecessary activity since the basic purpose of the project was not stated to protect undeveloped property for future development. .... A: See the idea behind the permit as we understood it is that the permit was requested to protect developed property on the Westbank of Jefferson Parish. We did not consider wetlands as developed property. And therefore, we eliminated wetlands from the evaluation process because it was the least damaging environmental alternative. Thus, even if the Parish Council had turned down the permit for alignment E, no evidence adduced indicates the Corps would have offered the District a permit for alignment D, as Dr. Baehr testified the hurricane levee was not intended to protect undeveloped wetlands. Furthermore, Dr. Gagliano also testified that had the District/Parish Council turned down the Corps' offer of alignment E, the Corps would not have offered alignment D. Q: [D]o you feel that the only alignment that the Corps would allow a levee to be built on in 1986 was the alignment known as modified E? A: Yes. Q: Do you feel that in 1989 had, had not the parish not accepted the permit for modified E, that the Corps would have allowed construction of a levee along a different alignment? .... A: Not without opening the whole new process. The Corps made a decision and they said alignment E is where the levee will be built, yes. Q: I'm talking about 1989 had not had the parish not accepted the permit for modified E, do you feel that the Corps would allow a levee to be built on any other alignment other than that which we have identified as E? A: No. The testimony of Dr. Terry Howey, the director of the Coastal Management Division in the Office of Coastal Management and Restoration in the Department of Natural Resources, further indicates that even assuming the project and the expropriation had not taken place, the landowners would have been unable from 1985 and into the future to get the permits necessary to develop their land. Under federal law, the Corps will not issue a § 404 permit unless the state coastal management program, which came into existence in 1980 and of which Dr. Howey is the director, has issued the corresponding state permits. [49] Dr. Howey, after being shown an aerial photo of BDF's property, testified regarding the probability BDF could have obtained the state permits where such land has been designated wetlands by the Corps. He stated: I would characterize the probability of getting a permit for a type of development [for the construction of a levee and the development of the remaining land into subdivisions] such as you have described in this type of area, and of this magnitude in terms of acreage, as an extremely difficult proposition and it would be very difficult to obtain a permit for this area. I know of no permits that have been issued for similar types of areas of similar acreage in the period of time that I have been working for the Coastal Management Division. Although Dr. Howey agreed the parish had been able to obtain the state permit for the construction of the levee alone when it applied to the Corps for a permit to build a levee along alignment D in 1981, he pointed out the probability of obtaining the same permit today is considerably lower. One of the landowners himself testified the failure of landowners to be able to develop their land in 1984 was based on the cease and desist order issued by the Corps and the Corps' denial of BDF's permit in 1979, which we have already found to be unrelated to the hurricane project. Wilson Abraham, a BDF principal, testified: A: The Corps of Engineers had a cease and desist. We couldn't move. We could do absolutely nothing with that property. We had paid a twenty-five thousand dollar fine to the federal government with specific orders to stop. That was back in seventy something and we stopped. Q: So as a result of the Corps' denial of your permit, you could do nothing with the property? A: Absolutely nothing, yes sir. .... Q: Is it your position or contention then that the inability of BDF to be able to get a permit to build the levee along the rear of its property line to the west was the cause or reason you weren't able to develop this property? A: You're one hundred percent correct sir. Mr. Abraham was also asked about the probability BDF would have been able to obtain the permits from the Corps assuming the hurricane project was not in existence. Q: [A]ssume alignment E and construction of the levee is not going on along Barataria Boulevard and it's 1986 and 1985, do you feel that you could get a permit from the Corps of Engineers to develop your property in 1985? A: No.... They wanted it for Lafitte Park all indications were and I think the Corps might have acquiesced in the earlier letter as I read they were in favor of it and then the Lafitte Park, Isenogle [the park superintendent] and that bunch got involved and it was hopeless. Q: So in 1988 and 1989 even if there was no levee along Highway 45, you don't believe you could get a permit to develop it then? A: No sir; I really don't. .... Q: So is it fair to say you do not feel you would have gotten a permit from the Corps at any time after 1979? A: I don't thinkwe might have a little bit later on but again as I stated they did turn us down [in 1979] and I think had not the park come into being, we would have gotten our permit. An additional impediment to the landowners' attempting to prove the reasonable probability of BDF obtaining the necessary permits in the late 1980s and up until the present, is the growing difficulty in obtaining permits for development of wetlands. Dr. Gagliano testified that in February of 1989, the so-called manual for wetland delineation was made public by four agencies; the Corps of Engineers; US Fish and Wildlife Service; National Marine Fisheries Service; and Soil Conservation Service which significantly changed the permitting process. This was followed shortly thereafter by the signing of a memorandum of agreement between the US Army Corps of Engineers and EPA which made it even more difficult to acquire permits for any type of development in wetland areas.  (emphasis added). [50] Additionally, Dr. Gagliano testified quite pointedly that even absent the hurricane levee project, the landowners would have been unable to obtain the required permits necessary for the development of their property from 1980 up until the present because of the land's inclusion in the park protection zone, a factor totally unrelated to the hurricane project, and for which the District should not be held liable. Q: [W]e all know that the BDF permit application for, to build the levee along the rear of their property which coincides with the alignment that we've been referring to as D was denied in 1979 by the Corps and I believe your opinion was that the reason for that denial was really because of the Jean Lafitte Park and the park protection zone? A: Yes. Q: That's basically correct? And as a result of that denial, they were not able to develop their property; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And not being able to develop their property took it out of commerce; is that correct? A: They took it out. Q: In other words, the denial of the permit prohibits the landowner from developing the property. If he can't develop his property, it's taken out of commerce; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: In your opinion, if the landowners in this case had applied to the Corps in 1980 or a permit to develop their property as a residential subdivision, could they have gotten a permit from the Corps? A: In 1980? Q: 1980. A: No. Q: Why? A: Because of the park protection zone. Q: In 1981, the landowners had applied to the Corps for a permit to develop their property, in your opinion, would they have gotten a permit? A: No, because of the same issue, because of the park. Q: In 1982 if the owners had applied to the Corps of Engineers to develop their property, in your opinion could they have gotten it? A: No, because of the park. Q: In 1983 if the landowners had applied to the Corps for a permit to develop their property in your opinion could they have gotten it? A: No, for the same reason. Q: In 1984 if the landowners had applied to the Corps of Engineers for a permit to develop their property in your opinion, would they have received it? A: No, because of the presence of the park. Q: In 1985, if the landowners had applied to the Corps for a permit to develop their property, could they have received it? A: No, for the same reason. Q: In 1986, if the landowners had applied to the Corps for a permit to develop their property, could they have gotten it? A: No, for the same reason but I must add ... that in all of these time frames had the park not been a major driving issue in the permit decision in my opinion they would have had a very good opportunity, very good chance of acquiring a permit.... Q: In 1987 if the landowners had applied to the Corps of Engineers to develop their property, do you think in your opinion that the Corps of Engineers would have granted that permit? A: No, because of the park issue. Q: In 1988 if the landowners had applied to the Corps of Engineers for a permit to develop their property, do you think they would have received it? A: No, because of the park issue, and I put the same explanation on those dates as well. Q: And in 1989 if the landowners had applied to the Corps of Engineers for a permit to develop their property, do you think that they in your opinion, do you feel that it would have been granted? A: No, subsequent to the passage of the introduction of the wetland delineation manual and the new memorandum of agreement and the President's no net loss of wetland policy, it becomes increasingly difficult to acquire a permit. In fact, I really, it's my opinion that permits may be in a state of limbo at present because of uncertainty as to how these programs are going to be administered. So I can't give you a definitive answer to that question. .... A: [I]f the park were not an issue, there would be other elements coming into play in 1989 that might cause denial of a permit.... Q: In 1990 if the landowners had applied to the Corps of Engineers for a permit to develop their property in your opinion, do you think they would have received it? A: I think the park again would be a major issue in the issuance of the permit. The landowners seek to tie the effect the park protection zone has on their ability to get their own permits to the hurricane levee project by asserting the ultimate location of the hurricane levee was to decide the boundaries of the park protection zone. The landowners assert this in brief, and Dr. Gagliano made this statement several times during his testimony. To the extent the trial judge made such a finding of fact, it is manifestly erroneous, as it is unsupported by the record and legally incorrect. Dr. Gagliano gave no reason for his conclusion in his testimony. The boundaries of the park protection zone were set by statute in 1978. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 230, 230a(a), and 230a(b). Therein, it is stated that the Barataria Marsh Unit of the park would include 20,000 acres, 8,600 of which would comprise the core area and 11,400 of which would comprise the park protection zone. The statute refers to a map, numbered 90,000B and dated April, 1978, as depicting the boundaries of these areas. The landowners introduced into evidence a map one of its experts had drawn in 1987 in order to show the location of landowners' property in relation to the park protection zone boundary. That exhibit states on its face that the expert used map 90,000B dated April 1978 as the basis for his drawing. Although 16 U.S.C. § 230a(f) states: The Secretary [of the Interior] may revise the boundaries of the park protection zone, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to include or exclude properties, but only with the consent of Jefferson Parish, no documentary or testamentary evidence whatsoever was offered to indicate the Secretary intended to revise the boundaries of the park protection zone depending on where the hurricane levee was to be built or that there was even any discussion by any of the parties involved that such would occur. The only indication of this in the entire record were the statements by Dr. Gagliano, who gave no factual basis for this conclusion. Finally, the lower courts seem to rely on the existence of the Local Cooperating Agreement signed by the parish and the Corps in 1990 in reaching their decisions. While we agree with the lower courts and with landowners that the record shows the Agreement which deals with the sharing of costs between the federal government and the District for the construction of the West Bank Hurricane Protection Levee, a much more extensive levee than the locally funded levee which the District expropriated landowners' land for, is intended to include the costs of the instant expropriation, such a fact does not change the valuation of the property at the time of the expropriation. That the Corps has agreed to share the costs of this expropriation does not give the property a higher value than it would have had had the Corps not agreed to share the costs. Furthermore, the Local Cooperating Agreement does not reveal an intent that the District be held responsible for any devaluation to landowners' property caused by the Corps, the National Park Service, or the federal government occurring prior to the expropriation in this case where that federal action and the resultant devaluation were unrelated to the project covered by the Agreement. [51]