Judge rules landowners should be paid for flood damage along Missouri River

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Nancy Gaarder

A federal judge has ruled that the government must pay landowners along the lower Missouri River for flooding their property to protect endangered species.

The final bill could reach into the hundreds of millions, according to a legal expert.

“This is a big deal,” said Anthony Schutz, an associate professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law. “The potential liability could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars depending upon how many people are included.”

Beyond the sticker shock of the potential price tag, the case could have broader effects, he said, ranging from higher costs to protect endangered species generally to more expensive infrastructure projects along the Missouri River locally.




Read more: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/judge-rules-landowners-should-be-paid-for-flood-damage-along-missouri-river/article_90eb1dc0-3fc4-11eb-9d4d-67f827d30297.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

[captain queeg]

1. Well, getting a judgment against the federal government is not the same as recieving any money

I don't know anything about this case, but always wonder if people had built on a known flood plain.

[LeftInTX]

2. This is a big deal

The plaintiffs probably won't be compensated what they feel they deserve, but going forward this will impact how the Corp of Engineers along with Fish and Wildlife proceed with flooding to protect endangered species.

[rwsanders]

3. I doubt if this will hold up. The Omaha headline is deceptive.

I did a quick read and the judge is holding that the flooding occurred due to changes made by the USACOE to protect endangered species.
The real issue, and again I apologize for not remembering my sources, but I read a very long article about the flooding along the Missouri River and I believe it is FEMA who is allowing for the "decertification" of levees. These levees are then left under the "care" of state and local governments as well as private entities. The levees have not been maintained and massive flooding has (predictably) occurred.
So the area is farmland because periodic flooding brought nutrients, but to get crops quickly to market the rivers were channelized and dredged. So less flooding (farmers say "yeah&quot , less shipping costs (consumers say "yeah&quot but less nutrients, so enter Monsanto (mad scientists say "yeah&quot and artificial fertilizer is introduced (fish in the Gulf of Mexico say "boo&quot .
So the correct thing to do is eliminate most of the levees, let the rivers flood, and work with the environment instead of constantly believing we can beat this world into submission and make it do what we want.

[El Mimbreno]

4. In the long run...

levees just make flood damage worse. People are led to believe the levees will protect their property and they build in the flood plain. But then the big flood comes, the levees are topped or breached because the river is restrained and can't spread out like it used to. Also, the dams on the Missouri led people to believe there would be no floods. Then in 2013, when the record snowpack in the Northern Rockies melted, the Corps had to release unprecedented volumes of water from the dams, flooding downstream areas. The flooding remained all summer. Without the dams, the flooding would have been much higher, but short-lived. So, one way or another, Mother Nature gonna get ya!

[rwsanders]

5. In a rare dose of sanity from China, they had a choice of building a $15 billion for a flood control

dam, and instead spent a couple of billion moving villages to higher ground.
'magine that?

[usajumpedtheshark]

6. And how are they going to prove that the flooding was soley due to endangered species protection?

If you live in a flood plain you shouldn't wonder why your property gets flooded. Seems like an indirect attack on endangered species protections by trying to make it too expensive to continue.