Courier/Comet Does Portable Levee Story
The Courier/Comet carried an article on "temporary flood-protection devices" in today's edition.
"Lafourche administration officials authorized the deployment of inflatable dams along a mile-and-a-half stretch of Bayou l’Eau Bleu near the Valentine Bridge", according to the article. $5.3 million to protect one and a half miles of Lafourche Parish? Must be a pretty important 1 1/2 mile!
If you drive on La. 1 past the Valentine Bridge, you know the bridge bisects about a one mile stretch with no houses, but only cattle pastures. If you keep going North on La. 1, there are a number of high priced homes built not far off the road on the natural ridge along the bayou. One of the homes happens to be owned by a scion of an extremely prominent family in the immediate area. The elevation of this ridge is around 10 feet above sealevel. This area is one of the most sparsely populated areas of the Parish.
Councilman Phillip Gouaux is quoted as saying that after Rita water threatened his and other neighborhoods the way "it had during Hurricane Juan in 1985, when a levee breach flooded the area, including his home." What Mr. Gouaux failed to reveal is that since 1985 a levee has been built between his neighborhood and the Valentine Bridge perpendicular to the bayou and a number of powerful pumps, including the Tom Foret and Edgar Guidry pumps, have been placed in the service of the area.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether the area where the "temporary flood-protection devices" were placed was threatened by any flooding whatsoever.
This picture, dated September 26, 2005, shows a Lafourche Parish Sheriff's trustee deploying one of the tubes. Rita hit Cameron Parish on Sept. 24. There is no evidence the water you see on the right ever threatened this levee. There appears to be at least a two foot free board and the water was receding by this time.
In a May 30, 2006 memo to the auditors, Cullen Curole, Parish Administrator, writes the tubes were kept in place for three weeks after Rita "...out of caution by DPW due to the continuing existence of storms in the Caribbean and Gulf." In other words, Ray Cheramie, the de facto Parish President, intended to maintain the tubes in place for as long as he deemed storms were a threat to his and his fellow cattlemen's cows and the houses of a few big shots.
There's the real explanation. They were not placed to address a problem then existing. The tubes were placed as insurance against any FUTURE risks of flooding!
There are two big problems for Charlotte in this fiasco:
1. Did she have authority to unilaterally, without Council approval or knowledge, incur a $5.3 million debt, or a $1.325 million debt if FEMA agrees to covering 75% with the Parish being responsible for 25%?
2. Was the deal smart?
The Charter, which she so fondly points to when it is to limit Council authority, requires her to seek Council approval by ordinance for emergency expenditures. OOPS! Charlotte says that is too much trouble. So, she will point to a Louisiana state law. Parish presidents may exercise emergency powers provided under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, La. Rev. Stat. Title 29, §721, et seq. 29:727 provides specific powers to Parish Presidents in the event of an emergency.
The President may suspend the provisions of any regulatory ordinance; utilize available resources; transfer direction, personnel, or functions of local departments; commandeer private property; compel evacuation or control movement of population in stricken or threatened area; and regulate the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, and combustibles.
The President's authority to "utilize all available resources" does have limits. Any expenditure must be "reasonably necessary to cope with the local disaster or emergency". In other words, unlike Charlotte's belief that no expense could be spared when using her heart attack analogy in the article, the law she invokes as authority for her to act unilaterally requires a cost/benefit analysis, not hysterical spending.
So, we apparently have a conflict between the Charter on one hand, which places authority to spend in times of emergency with the Council, and the State statute which gives a Parish President authority to "utilize all available resources". The issue is which one controls. I believe Cam will say the Charter supercedes the statute and, therefore, Charlotte acted in violation of the Charter.
Let's say I am wrong in my prediction and Charlotte overcomes that hurdle. The next problem Charlotte will have is convencing the Public and, more importantly to her, her big shot patrons that the deal was the right thing to do. Remember, the State statute provides her with authority to "utilize all available resources of the local government as reasonably necessary to cope with the local disaster or emergency."
A May 18, 2005 U.S. Today article indicated that U.S. Storm Control Corp. sold their tubes for $1,200 each. We contracted for the use of 500. Had we bought the tubes, it would have cost us $600,000.00. Renting them at a rate of $175,000.00 per day for 30 days cost $5.3 million. If FEMA agrees to cover 75%, we will owe $1.325 million, or $725K more than buying would have cost.
Was the expenditure "reasonably necessary to cope with the local disaster or emergency?" We spent at least $1.325 million to protect one mile of cattle pastures and the houses of a few big shots.
Charlotte's big shot patrons got to where they are knowing how to transact business very well. They know this deal was a monumentaly bad deal to make. This is where Charlotte's story ends for those guys. They fire people for less stupidity.
The Courier/Comet carried an article on "temporary flood-protection devices" in today's edition.
"Lafourche administration officials authorized the deployment of inflatable dams along a mile-and-a-half stretch of Bayou l’Eau Bleu near the Valentine Bridge", according to the article. $5.3 million to protect one and a half miles of Lafourche Parish? Must be a pretty important 1 1/2 mile!
If you drive on La. 1 past the Valentine Bridge, you know the bridge bisects about a one mile stretch with no houses, but only cattle pastures. If you keep going North on La. 1, there are a number of high priced homes built not far off the road on the natural ridge along the bayou. One of the homes happens to be owned by a scion of an extremely prominent family in the immediate area. The elevation of this ridge is around 10 feet above sealevel. This area is one of the most sparsely populated areas of the Parish.
Councilman Phillip Gouaux is quoted as saying that after Rita water threatened his and other neighborhoods the way "it had during Hurricane Juan in 1985, when a levee breach flooded the area, including his home." What Mr. Gouaux failed to reveal is that since 1985 a levee has been built between his neighborhood and the Valentine Bridge perpendicular to the bayou and a number of powerful pumps, including the Tom Foret and Edgar Guidry pumps, have been placed in the service of the area.
Furthermore, it is questionable whether the area where the "temporary flood-protection devices" were placed was threatened by any flooding whatsoever.

This picture, dated September 26, 2005, shows a Lafourche Parish Sheriff's trustee deploying one of the tubes. Rita hit Cameron Parish on Sept. 24. There is no evidence the water you see on the right ever threatened this levee. There appears to be at least a two foot free board and the water was receding by this time.
In a May 30, 2006 memo to the auditors, Cullen Curole, Parish Administrator, writes the tubes were kept in place for three weeks after Rita "...out of caution by DPW due to the continuing existence of storms in the Caribbean and Gulf." In other words, Ray Cheramie, the de facto Parish President, intended to maintain the tubes in place for as long as he deemed storms were a threat to his and his fellow cattlemen's cows and the houses of a few big shots.
There's the real explanation. They were not placed to address a problem then existing. The tubes were placed as insurance against any FUTURE risks of flooding!
There are two big problems for Charlotte in this fiasco:
1. Did she have authority to unilaterally, without Council approval or knowledge, incur a $5.3 million debt, or a $1.325 million debt if FEMA agrees to covering 75% with the Parish being responsible for 25%?
2. Was the deal smart?
The Charter, which she so fondly points to when it is to limit Council authority, requires her to seek Council approval by ordinance for emergency expenditures. OOPS! Charlotte says that is too much trouble. So, she will point to a Louisiana state law. Parish presidents may exercise emergency powers provided under the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, La. Rev. Stat. Title 29, §721, et seq. 29:727 provides specific powers to Parish Presidents in the event of an emergency.
The President may suspend the provisions of any regulatory ordinance; utilize available resources; transfer direction, personnel, or functions of local departments; commandeer private property; compel evacuation or control movement of population in stricken or threatened area; and regulate the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, and combustibles.
The President's authority to "utilize all available resources" does have limits. Any expenditure must be "reasonably necessary to cope with the local disaster or emergency". In other words, unlike Charlotte's belief that no expense could be spared when using her heart attack analogy in the article, the law she invokes as authority for her to act unilaterally requires a cost/benefit analysis, not hysterical spending.
So, we apparently have a conflict between the Charter on one hand, which places authority to spend in times of emergency with the Council, and the State statute which gives a Parish President authority to "utilize all available resources". The issue is which one controls. I believe Cam will say the Charter supercedes the statute and, therefore, Charlotte acted in violation of the Charter.
Let's say I am wrong in my prediction and Charlotte overcomes that hurdle. The next problem Charlotte will have is convencing the Public and, more importantly to her, her big shot patrons that the deal was the right thing to do. Remember, the State statute provides her with authority to "utilize all available resources of the local government as reasonably necessary to cope with the local disaster or emergency."
A May 18, 2005 U.S. Today article indicated that U.S. Storm Control Corp. sold their tubes for $1,200 each. We contracted for the use of 500. Had we bought the tubes, it would have cost us $600,000.00. Renting them at a rate of $175,000.00 per day for 30 days cost $5.3 million. If FEMA agrees to cover 75%, we will owe $1.325 million, or $725K more than buying would have cost.
Was the expenditure "reasonably necessary to cope with the local disaster or emergency?" We spent at least $1.325 million to protect one mile of cattle pastures and the houses of a few big shots.
Charlotte's big shot patrons got to where they are knowing how to transact business very well. They know this deal was a monumentaly bad deal to make. This is where Charlotte's story ends for those guys. They fire people for less stupidity.
11 Comments:
MIKE MATHERNE SAYS IT SMELLS FUNNY attaboy MIKE The administration's story got more holes than the levees.
Didn't the people of Lockport know they were doomed? Why were town officials and employees riding on top the levees checking water levels? Didn't they know they were going to die? Were the people running for higher ground?What were THE COWS doing ???.........If it does not fit, it must be......!!!!!
if Dr. Lasseigne does not discover this coverup would anyone ever have known about it? Is he the only one who pays attention to how the parish is being run (or run down)? The other councilmen need to wake up!
Why did the DAILY VOMIT hold on to this story that came out at the meeting TWO WEEKS AGO!!!Was it because the administration wanted the tax renewals to pass first and they asked it be held back.And second why fire the FINANCIAL DIRECTOR??? Wasn't she given an order to purchase this from her boss (Mr. or Mrs. Parish Prez,take your pick of who runs the parish.)?????
Who were the big shots who lived in the area?
if the parish has that kind of money to piss away, then it's time for the whistle blowers to step in and get a big hand full--rewards and protection are offered
The real questions are: what does it take to remove parish queen, a petition?, what about the people who lived along the intracoastal waterway, the water came up on the north bank? define for me again why we have drainage districts? why are we renewing drainage district taxes when the parish general fund is paying for drainage and levees? why do we have levee districts? do we not pay taxes for these levee districts to maintain protection levees? what if the financial director became a shielded whistle blower before the council meeting? the parish queen stated this morning on a radio talk show that it did not matter what someone did as a crime all of them are basically in the same boat and they should all be put in jail and face harsher sentences, what about her royal family member and if she is prosecuted for her actions, I wonder if she will have the balls to plead for a plea bargin or tell the judge she needs a harder sentence?
The comet is a joke, the writer Ms. Bahr walked out of the council meeting two weeks ago long before it was over with, I guess they get their news from watching the delayed telecast and produce their stories from replays. I recieve the comet and it seems as though they publish one article a day until the next meeting and the articles are hidden on pages other then the front page. I would make a deal with the comet, if I cover the council meetings and write what actually takes place and it is not edited for stories but rather for grammer I could do it without pay.
Good God! Sounds like you natives are restless! What have I done?!?! Or rather, what has Charorge done?!?! I actually did nothing but make this stuff public.
Excellent questions raised anonymous 7.
Now, now anonymous 8. It can't be all laid at Emilie's feet. It's her editors who have a big investment in Charlotte Randolph. After all, this was supposed to be the answer to Buzz and the Council 5!
Pictures are worth a thousand words.We still have not seen a picture of the 5.3 million dollar miracle holding back water at GROUND ZERO. WHERE'S THE BAGS? WHERE'S THE BEEF?
i have a plan to save the cows and money for the tax payers,I'll buy all the availble ballons in the southeast region,store them in the area,when water threatens I'll blow them all up and attach them to the cows(cow life-preservers)then they will just float to safety, my quote to the parish $100,000.00
Post a Comment
<< Home