Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Started as a learning tool, Old World Garden Farms is growing
Senator Rand Paul introduces Hemp Safety Enforcement Act
March cattle feedlot placements are the second lowest since 1996
Diverse Corn Belt Project looks at agricultural diversification
Deere settles right-to-repair lawsuit for $99 million; judge still has to approve the deal
YEDA: From a kitchen table to a national movement
Insurer: Illinois farm collision claims reached 180 last year
Indiana to invest $1 billion to add jobs in ag, life sciences
Illinois farmer turned flood prone fields to his advantage with rice
1,702 students participate in Wilmington College judging contest
Despite heavy rain and snow in April drought conditions expanding
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Judge nixes part of farmers’ flood lawsuit against FEMA
By STEVE BINDER
Illinois Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge has dismissed one of the main claims in a class-action lawsuit filed by Missouri farmers against FEMA in connection with last year’s record flooding.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Nancy B. Firestone last week granted the federal government’s motion to dismiss the claim that when FEMA exploded part of the Birds Point levee to relieve flooding pressure on cities upstream along the Mississippi River, it should have been considered a “taking” of farmers’ land downstream.
More than 130,000 acres within the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway, located south of where the Mississippi and Ohio rivers converge at Cairo, Ill., was flooded after part of the levee was blasted to ease pressure on cities upstream, including Cairo. Given that the floodway only has flooded twice since the levee was built in 1927 – last year and in 1937 – Firestone wrote in her ruling that a “taking” claim doesn’t exist.

“The first flood took place in 1937. Allegations of two floods separated by nearly 75 years are not enough to support an inference of frequent and inevitably recurring flooding,” she ruled.
One of the attorneys representing more than 140 farmers in the lawsuit, J. Michael Ponder in Cape Girardeau, Mo., said he remains optimistic that farmers will receive damage compensation because another claim in the lawsuit was left untouched. “The farmers are not giving up, by a long shot. There’s no reason for despair here. This is just a trimming of the claim,” he said.

One part of the lawsuit still remaining is the claim FEMA violated terms of the easements it held with farmers in the floodway, given the large amounts of sand and gravel left on the land when waters receded. Ponder said that part of the lawsuit, called a “breach of contract claim,” could lead to the farmers receiving just as much in damages as the takings claim. The damage caused by opening the floodway was more severe, he said, than what was allowed under the flowage agreements paid to the farmers for the easements.
“The landowner probably doesn’t care whether his damages get paid under Count 1, which is the takings count, or Count 2, which is a breach of easements count. Just so long as the damages are paid,” the attorney said.

One participant in the lawsuit, fourth-generation corn, bean and wheat farmer John Story, said he’s not optimistic. “It was a taking and, of course, the government’s going to put their spin on it because they do whatever they want, whenever they want,” Story said. “They have no regard for private ownership rights. I don’t think we’ll ever see a penny out of the government.”
5/31/2012