KTR00073

DAVID VANN STUTTS 4/15/2008
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO. 05-4182 K2
JUDGE DUVAL
PERTAINS TO MAG. WILKINSON
(Robinson, No. 06-2268)
Deposition of DAVID VANN STUTTS, given

at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans
District offices, 7400 Leake Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651, on April 15th,
2008.
REPORTED BY:
JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES: 1 REPRESENTING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
2 REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS: 2 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF COUNSEL
3 3 (BY: DAVID DYER, ESQUIRE)
4 BRUNO & BRUNO 4 7400 Leake Avenue
5 (BY: JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQUIRE) 5 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651
6 (BY: FLORIAN BUCHLER, ESQUIRE) 6 504-862-2843
7 855 Baronne Street 7
8 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 504-525-1335 9 JOHN ROBERT, ESQ.
10 - and - 10 RYAN MALONE, ESQ.
11 SHER, GARNER, CAHILL, RICHTER, KLEIN & 11 THOMAS P. ANZELMO, ESQ.
12 HILBERT, L.L.C. 12 KEA SHERMAN, ESQ.
13 (BY: MATTHEW CLARK, ESQUIRE) 13 CHRISTOPHER THATCH, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
14 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor 14 ERIC GOLDBERG, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
15 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112-1033 15 KIRK AURANDT, ESQ. (VIA I-DEP)
16 504-299-2100 16 CHARLES M. LANIER, JR., ESQ. (I-DEP)
17 - and - 17 J. WARREN GARDNER, JR., ESQ. (I-DEP)
18 FRANK C. DUDENHEFER, JR. 18
19 ATTORNEY AT LAW 19 VIDEOGRAPHER:
20 416 Gravier Street 20 GILLEY DELORIMIER (DEPO-VUE)
21 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 21
22 504-586-0000 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
Page 3 Page 5
1 - and - 1 STIPULATION
2 RICHARD M. MARTIN, JR. 2 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and
3 ATTORNEY AT LAW 3 among counsel for the parties hereto that the
4 20 Versailles Boulevard 4 deposition of the aforementioned witness may be
5 New Orleans, Louisiana 70125 5 taken for all purposes permitted within the
6 504-581-5297 6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in accordance
7 - and - 7 with law, pursuant to notice;
8 THE GILBERT FIRM, LLC 8 That all formalities, save reading
9 (BY: ELISA TARA GILBERT, ESQUIRE) 9 and signing of the original transcript by the
10 (BY: BRENDAN R. O'BRIEN, ESQUIRE) 10 deponent, are hereby specifically waived;
11 325 East 57th Street 11 That all objections, save those as to
12 New York, NY 10022 12 the form of the question and the responsiveness
13 212-286-8503 13 of the answer, are reserved until such time as
14 14 this deposition, or any part thereof, is used
15 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 15 or sought to be used in evidence.
16 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 16
17 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION 17
18 (BY: JESSICA SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE) 18 * * *
19 (BY: MICELE GREIF, ESQUIRE) 19
20 (BY: KARA MILLER, ESQUIRE) 20
21 P.O. Box 888 21
22 Benjamin Franklin Station 22 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR,
23 Washington, D.C. 20044 23 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State
24 202-616-4289 24 of Louisiana, officiated in administering the
25 25 oath to the witness.
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Page 6 Page 8
1 DAVID VANN STUTTS 1 engineering science that you had an interest in
2 724 Harrison Avenue, Metairie, Louisiana 70005, 2 as opposed to others?
3 a witness named in the above stipulation, 3 A. Yeah. Primarily mechanical.
4 having been first duly sworn, was examined and 4 Q. Mechanical. Okay. And over the
5 testified on his oath as follows: 5 course of time that you've been working with
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 6 with the Corps of Engineers, has there been a
7 Q. Would you say your name for me, so I 7 specialization or a focus?
8 don't mispronounce it? 8 A. Focus was hydrology and hydraulics.
9 A. It's David Vann Stutts. 9 Hydraulic design, ultimately. And I started in
10 Q. Stutts. Okay. Mr. Stutts, thank you 10 coastal -- in the coastal engineering section
11 so much. Thank you for giving me this little 11 as a coastal engineer --
12 résumé. That will help us get through this. 12 Q. All right. We're going to --
13 Let's begin, if you don't mind, with your 13 A. -- in training.
14 education. 14 Q. Let me just -- if you don't mind, let
15 A. Okay. 15 me get to that, because I'd like to -- I'm a
16 Q. We can start with college, obviously. 16 real simple kind of guy and I like to keep it
17 A. I attended the University of New 17 as basic as possible.
18 Orleans, called UNO in those days. 18 We've got this organizational chart --
19 Q. Right. 19 A. Okay.
20 A. I graduated in engineering sciences 20 Q. -- that we have been using. It was
21 and came to work for the Corps of Engineers 21 first used in the Colletti deposition so it's
22 after graduation, 1968. August, '68, I came to 22 got a mark on it Colletti Number 2. I'm not
23 work for the Corps. August the 27th. 23 going to attach it.
24 Q. And when did you graduate? 24 A. Okay.
25 A. Um -- I graduated the summer, 25 Q. I just want you to know the reference.
Page 7 Page 9
1 during -- 1 Colonel Richard Wagenaar is shown as the
2 Q. '68? 2 Commander.
3 A. Yeah. I actually got out a little 3 A. Okay.
4 earlier, but it was in '68. 4 Q. Because it doesn't have a date on it.
5 Q. '68 is close enough. All right. 5 But I've learned from however many depositions
6 MR. BRUNO: 6 I've taken so far, and I've forgotten, this is
7 Before we go further, let's see. 7 generally accurate for 2005.
8 We've got Chris Thatch and Eric 8 A. Okay.
9 Goldberg logged on to the deposition. 9 Q. Okay? Now, let's see. You first
10 A. Okay. I attended Tulane University in 10 started with the Corps in '68?
11 the undergraduate program up until '73 when I 11 A. '68.
12 left to go to Charleston, South Carolina, to 12 Q. All right. And you worked with the
13 work there. 13 Corps until your first retirement in '05.
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 14 A. Well, yes, '05. It was December '04,
15 Q. Did you receive a degree? 15 I think.
16 A. No, I did not. 16 Q. Okay.
17 Q. But it was towards a Master's? 17 A. 31, December, I believe.
18 A. Towards a Master's, yes. 18 Q. All right. Well, just help me
19 Q. All right. How close did you get? 19 understand -- this is where I got the reference
20 A. About I think about nine hours. 20 from. If you look at Number 3 on your résumé,
21 Q. All right. Are you a licensed 21 it says, from January '05 to October '05,
22 engineer today? 22 retired.
23 A. I am not. 23 A. Right.
24 Q. You are not. Okay. 24 Q. It took you ten months to retire, or?
25 Was there a particular field within 25 A. No, I was --
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Page 10 Page 12
1 Q. That was a period of retirement? 1 A. So at some point they broke out
2 A. That was a period of retirement. 2 into -- now we have a project management
3 Q. I see. Okay. I understand now. I 3 division, I believe, when you looked at this
4 get it. Well, at least you had ten months off. 4 chart. It's changed over the years.
5 A. Yeah. And then Katrina happened. 5 Q. Right.
6 Q. Right. Okay. So if we work backwards 6 A. Back in those days, a much smaller
7 here, your résumé starts in '71. 7 office. Fewer people working here.
8 A. Yeah. I didn't prepare this just for 8 Q. Right. But again, to kind of focus
9 this, I just pulled it -- 9 just on hydraulics, there was a branch for
10 Q. No, I understand that. I'm just 10 hydraulics.
11 trying to -- I'm just giving us a point of 11 A. Correct.
12 reference for the record. You told us you 12 Q. And it was within the engineering
13 started in '68, and the thing starts in '71, so 13 division.
14 why don't you share with us what you did over 14 A. That's correct.
15 that three-year time. 15 Q. And there were three sections within
16 A. From '68? 16 that branch. Right?
17 Q. Yes, sir. 17 A. I believe that's correct, yes.
18 A. I was -- when they hired me at the 18 Q. One if them was called hydraulic
19 Corps, I was hired on a training program that 19 engineering?
20 was a six-months training program, and I was 20 A. Hydraulic design, yeah.
21 put in the hydraulics branch. That's where I 21 Q. And other was called coastal
22 desired to go to work and that's where they 22 engineering?
23 placed me. But I was on the six-months 23 A. It was called tidal hydraulics section
24 training program, so I did get a chance to move 24 in those days, but it involved coastal
25 into some of the other offices to see what was 25 engineering.
Page 11 Page 13
1 done there. Typically, in those days, they had 1 Q. And the third, at least as of the date
2 a two-year training program, but for some 2 of this chart, is called hydra modeling.
3 reason or other they put me on the six-month. 3 A. Hydro modeling, and it was basically
4 Q. All right. 4 hydrology in those days. But they maintain
5 A. So my early career was spent primarily 5 pretty much the same organization structure
6 in hydraulics where I rotated through each 6 over time.
7 section in the hydraulics branch, and 7 Q. All right. What was the ambit of
8 eventually ended up in the tidal hydraulics 8 responsibility of the hydraulic engineering --
9 section working for Cecil Soileau. 9 I'm sorry. What did you call it? Sorry. What
10 Q. All right. Let's see. Again, 10 was its name back then? The section?
11 referring to this organizational chart, and I 11 A. The title hydraulics section.
12 gave you the reference previously, but this 12 Q. Yes, sir.
13 chart shows an engineering division, and then 13 A. It's called tidal hydraulics section.
14 within the engineering division a hydraulics 14 Q. Tidal hydraulics section.
15 and hydraulic branch. 15 A. As I recall.
16 A. That's right. 16 Q. Let's write that down. And we think
17 Q. So my first question would be, was 17 the tidal hydraulics section is now known as
18 that generally the setup back then? 18 the hydraulic engineering section.
19 A. Generally, it was. In those days, 19 A. No. It is now known as the coastal
20 there wasn't a planning division, so planning 20 engineering section.
21 was under -- it had its own -- it was a branch, 21 Q. All right. I got it wrong. Got it.
22 I believe. 22 What was the hydraulic engineering
23 Q. Of? 23 section called back then?
24 A. Of engineering overall. 24 A. I think it was just called hydrology
25 Q. I see. 25 section.
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
Page 14 Page 16
1 Q. Okay. 1 A. Correct.
2 A. They kept records on -- and then there 2 Q. All right. And Cecil Soileau, was he
3 was another office called gauges and 3 the chief at that time?
4 observations which primarily kept records on 4 A. He was the chief of that section, yes.
5 all the Corps gauges and maintained those 5 Q. Okay. And you're there for just a
6 records. 6 couple of years. Now, I hope -- I guess you
7 Q. Was that within its own section? 7 know that we're here to talk about the MRGO.
8 A. Yes. 8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. And just so that I have it all 9 Q. We're here to talk about the Lake
10 complete, what was the hydra modeling section 10 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection
11 called back then? 11 Plan, and also, as a component part of the MRGO
12 A. I think it was called hydrology 12 the lock expansion on the Inner Harbor
13 section. 13 Navigation Canal. Okay?
14 Q. Well, that's -- I thought we just gave 14 A. Okay.
15 hydrology the name to the -- what is now known 15 Q. All right. And so what we've been
16 as the hydraulic section. 16 doing, to kind of get through it, is to learn
17 A. No. That was called hydraulic design, 17 whether or not you had anything to do, while
18 and it's maintained its name over the -- as 18 you were in these various positions, with any
19 long as I can remember. 19 of those projects.
20 Q. Hydraulic design? 20 A. Okay.
21 A. So instead of three, there was 21 Q. All right. So let's just -- let's do
22 actually four, but I don't know if it was -- 22 that, then. And in that time period of '71 to
23 the gauges and observations, like I said, they 23 '73, when you were this entry level GS-11, did
24 collected -- they consolidated the data and 24 you do any work on the MRGO?
25 maintained the records and put out the 25 A. No.
Page 15 Page 17
1 information, reports on gauge data. 1 Q. Okay. How about the --
2 Q. All right. And during this three 2 A. Lake Pontchartrain.
3 years, did you have a chance to kind of have a 3 Q. Lake Pontchartrain?
4 little bit of an understanding as to what these 4 A. Yes.
5 sections did? 5 Q. You did. All right. And how about
6 A. Yes. 6 the -- I should break this up into two parts.
7 Q. Did you work in each one of them? 7 There was some -- and I don't know where y'all
8 A. Yes. I spent time in each one of 8 put it, but there was some activity or interest
9 them. 9 in perhaps putting another lock in the
10 Q. All right. Then we get to the résumé 10 Industrial Canal and then running a levee along
11 where you indicate on this that you are -- from 11 the Lake Borgne coast. Are you familiar with
12 '71 to '73 you were a hydraulic engineer. 12 that at all?
13 A. Yes. 13 A. I'm familiar with the Violet site lock
14 Q. What section, sir, were you? 14 proposal that was on the book at that time,
15 A. That was in the tidal hydraulics or 15 yeah.
16 the coastal engineering section of today. 16 Q. Was that --
17 Q. All right. 17 A. Go ahead.
18 A. Working for Cecil Soileau. 18 Q. Finish your thought. I didn't mean to
19 Q. Was he -- 19 interrupt you. I apologize.
20 A. GS-11 was the working level. 20 A. Well, I didn't work on it, but I knew
21 Q. I got you. You were saying that -- 21 about it, of course.
22 the 11, I learned the other day, is a pay 22 Q. All right. We'll here's my question:
23 scale. 23 I'm just trying to understand where the put it
24 A. Pay scale. Right. 24 in those three categories. Was it a part of
25 Q. And an 11 is an entry level position. 25 the hurricane protection project, or was it
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
Page 18 Page 20
1 part of the lock expansion project as a 1 by as we take these depositions. And the
2 component of the MRGO, or was it part of MRGO? 2 government gets to reserve it's right to object
3 A. I would say it was a part of the lock 3 substantively to these questions and answers at
4 expansion or replacement lock that was being 4 trial. But if it's an objection that I can
5 proposed. 5 fix, in other words, the form of the question
6 Q. All right. And let me just decide 6 or perhaps vagueness or -- I don't know, I
7 whether to get into that right now or the put 7 can't think of them all right now, but the
8 it later. When did that idea come into -- I'm 8 bottom line is if there's some way that I can
9 testing you. 9 fix the objection while we're sitting here, I
10 A. I have no idea. 10 will try to.
11 Q. I see your face. I'm testing you. 11 A. Okay.
12 Do you know if there were discussions 12 Q. But you must still answer the
13 about that project in '71 to '73? 13 question. And I'll try to respond to
14 A. Oh, yeah. I'm sure there were, yeah. 14 counsel 's objections as best I can. So she
15 Q. So why don't we take a moment for the 15 will be objecting because we don't want her to
16 record to -- and I keep saying for the record, 16 get fired, and I'll try to respond because I
17 and that's this guy right here. He's writing 17 want a good record. All right. Having said
18 everything down, so if somebody else reads this 18 all that, I forgot where I was.
19 we all like it to make sense. 19 A. Well, I'm going to have to ask you
20 A. Uh-huh. 20 what was the question. I think you were asking
21 Q. So if you wouldn't mind, first of all, 21 me were we authorized to build that project.
22 does this project have a name? You used 22 Is that --
23 Violet. 23 Q. Well, by that project, okay, what I
24 A. Well, I think it was called, you know, 24 mean is the lock expansion. I don't mean a
25 the ship lock replacement. And it was, you 25 particular design for it, but just very
Page 19 Page 21
1 know, to replace the existing lock down at the 1 generally the lock expansion.
2 inner harbor navigational lock. 2 MS. SULLIVAN:
3 Q. Okay. 3 I'm going to lodge an objection,
4 A. And the proposal at that point in time 4 just a continuing objection to these
5 was a site down near Violet, I believe. 5 questions.
6 Q. All right. Let's first understand 6 MR. BRUNO:
7 this, though: Was the Corps authorized to 7 Right. And that's because, I
8 design and build that project at that time? 8 think we understand each other, that
9 MS. SULLIVAN: 9 you all believe that's not within the
10 I'm going to object. 10 scope of the complaint.
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 11 MS. SULLIVAN:
12 Q. '71, '73. 12 That's correct.
13 MS. SULLIVAN: 13 MR. BRUNO:
14 You can answer. 14 It's better for me to say that so
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 15 you and I both know that. And I've
16 Q. Oh, she gets fired if she doesn't 16 said to other counsel, I'm not going
17 object. Let me tell you how that works. We -- 17 to require you to object. I
18 when we talked about the usual stipulations and 18 understand your position, respect it,
19 counsel alluded to the Federal Rules of Civil 19 and we know that we're not going to
20 Procedure and what we call a case management 20 suggest that you waived anything by
21 order, a case management order is something the 21 your failure to object.
22 judge signed and said, these are the rules of 22 MS. SULLIVAN:
23 the case. 23 Okay.
24 A. Okay. 24 A. And I'll have to answer by supposition
25 Q. The Federal Rules are rules we abide 25 I would assume we have, knowing that -- you
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
Page 22 Page 24
1 know, that we don't generally do work that's 1 indicate survey stations.
2 not, you know, authorized or approved. So I 2 A. Okay.
3 would assume we had, but I do not know for 3 Q. You see that? Then we have the green
4 sure. 4 line which we're calling the top of channel
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 5 design width.
6 Q. All right. Now, let's give it a name, 6 A. Okay.
7 if for no other reason that when I ask a 7 Q. And then we have the yellow which is
8 question I can use the right name. 8 the 2005 shoreline.
9 A. Okay. 9 A. Okay.
10 Q. This is the Violet -- 10 Q. All right? Good. And we have the --
11 A. It was called the Violet site -- 11 this -- and by the way, this is -- obviously,
12 Q. The Violet site. 12 this one shows the Industrial Canal.
13 A. -- as I recall, yeah. 13 Are you familiar with the designation
14 Q. There it is. Okay. Now just to 14 Reach 1 and Reach 2? Does that make sense in
15 distinguish that from where the Corps is today, 15 your world?
16 a different site has been chosen, right, for 16 A. No. I mean, we called that the
17 this lock expansion? 17 turning basin in that area. That's what I
18 A. Correct. 18 generally call it. But no, I'm not familiar
19 Q. And that site is very never to where 19 with the reaches of the, um --
20 the current lock is located. 20 Q. All right, sir. Well, may I, if you
21 A. That's my understanding, yes. 21 don't mind, make the distinction Reach 1 and
22 Q. And that current site is on the water 22 Reach 2? It's allowed us to kind of talk to
23 side of the Lower Ninth Ward hurricane 23 each other a little bit easier.
24 protection structure between Florida Avenue and 24 A. Okay.
25 Claiborne. 25 Q. Reach 1 of the MRGO channel will for
Page 23 Page 25
1 A. Yeah. When you say the water side, 1 the purposes of our discussion be the Inner
2 you're talking not on the Mississippi River 2 Harbor Navigation Canal to the turn.
3 side, yes. 3 A. Okay.
4 Q. I'm sorry. The water side of the 4 Q. And then Reach 2 will be the MRGO
5 Lower Nine between those two sheets would be 5 channel all the way to the end of the land.
6 the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. 6 A. Okay.
7 A. Right. In the Inner Harbor Navigation 7 Q. In other words, I'm not going to refer
8 Canal, correct. 8 to Reach 2 as going into the gulf.
9 Q. Right. Now, let's just go ahead and 9 A. Okay.
10 make reference to these maps and tell you a 10 Q. We're not really talking about that.
11 little bit about what they are. Obviously you 11 But I guess we for the purposes of our
12 can see it's a satellite picture. And we hired 12 conversation we'll say that's Reach 3.
13 these folks in Environmental Sciences over here 13 A. Okay.
14 to put some markings on the satellite picture. 14 Q. All right. Now, going to the second
15 A. Okay. 15 map, you can see this is the southern
16 Q. All right. The satellite is a 2005 16 extension.
17 picture. Okay? 17 A. Uh-huh.
18 A. Okay. 18 Q. Same thing, mile markers, survey
19 Q. And you can see that these folks have 19 stations, top of channel and the shoreline.
20 indicated mile markers with a circle and an X. 20 Okay?
21 A. Uh-huh. 21 A. (Nods affirmatively.)
22 Q. All right, you with me? 22 Q. All right. Now, can you, very
23 A. I'm with you. 23 generally, show us the Violet site.
24 Q. I'm sorry. I don't want to get too 24 A. I believe this is it right here. This
25 for away from you. Then we have a cross to 25 is the Violet Canal. And I believe that's
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
Page 26 Page 28
1 where it was proposed at that point in time. 1 Q. Say it for the record.
2 Q. All right. So the lock would be -- 2 A. I think it stands for Louisiana
3 A. Yeah. I don't know exactly. I don't 3 Coastal Restoration. It's part of what was
4 know if it got that far. It was opposed in 4 originally called the Category 5 authorization
5 principle, I think, by the folks who lived down 5 to look at Category 5 protection.
6 there. 6 Q. All right. And so that current plan,
7 Q. All right. Now, you said you 7 is that a hurricane protection plan or is it
8 worked -- well, let me ask you this question: 8 some other --
9 I understand, and I could be wrong, but part of 9 A. It's hurricane protection, primarily,
10 the design of that proposed site included 10 yes, sir.
11 building a levee along the Lake Borgne 11 MS. SULLIVAN:
12 shoreline. Does that comport with your memory 12 Joe, just so we're clear, what
13 or understanding of the thinking about the 13 plan are you talking about?
14 site? 14 MR. BRUNO:
15 A. No. I really didn't know any real 15 This L-A whatever he said.
16 details on the plan. You know, I just know 16 MS. SULLIVAN:
17 they were holding public meetings along about 17 The C-P-R plan?
18 that time, and -- 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
19 Q. Okay. Well, are you aware of any 19 Q. Let me write it down because I'm going
20 thinking, whether it be for the MRGO or the 20 to forget it. L-A-C-P-R.
21 navigation lock or the Lake Pontchartrain and 21 That's a post-Katrina project, right?
22 Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project, which 22 A. Post-Katrina study, let's say.
23 would have included the thinking about possibly 23 Q. Study. Is it in the reconnaissance
24 putting a levee along the shore of Lake Borgne 24 phase or the feasibility phase?
25 here? 25 A. It's reconnaissance level, I'd say.
Page 27 Page 29
1 MS. SULLIVAN: 1 It includes the entire state of Louisiana
2 Joe, I'm just going to object 2 coastal area, looking at -- looking at the
3 because I think he's going to have to 3 state 's plan along with the other proposals.
4 speculate about what if anything -- 4 Q. Okay.
5 he's already said he doesn't know. 5 A. It is -- at this point the National
6 MR. BRUNO: 6 Academy of Sciences is reviewing it, so it's
7 That's fine. That's why I asked 7 public information.
8 the question. 8 Q. All right. And that is something that
9 A. The only thing I can answer about that 9 you are currently involved with.
10 proposal, that is a proposal under the LACPR 10 A. Correct.
11 project, which is something currently going -- 11 Q. Correct? Well, we will reserve that
12 ongoing. 12 to when we get there.
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 13 A. That's way down the road. Many years
14 Q. Currently going on. 14 later.
15 A. Now, at that time I have no idea. 15 Q. Fair enough. Fair enough. And I only
16 Q. Well, I asked the question because the 16 bring that up because, as I said, I could be
17 current program discusses some thinking that 17 wrong but I thought that that current plan
18 was in the past. 18 reaches back to some of the thinking of the
19 A. Okay. 19 Corps --
20 Q. And you're a part of the -- say it 20 A. Well, it could, but I'm not aware that
21 again for me? 21 that was ever on the books or a proposal.
22 A. LACPR. 22 Q. All right. Good. You answered no to
23 Q. Man, y'all have got so many acronyms I 23 the question did you work on the MRGO from '71
24 can't keep up with it. L-A-C -- 24 to '73, your answer is no, but you did work on
25 A. Coastal restoration plan. 25 the hurricane protection side.
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
Page 30 Page 32
1 A. I did work on the hurricane 1 understand the Chalmette area. Okay?
2 protection. 2 Chalmette area was distinguished from the Lake
3 Q. All right. Did the work that you did 3 Pontchartrain protection effort, right?
4 in hurricane protection regard -- and this is 4 A. They were called separable units in
5 another phrase I'm going to use to help us 5 that this area had its own protection around
6 communicate -- the Chalmette area? 6 it, New Orleans East, New Orleans Metro, and so
7 A. The Chalmette area? Um -- yes, I'm 7 they were looked at incrementally in
8 quite certain at some point in time we looked 8 justification in terms of cost-benefit
9 at the Chalmette -- the original plan for 9 analysis.
10 Chalmette was always called the high level plan 10 Q. I understand. Were there more than
11 because, you know, when we restudied the Lake 11 three?
12 Pontchartrain project in the late, oh, I want 12 A. I think when St. Charles Parish was
13 to say the late seventies through early '84 -- 13 looked at it was added as another separable
14 to '84 when they put out a reevaluation, they 14 unit in the mid eighties.
15 moved from the barrier plan to the high level 15 Q. Okay. All right. New Orleans East is
16 plan -- 16 easy. Let's start with that one. Obviously
17 Q. Right. 17 that's this area that we now know as New
18 A. -- and that loop was unchanged as a 18 Orleans East. It's almost like an island --
19 result of that move. The Chalmette plan. 19 A. Yes.
20 Back to your original question, where 20 Q. -- and there's a ring around it.
21 MRGO came into play under Lake Pontchartrain 21 A. Correct.
22 barrier plan, the Seabrook structure was a 22 Q. And that would be the New Orleans East
23 mitigation structure proposed -- it was a 23 area.
24 multipurpose structure, navigation and 24 A. Correct.
25 mitigation for saltwater intrusion into Lake 25 Q. The New Orleans area is on the west
Page 31 Page 33
1 Pontchartrain. 1 side of the Industrial Canal, and likewise it
2 Q. Okay. I'm glad you brought that up, 2 has kind of a ring around it if you include the
3 because I get confused as to whether or not 3 river.
4 that's a MRGO project or a Lake Pontchartrain 4 A. Right.
5 project. 5 Q. All right. Now, Chalmette. It would
6 A. It's a real gray area. 6 be the Lower Nine --
7 Q. Yeah. The original authorization for 7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Lake Pontchartrain talks about the Seabrook, 8 Q. -- and St. Bernard --
9 but it doesn't really say build it, it says 9 A. Uh-huh.
10 y'all can think about it generally. Right? 10 Q. -- down to this Violet area.
11 A. Well, it was part of the barrier plan 11 A. Correct.
12 all along, to put, you know, structures in the 12 Q. Is that Violet or --
13 tidal passes, being the Chef and the Rigolets 13 A. No. No.
14 Passes and a structure at Seabrook to form the 14 Q. -- Caernarvon?
15 closure. Um -- the proposal at Seabrook 15 A. This is Caernarvon here.
16 included a navigation lock and a salinity 16 Q. Caernarvon. I'm sorry. You're right.
17 control structure that could be operated to 17 Caernarvon. And there's a ring around it.
18 block water coming in during the flood tide, 18 A. Uh-huh.
19 and then the ebb tide to open it to allow it to 19 Q. Okay. Now, initially, when the Corps
20 flush so it could be operationally managed to 20 was planning hurricane protection for the
21 affect salinities in Lake Pontchartrain. 21 Chalmette area, the location of the earth berm
22 Q. Right. Okay. Let me -- once again, I 22 levee was to be placed at what is called the
23 need to divide it up to make it easier for me. 23 back levee or the 40 Arpent Canal.
24 Let's start with -- use our map if you don't 24 A. That may be the case. I don't recall.
25 mind -- and let's first, for the record, 25 Q. You had no part of that.
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
Page 34 Page 36
1 A. I had no part of that. 1 we did check waves, and since -- they used what
2 Q. Because I talked to Mr. Soileau the 2 they called the, um -- shore protection manual,
3 other day and I learned that from him. 3 or in those days it was called TR 4, which was
4 A. Yes. 4 a design manual, to come up with the shallow
5 Q. But that's okay. You had nothing to 5 water waves -- deep water waves and shallow
6 do with that. 6 water waves. These are treated as shallow
7 A. Right. 7 water waves. And the fetch was generally, you
8 Q. By the time you got there, the 8 know, the Lake Borgne area.
9 hurricane protection plan for Chalmette 9 Q. And the sound?
10 included an earth berm levee along the Reach 2 10 A. And the sound, yes.
11 of the MRGO. Right? 11 Q. All right. And I got to ask you this,
12 A. That's correct. Yes. Uh-huh. 12 because when we initially asked about the
13 Q. Okay. All right. Now -- 13 meaning of the word fetch, we were told a fetch
14 A. And there was something called the 14 is a fetch. And I remember when I was in first
15 Chalmette extension. I don't remember exactly 15 grade I was told never to use the word in a
16 what that -- whether that added -- you know, 16 definition.
17 whether this was turned back sooner or what, 17 Would you mind, if you can, for the
18 but there's a document called the Chalmette 18 record, defining what fetch is.
19 extension. 19 A. Okay. Well, in general, if you were
20 Q. Yeah. I know what you're talking 20 looking at a specific area and trying to come
21 about, but I don't have an independent memory 21 up with the wave heights, the open water length
22 of it either. But let's kind of see where we 22 of which wind could blow over would be treated
23 are. 23 as the fetch. And the wave height is dependent
24 By the time you're there, which is 24 upon the depth. And it's a laborious process
25 '71, there's already the plan to build a levee 25 to generate the waves, but you start at the
Page 35 Page 37
1 along the MRGO, and there's already a design 1 offshore fetch area and then you bring the wave
2 height, right? 2 in, and you calculate what's called a
3 A. Correct. Yes. 3 significant wave which is what was used to
4 Q. So what did you do in connection with 4 design the hurricane protection.
5 that work? 5 Q. All right, sir.
6 A. Well, um -- at that point in time, we 6 A. The significant wave has a definition.
7 were still looking at some of the design or 7 It's the highest one third of all the waves in
8 rechecking them. You know, in 1969 we had 8 the observed wave train. So that was the
9 Hurricane Camille hit, and so there was a 9 process. It was done by hand, using charts.
10 reconsideration of the designs of the levees. 10 Q. Not computers?
11 And the procedures used in those days relied on 11 A. Not computers.
12 observed information and experience data. If 12 Q. Not even slide rules, huh?
13 you go look and back and look at the 13 A. Well, we used slide rules. We had
14 calculations, they were fairly -- they weren't 14 Manning slide rules, believe it or not, in
15 called steady state and they were 15 those days. But --
16 semiempirical. And so I think there was an 16 Q. All right. Now, so since we're here,
17 effort after Camille to go back and check some 17 let's just -- let me ask you a few questions
18 of the heights. 18 about that, if you don't mind.
19 Q. Okay. Now, when you say some of the 19 Do you recall what the water depth of
20 heights, you're talking about still water 20 Lake Borgne is? Average?
21 heights? 21 A. Um -- I don't recall. I know it's not
22 A. Still water heights, right. 22 quite as deep as Lake Pontchartrain. It's, you
23 Q. Did you also look at the wave height 23 know, eight to ten feet is what I'm recalling.
24 stuff, too? 24 Q. Okay. All right. And there are
25 A. I don't believe we did. I would say 25 charts, are there not, which you guys can use
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
Page 38 Page 40
1 to assess the wave height at certain depths? 1 the standard project hurricane, right?
2 A. Correct. 2 A. That was the authority for that, for
3 Q. Depending upon a certain fetch. 3 Lake Pontchartrain, correct.
4 A. Correct. 4 Q. And by that, you mean in the
5 Q. All right. And maybe I'm saying that 5 authorization given by Congress, it says, use
6 wrong. 6 the standard project hurricane. Right?
7 A. This is a long time ago, so. 7 A. I couldn't swear that that's the case,
8 Q. It's not something that you do now. 8 but that was the design standard for Lake
9 A. No. 9 Pontchartrain.
10 Q. All right. Let's see. Now, okay. 10 Q. Was the standard project hurricane.
11 Let me put this down. Well, let me just see 11 A. I don't know exactly what the
12 one more time. 12 authority said.
13 Can you remember what issues were 13 Q. That's fair enough. Now, we've seen
14 brought to the fore because of Camille? I 14 references to 100 year, a 200 years, or 300
15 mean, I think you've told us that, you know, 15 years or whatever how many numbers of years.
16 Camille comes through and we thought maybe we 16 Do you have any recollection as you're
17 needed to kind of look at this again. 17 it sitting here today as to whether the SPH
18 What were the issues? 18 used for Chalmette was the 100, 200, 300?
19 MS. SULLIVAN: 19 A. Okay. The SPH, by definition, is a
20 Objection. It's vague. 20 storm that has a recurrence -- the parameters
21 A. I do get to answer. 21 of it, it's a synthetic storm, has a recurrence
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 22 of once in a hundred years in Zone B, which is
23 Q. Oh, yeah. 23 a 400-mile stretch of the central Gulf Coast.
24 MS. SULLIVAN: 24 Now, that's the storm parameters probabilities
25 If you know. 25 based on a record from 1900 to 1956, I believe.
Page 39 Page 41
1 A. Well, I mean, the issues are always, 1 Q. Right.
2 you know, when you're relying on empirical data 2 A. Report 33. That's the storm
3 to do a derivation, and that's what we were 3 probabilities, not necessarily the storm surge.
4 using, semi-empirical calculations, is one 4 The way it was done in those days, they looked
5 needs go back and double-check. 5 at the probability of a strike at a given
6 Q. All right. 6 location and they reasoned that critically
7 A. So, you know, after Camille and seeing 7 affected areas about fifty miles if it hits
8 the devastation that occurred with Camille, I 8 normal to the coast. If it hits oblique, maybe
9 think it was prudent to go back and look at it. 9 80 miles. And so they said, well, 80 miles is
10 Q. All right. Well, let's -- 10 20 percent of the zone, so if you look at that
11 A. All this work was still ongoing, you 11 100-year event and say it's going the hit at a
12 know. 12 given location, it's 20 percent of the zone
13 Q. Let's kind of walk through the whole 13 probability, which gives you about once in
14 process of the -- in order for the Corps to 14 500-year probability. Okay?
15 come up with a height for a levee or an I-wall 15 Q. Uh-huh.
16 or a T-wall, the first thing that has to be 16 A. At that point, they took and looked at
17 done is to have some understanding of the level 17 observed stage frequency curves where we had
18 of the water -- 18 relatively long-term records of the experienced
19 A. Correct. 19 stages and they shifted the curve to agree with
20 Q. -- that you're trying to keep out, 20 the observed data, which tended to make the
21 right? 21 event more frequent when you look at stage
22 A. What they call the still water level. 22 frequency. So instead of being a 500-year, it
23 That's part of the storm surge calculation. 23 might have been a 200 or 300-year, depending on
24 Q. All right. And the way it was done 24 what the shift was.
25 back then was by reference to something called 25 We now know, for instance, that the
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
Page 42 Page 44
1 occurrence along the Gulf Coast is not 1 A. Okay. Yeah.
2 homogeneous probability strikes, it's probably 2 Q. All right.
3 twice the probability of a storm greater than 3 A. So I'll go on about that calculation.
4 Category 3 hitting the New Orleans Metro area 4 There's a factor in there called a form factor,
5 than, say, the Texas coast or the Florida -- 5 or a Z factor which attempts to make
6 the west coast of Florida. So you could get a 6 adjustments just for that, the effective land
7 250-year event out of the SPH just with the 7 mass.
8 100-year probabilities. 8 Q. All right. Well, from 1900 to 19,
9 Q. But that's today. You know, I 9 say, 65, when these calculations were made --
10 understand that, and I would like to make some 10 A. Uh-huh.
11 inquiry about that, but so we can stay to the 11 Q. -- do you recall whether or not there
12 way the thinking was back then, back then 12 was the belief that there was or was not a
13 that's not the way it was done is what you 13 large change in land mass in the southern tip
14 said. 14 of Louisiana over that period of time?
15 A. Just what I said. 15 A. I don't recall it being a
16 Q. You got a geography, you got a history 16 consideration.
17 of storms -- 17 Q. Okay. From 1965 to today, has there
18 A. Correct. 18 been some understanding as to whether or not
19 Q. All right. And the history of storms 19 there has been a change of the land mass over
20 gave you an experience from which to consider 20 that '65 to today?
21 potential surge levels. Right? 21 A. Yes.
22 A. Correct. 22 Q. Okay. And is that significant at all
23 Q. And those potential surge levels were 23 to anything that you guys do with hurricane
24 used to calculate a still water height. 24 protection?
25 A. Correct. 25 A. Um -- we are looking at that. We are
Page 43 Page 45
1 Q. Okay. Now, does it logically follow 1 attempting to quantify that. It's still a
2 that the land mass and the configuration of the 2 research area, basically. We need a little
3 topography, trees, no trees, swamps, all that 3 more information. But of course it depends on
4 business, would necessarily have been, in 4 the storm, the speed of the storm --
5 consideration of this past experience, the 5 Q. Sure.
6 topography, the land mass, the trees that were 6 A. -- the size of the storm and, um --
7 in existence from 1900 to 1956? 7 its intensity. So certain areas -- Caernarvon
8 MS. SULLIVAN: 8 area probably is an area where there is some
9 I'm just going to object because 9 land mass out in front of it, if it were gone,
10 I'm not clear as to what area you're 10 it would probably be -- we've looked at
11 talking about. 11 sensitivity studies to see just what the
12 MR. BRUNO: 12 effects would be.
13 I'm talking about the whole area. 13 Q. All right.
14 MS. SULLIVAN: 14 A. But it's still in a theoretical area.
15 Okay. 15 Q. Okay. Now, just the finish this
16 A. I think it's embedded in the 16 analysis, back then there were three storm
17 assumption about when you used historical data, 17 tracks considered in connection with the
18 whatever was there certainly could possibly 18 determination of the standard project hurricane
19 have had an influence on the surge. 19 and the still water heights. Right?
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 20 A. I think there were three. There might
21 Q. Right. 21 have been four. But there were three primary
22 A. So if there were more land mass there, 22 ones.
23 potentially there could be higher surge or less 23 Q. At least three.
24 surge. 24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Exactly. 25 Q. And the storm tracks were relevant to
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Page 46 Page 48
1 the particular geography that the Corps was 1 Category 5, the most intense storm ever to hit
2 attempting to protect. 2 land, that --
3 A. I would say it would have an effect on 3 Q. Okay. But the authorization by
4 the surge, yes. And what was there is -- the 4 Congress didn't authorize you to build to
5 assumption was, you know, it was based on 5 protect to a storm as -- I'm hesitating as to
6 semiempirical data and observed data. So. 6 how to describe it because it's going to be a
7 Q. Sure. Yeah. Just for the record, 7 standard project hurricane reference. Um --
8 semiempirical means? 8 Camille was -- was Camille, how about I ask it
9 A. It means that there's a factor 9 this way: Was Camille within the design
10 included to adjust for observed information 10 parameter authorized by Congress?
11 that is not understood, that's a 11 MS. SULLIVAN:
12 parameterization, you might say. 12 Objection. The document speaks
13 Q. Okay. And I think another phrase that 13 for itself.
14 you use, synthetic storm? 14 But you can go you a head and
15 A. Synthetic storm is a combination of 15 answer.
16 statistically observed events that the weather 16 A. I don't -- I think it was
17 service used to derive a storm using a wind 17 substantially more severe.
18 field model. 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
19 Q. Okay. All right. 19 Q. Right.
20 A. Not an actual storm but a -- you know, 20 A. Yeah.
21 a computed storm. 21 Q. Okay.
22 Q. A computed storm based upon past 22 MR. BRUNO:
23 experiences plus observed data, plus some 23 The document can't speak for
24 other -- perhaps some changes for what you know 24 itself because there was no Camille.
25 about the current conditions. Very, very 25 A. In terms of central pressure, for
Page 47 Page 49
1 generally. 1 instance.
2 A. Yeah. Right. 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
3 Q. All right. Now, did you participate 3 Q. Okay. Let's talk about the Seabrook
4 at all in any of this recalculating that was 4 business for a second so we can understand
5 going on as a result of Camille? 5 that. Was that all -- those discussions, was
6 A. Yes. I did. 6 that ongoing from '71 to '73? Or was that
7 Q. What did you do? 7 later?
8 A. I think I did some back checks of 8 A. The Seabrook?
9 surges -- um, as a result, we attempt to look 9 Q. Yeah.
10 at had Camille made, you know, a closer strike 10 A. It was later. When I came back in '78
11 perhaps more critical to the New Orleans area 11 from South Carolina, I worked on Seabrook.
12 what would have been the consequences. Um -- 12 Q. All right. Well, then, let's hold off
13 in particular, if it had, you know, been a Lake 13 on that. When you came back in '78. Let's
14 Pontchartrain critical path what could have 14 see. All right.
15 been the potential consequences to the levees 15 All right. Now, then according to the
16 at that point in time. 16 vitae here, at Paragraph 11, from 1973 to '78
17 Q. What did y'all learn? 17 you moved away from New Orleans.
18 A. That it would have been a serious 18 A. Correct.
19 problem. 19 Q. All right. You were in the Charleston
20 Q. Would have had a lot more surge? 20 District.
21 A. It would have been a bigger surge than 21 A. Yes, sir.
22 would have been, you know, observed -- that we 22 Q. I'm trying to keep this in context,
23 had designed for, as I recall. It was twenty 23 but I'll hold off on that.
24 foot plus. This is a long time ago, but I 24 Obviously you're not here so you did
25 remember when we did back check it was a 25 not work on the MRGO or the hurricane
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
Page 50 Page 52
1 protection structures, et cetera. 1 same as 3 above, so let me see now if I can
2 A. No. I worked on Charleston District 2 short-circuit some of this. Same as in 3
3 projects. 3 above. 3 above says you're retired.
4 Q. Good enough. Well, then, let's go to 4 A. Oh. No. That's a typo. Same as
5 Number 10. From '78 to '85, you are GS-12, 5 the -- must be 7 up there.
6 you've moved up. What section are you in of 6 Q. 7.
7 the hydraulics and hydraulic branch, from '78 7 A. Yeah. Project planning.
8 to '85? 8 Q. Would you mind -- would you like to
9 A. Well, I'm not in the hydraulics arena 9 make a change on your -- so the record is
10 at that point, I'm working in engineering under 10 clear, on the one that we attach?
11 SP, which is -- that's when I began to 11 MS. SULLIVAN:
12 coordinate design memorandums and, um -- become 12 This one is going to be attached
13 more of a project manager. 13 as an exhibit? So if you could, you
14 Q. Okay. You have to help me with SP. 14 could just correct it.
15 That's a new acronym for me. 15 A. Let me make sure and look at it real
16 A. I'm trying to remember what it stands 16 close.
17 for now myself. 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
18 Q. All right. Well, let's start with 18 Q. Take your time.
19 this: Are you in the engineering division? 19 (Brief recess.)
20 A. Definitely engineering division. 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
21 Q. What branch? 21 Q. All right. We went off the record
22 A. It was called the design memo branch 22 just to see if we could clarify the reference
23 when I first came back. And then it had got 23 under Paragraph 10. You've had a chance to do
24 redesignated as -- you have to look on the 24 that, and I think you've told me that it
25 chart. 25 shouldn't say 3, it's 6, and we made a change
Page 51 Page 53
1 Q. Please do. 1 on the exhibit.
2 A. It's probably still there. 2 Bottom line is the job that you held
3 Q. Yeah, I know. Take a look. 3 from '78 to '85, okay, is the same job at least
4 (Tendering.) 4 with regard to responsibility that's described
5 A. Is engineering on the second page? 5 in 6, which is '93 to '94. Right?
6 Q. Yeah. Take a look. The front -- it 6 A. 93, to '94. Let me make it simple.
7 goes -- 7 From '78 to '94, I worked in SP with two
8 A. Gary Hawkins. Design services it's 8 exceptions, when I was detailed to work in
9 called today. 9 project programs and project management
10 Q. All right. It's called design 10 division, one of those periods, which is for
11 services today. 11 about a year I worked on the Breaux Bill
12 A. Uh-huh. 12 coastal restoration projects --
13 Q. And that would be -- you've got my 13 Q. Rowe?
14 paper now, but it's not the hydraulics -- it's 14 A. Breaux. BREAUX. Senator Breaux.
15 got its own section. How about that? 15 Q. Oh, Senator Breaux. And that was '92,
16 A. Right. The design memos later became 16 '93?
17 SP, which I guess was projects -- project 17 A. Where it says PPP, '92, '93, correct.
18 engineering section. 18 Q. Yeah.
19 Q. For this whole seven-year period, were 19 A. And then one other period of time I
20 you in the design services branch? 20 worked for the executive office for working on
21 A. Correct. 21 the -- what was the quality circle program,
22 Q. Okay. All right. 22 working primarily with management trying to --
23 A. Seems like it was longer than seven, 23 Q. Is that '85, '86?
24 for that seven-year period. 24 MS. SULLIVAN:
25 Q. Now, I notice on your résumé, you say 25 It's Number 9.
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Page 54 Page 56
1 A. That's it. 1 Did the design services branch have
2 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 2 similar sections during the time frame '78 to
3 Q. Quality -- 3 '94?
4 A. Circle. 4 A. Yes.
5 Q. -- circle. 5 Q. Okay. And you just told me this, but
6 A. Right. 6 I forgot: What section are you in during this
7 Q. Okay. 7 time frame?
8 A. Team building exercises across the -- 8 A. Design services, projects engineering
9 Q. All right. So really, then, the only 9 section.
10 one that we sort of have to take a peak at is 10 Q. Projects engineering section. Okay.
11 this Number 8, '86 to '92, because it's a good 11 What does the projects engineering section do?
12 span of time. Oh. So is that wrong, too? 12 A. Um -- the primary responsibility is
13 Should that -- instead of saying 3, should that 13 coordinating design memorandums for projects.
14 say 6? 14 It had formerly been called the design
15 MS. SULLIVAN: 15 memorandum section.
16 What, Number 8? 16 Q. Makes sense. Now, when you say
17 MR. BRUNO: 17 coordinating, you guys are actually writing the
18 Yeah. Number 8. 18 design memos?
19 A. '86 to '92. Yeah. That should be -- 19 A. We write the reports, we coordinate,
20 we said 6? 20 schedule the various work activities, make sure
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 21 they're done on time.
22 Q. Yes. 22 Q. Well, let's start with the design.
23 A. It's SP, yeah. Yeah. That's correct. 23 Who actually does the design?
24 3 is retired. So that should be 6. It is 6. 24 A. Well, that would be depending on what
25 Q. All right. Good. We change it to 6. 25 the nature of the design, if hydraulic-related,
Page 55 Page 57
1 That's good. So we can then ask you questions 1 the hydraulic branch would perform the
2 about the time frame '78 to '94. 2 hydraulic designs, foundation material branch
3 A. Correct. 3 would do the designs for the, if it's a levee,
4 Q. All right. With the exception of 4 the, um -- design of the levee sections, the
5 those two years. We'll get there in a minute. 5 soil analysis, and the stability analysis of
6 All right. 6 the levees. If it's a structure, a structural
7 And during this period of time, you 7 design, and some foundation design, just
8 are in the design services branch. 8 depends on the nature of it.
9 A. Correct. 9 Q. Right. Who would be the person that
10 Q. All right. And -- 10 would decide what branch, and then perhaps what
11 A. Projects engineering section. 11 section, would participate in the design of a
12 Q. We haven't looked at that section yet. 12 particular project? And I'm talking about,
13 Let's take a quick peak at it. Okay. That 13 just so that you and I will know, the time
14 appears to be at Page 8 of the so-called 14 frame '78 to '94 when you're in this section.
15 Wagenaar chart which is Colletti 2. 15 MS. SULLIVAN:
16 Is that not correct? (Tendering.) 16 I just want to object. It's
17 A. That's correct. 17 vague.
18 Q. All right. And for the record, since 18 A. It's a fairly rigid requirement. You
19 we've not talked about this before, at least at 19 know, each area of responsibility, you know, do
20 the time of Colonel Wagenaar, the design 20 their design work, and the particular effort
21 services branch seems to have had at least five 21 that we had was to coordinate that design
22 sections, a technical support services section, 22 activity and ensure that it was coherent whole
23 a projects engineering section, a relocations 23 when we presented it in the report. So
24 section, an engineering systems and programming 24 ultimately, the person responsible would have
25 section, and a survey section. 25 been the Chief of Engineers, but it wasn't like
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 58 Page 60
1 reinventing the wheel each time. 1 assigned to do, right?
2 Q. Sure. I can understand that. But I'm 2 A. Correct.
3 just trying to get a handle on, you know, 3 Q. And if there wasn't enough money for
4 project comes in, I'm just thinking to myself 4 you to do the work that you were required to
5 somebody looks at the project and says, okay, I 5 do, you either couldn't do it or you had to go
6 need some foundation stuff, I'm going to send 6 get some authorization to do the work. Right?
7 it over here, I need some hydrology, I'm going 7 A. Correct. Uh-huh.
8 to send it over here. Who does that kind of 8 Q. Okay. And the folks in charge of the
9 thing? 9 budget would have been who, during this time
10 A. I would say probably I would have done 10 frame?
11 some of that. But, you know, it would have 11 A. Well, at some point the budget process
12 been -- it would have been very rigidly -- the 12 moved from engineering to programs and project
13 request would go through channels. And in 13 management. I don't remember the exact year.
14 those days, there was no E-mail so everything 14 But a lot of the budgeting -- we did some of
15 was prepared in the form of a memo, and it was 15 the budgeting, prepared the budget sheets and,
16 sent through, written by the person requesting 16 um -- so in essence, that responsibility moved
17 it, going through the section chief to the 17 from engineering to programs and project
18 branch chief, from the branch chief to another 18 management branch.
19 branch chief, if it went outside the division 19 Q. Okay. All right.
20 it went through the engineering chief. 20 A. Or programs was added with a project
21 Q. All right. 21 management group.
22 A. So if you look back through the old 22 Q. Okay.
23 record you'll see a chain of, um -- the folks 23 A. I want to say that was in the
24 involved in it. 24 nineties.
25 Q. Right. 25 Q. Before we get too far away from it, I
Page 59 Page 61
1 A. And each of them signed off on it. 1 was asked on the break if you could clarify
2 Q. Right. 2 something for us. I believe during your
3 A. So it was a rigidly structured 3 testimony describing the calculation of the
4 operation. 4 standard project hurricane still water height
5 Q. Mr. Stutts, did you all have to keep 5 you described something called the Z factor?
6 track of your time? 6 Did I get that right?
7 A. On your projects? 7 A. Yeah. It's detailed in all the early
8 Q. Yes. 8 documents exactly where that relies, and that's
9 A. Um -- generally you were assigned to a 9 in essence a calculation that you might do.
10 project and that's what you charged to, you 10 The Z factor was based on observed information,
11 know. It wasn't -- since you were, you know, 11 observed stages, and it's basically a factor
12 working on a number of projects, when you 12 that would, when you did an observed storm
13 worked on those you would keep track of what 13 calculation, you used the wind field from the
14 you did, yeah. 14 storm and you knew what the water height was,
15 Q. All right. Well, forgive me, I don't 15 you'd do your calculation and that Z factor
16 know if I understood your answer. Did y'all -- 16 would be adjusted. The very early documents, I
17 were you required to keep track of your time, 17 think the Lake Pontchartrain DMs 1, 2, 3 and 4,
18 that is, how much time you spent doing a 18 which are all H&H documents, thoroughly
19 particular project? 19 describe that.
20 A. Yes. Uh-huh. 20 Q. Okay. Is that described in the
21 Q. And that time was billed, was it not, 21 Coastal Engineering Manual, as well?
22 to a particular project? 22 A. I'm fairly certain it was in TR 4.
23 A. Yes. Uh-huh. 23 Q. Okay. All right. Since we're here
24 Q. And there had to be enough money in 24 and we're talking about a reasonably good span
25 the budget for you to do the work that you were 25 of time, let me take this opportunity to share
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Page 62 Page 64
1 with you why it is that you're so lucky to be 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
2 here this morning. The government has supplied 2 Q. Your lawyers.
3 us with something called a preliminary witness 3 MS. SULLIVAN:
4 list, and you're on it. Okay? I'm going to 4 And you don't have to answer
5 show you Page 6 of the document. 5 about any sort of conversations.
6 MR. BRUNO: 6 That's privileged information. So you
7 I don't see any need to mark it, 7 don't have to talk about anything we
8 but I'm happy to if you guys want. 8 did. He's asking if anyone visited
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 9 with you.
10 Q. Is that you? 10 A. About?
11 A. That's me. 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
12 Q. All right. If you look down below 12 Q. About being a witness.
13 your name, you you'll see there's a subject. 13 A. Specifically --
14 A. The whole thing, huh? 14 Q. Yeah.
15 Q. The whole thing. 15 A. Um -- I was asked to come to various
16 All right. The subject matter 16 meetings in the, I guess, what did we call
17 designation is an indication to me of what it 17 that, the early phases where we met with the
18 is, generally, that you're going to talk about 18 Justice Department.
19 at trial. And of course what I'm trying to 19 Q. Okay.
20 figure out is what you're going to talk about 20 A. And since I had such an extensive
21 at trial so I can prepare. 21 background on working on various projects, and
22 And as you can see, it's a pretty 22 such a long period of time --
23 broad description. Right? 23 Q. You were elected.
24 A. Uh-huh. 24 A. -- I was elected.
25 Q. The design, the construction and the 25 Q. Okay.
Page 63 Page 65
1 maintenance of the MRGO. 1 A. But I specifically -- I have
2 A. (Nods affirmatively.) 2 specifically stated I have not worked on MRGO,
3 Q. That's a big field. So my first 3 per se, but on peripheral projects such as the
4 question to you is, you weren't involved in the 4 hurricane projects.
5 design of the MRGO, were you? 5 Q. Okay. Well, you understand why I'm
6 A. No. 6 asking the questions now.
7 Q. Okay. Have you, in the course of your 7 A. I understand after seeing that, yeah.
8 tenure with the United States Army Corps of 8 Q. I'm not just asking questions for the
9 Engineers, been called upon to review those 9 sake of asking questions.
10 early design documents for any particular 10 A. I understand.
11 purpose? 11 Q. All right. That's fine. Now, I'm
12 A. No. 12 wondering --
13 Q. All right. What factual information 13 (Brief interruption.)
14 do you have, if any, about the original design 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
15 of the MRGO? 15 Q. I'm wondering if in the context of
16 A. None. 16 hurricane protection structure design it may
17 Q. None. Okay. Did anybody visit with 17 have been necessary for you to make inquiry
18 you and ask you whether or not you had 18 about the original design of the MRGO.
19 knowledge about the original design of the 19 A. I don't recall looking into the
20 MRGO? 20 original design.
21 MS. SULLIVAN: 21 Q. Other than the alignment of the, MRGO,
22 I'm just going to object. I 22 obviously which would dictate the alignment of
23 don't know who you're talking about. 23 the levee --
24 MR. BRUNO: 24 A. Uh-huh.
25 Who? 25 Q. -- is there anything about the MRGO
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
Page 66 Page 68
1 that you can think of that would have 1 A. The only person I know that might
2 influenced the design of the hurricane 2 would have been Cecil Soileau.
3 protection structures in the Chalmette area? 3 Q. All right.
4 MS. SULLIVAN: 4 A. I think Mr. Becnel is still alive, but
5 Objection. That's vague. 5 I'm not -- he's got to be up in very late age
6 You can answer. 6 at this point.
7 A. The MRGO area where material was 7 Q. All right. And what was Mr. Becnel 's
8 placed probably influenced selection of that 8 position, if you know?
9 alignment. That's, um -- it was there by the 9 A. He was the branch chief when I came to
10 time I came along, so. 10 work in '68.
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 11 Q. All right. He was in charge of
12 Q. It was there. 12 hydraulics.
13 A. It was there, right. 13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And you've already told us you have no 14 Q. Okay. All right. Well, fine. The
15 knowledge of a plan to locate the hurricane 15 last thing that they say that you're going to
16 protection structure in the Chalmette area 16 be talking to us about at trial is the
17 along the back levee or the 40 Arpent Canal. 17 maintenance of the MRGO.
18 A. I don't recall that being a -- 18 Do you have any factual information
19 Q. Okay. All right. Well, let me just 19 about the maintenance of the MRGO?
20 finish, then, this time period. Well, 20 A. Inasmuch as the concern for shoaling,
21 actually, all time. 21 I didn't actually work on that but I'm aware of
22 Do you have any knowledge about the 22 some of the studies and some of the attempts
23 construction of the MRGO? 23 to, um -- stop the -- bank protection, um --
24 A. Only by virtue of the individual I 24 demonstration projects. I had limited
25 worked was on the training program when the 25 connection in dealing with that. By that time,
Page 67 Page 69
1 MRGO was built, and he was assigned as a -- 1 I was out of hydraulics, in the project
2 that was one of his assignments. And it was 2 engineering section, so. I know that
3 dredged -- I know it was hydraulically dredged. 3 maintenance was an issue, dredging and trying
4 Q. Who is that? 4 to project the amount of shoaling, that sort of
5 A. Ernest Barton. 5 thing, but I wasn't -- I didn't do the work.
6 Q. Ernest Barton. And what was 6 Q. Okay. Well, shoaling was expected,
7 Mr. Barton 's position at that time? 7 though, wasn't it?
8 A. I think he was an engineer in 8 A. It should have been by then, because
9 training. So that would have been the '62 time 9 they certainly had shoaling enough times.
10 frame when the -- 10 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
11 Q. Okay. And you recollect that he had 11 A. Certain reaches, I should say. You
12 something to do with the construction of the 12 know, I don't know that all of them were
13 MRGO? 13 problematic. Certainly open water cuts were
14 A. I think he was assigned to it. 14 problems.
15 Q. Assigned. Fair enough. 15 Q. Now, you've worked on project design,
16 A. I'm not sure what he did. 16 as you've told us. The Corps can only build
17 Q. All right. Well, other than this 17 what the Congress of the United States has
18 gentleman, can you think of any other -- anyone 18 authorized the Corps to build; is that
19 else -- well, anyone else? 19 accurate?
20 A. Anyone living? 20 MS. SULLIVAN:
21 Q. Anyone living or dead who had 21 Objection.
22 something to do with the construction of the 22 Answer only if you know.
23 MRGO. 23 A. I think it's accurate, but there are
24 A. No, I can't. Um -- 24 provisions that would allow the Chief of
25 Q. All right. 25 Engineer to make certain, assuming a post
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Page 70 Page 72
1 authorization -- assuming a post authorization 1 To them extent that he can answer
2 change is made. And several of those have been 2 these questions but hasn't looked at
3 made over the year 3 that document.
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 4 You can answer.
5 Q. Okay. And the reason for the need for 5 MR. BRUNO:
6 a post authorization change is to secure 6 That's not my problem. With all
7 additional funding; isn't that true? 7 respect, I didn't designate him as the
8 A. I would say it's that plus -- it's a 8 guy to speak about these issues. So
9 requirement that, you know, if there is an 9 if he hasn't looked at them, he will
10 increase in project cost, or if there is an 10 tell me.
11 increase in additional land takings or 11 THE WITNESS:
12 whatever, that a certain percentage would 12 I'll tell you.
13 require a post authorization change. So, 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
14 that's -- it probably is part of the funding 14 Q. You and I are good, man. If you don't
15 process, too. So. 15 know, you don't know, and that's fair and fine
16 Q. Well, I'm in an awkward position here, 16 and nobody is the worse off for it. But at
17 because you've told me what you know and you 17 least you know I'm in an awkward position of
18 don't know. But I got to ask. 18 having to ask, even though I freely would
19 A. You think you are. 19 choose not to, and go home.
20 Q. Yeah. Well, just allow me to do this. 20 A. Okay.
21 And I'm sure your lawyer will scream and yell, 21 Q. So it is.
22 but let's just do it. The authorization for 22 MS. SULLIVAN:
23 the construction of the MRGO called for a 23 I'm just going to -- for the
24 certain width on the bottom of the channel. 24 record, I'd like to make --
25 A. Uh-huh. 25 MR. BRUNO:
Page 71 Page 73
1 Q. Is that accurate? 1 It's continuing.
2 A. That's correct, I believe. 2 MS. SULLIVAN:
3 Q. All right. And it was five hundred 3 Thank you.
4 feet, best of your knowledge and memory? 4 MR. BRUNO:
5 A. Correct. Uh-huh. 5 You can make it continuing. You
6 Q. Do you know if there was a limitation 6 can make -- hell, I'll even agree that
7 on the surface width of the channel? I'm 7 I won't even make a comment on your
8 sorry -- well, let's see. This is a channel 8 failure to object to anything.
9 that was dug, so it wasn't an existing channel. 9 MS. SULLIVAN:
10 So obviously when you dig the bottom you're 10 Great.
11 going to end up with an open top. Right? Do 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
12 you know whether or not there was any 12 Q. Let's start with this: This is -- let
13 limitation on the width of the surface of the 13 me ask you if you've ever seen this piece of
14 channel? 14 paper and the bunch of pieces of paper that are
15 MS. SULLIVAN: 15 stapled to it. (Tendering.)
16 Joe, I'm just going to object 16 A. Yes. I've seen it.
17 because I don't know if we've 17 Q. Okay. Can you recall, did you see it
18 established whether or not he's looked 18 before Katrina?
19 at the design memos or has any 19 A. No.
20 Knowledge about this. 20 Q. Okay. So this was -- can you share
21 MR. BRUNO: 21 with us how you came to see it post-Katrina?
22 I don't really care. Because you 22 A. Um -- I know there was a call for -- I
23 all designated him as such, so I got 23 had been invited to come to these meetings, and
24 to ask him. 24 I knew there was a call for documents, and I
25 MS. SULLIVAN: 25 had worked in the office where a lot of
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Page 74 Page 76
1 documents were maintained so I went through the 1 Q. All right. Anyway, I just want to
2 files and pulled out what I could find. 2 generally confirm this is a part of Reach 2
3 Q. All right. 3 using my definition of Reach 2.
4 A. Many things of which I had -- back in 4 A. Okay.
5 the forties, okay? 5 Q. All right. That's all I want.
6 Q. Sure. 6 Now, can you look at that document and
7 A. Okay. 7 see if the document indicates the authorized
8 Q. All right. So certainly you have 8 channel width, depth and slope?
9 enough training and experience, having worked 9 MS. SULLIVAN:
10 for the United States Army Corps of Engineers 10 And take your time.
11 all these very many years that, you know how to 11 A. I might need to go get stronger
12 read documents. 12 glasses to see. This is pretty small.
13 A. Correct. 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
14 Q. And you know how to generally 14 Q. Well, you're looking at the drawings.
15 interpret these documents, right? 15 There's a reference in the front, too.
16 A. Correct. 16 A. Is this typical section? Does that
17 Q. Okay. All right. If we would look at 17 give you dimensions?
18 the -- let's, first of all, for the record 18 Q. Yeah. I think the last page will give
19 identify what we're looking at. It's been 19 you a bottom depth.
20 attached a hundred times. We can or can't, I 20 A. Well, I can't see it.
21 don't really care. But it's entitled the 21 Q. If you can't see it, then --
22 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, Louisiana Design 22 A. If you give me a minute, I'll run
23 Memorandum Number 1-B, Channels Mile 39.01 to 23 get --
24 mile 63.77. Okay? All right. I'm wondering 24 Q. Oh, shucks. How about we'll see if we
25 if we can reference that document to this map. 25 can't agree --
Page 75 Page 77
1 A. I don't know. We'll see if we can. 1 A. You got a magnifying glass?
2 Q. We got miles on there, and it says 2 MS. SULLIVAN:
3 let's see, 39.01 -- it's going to be on this 3 You're going to need one if you
4 one -- it's about right here? 4 can't see it.
5 A. Okay. 5 A. I can't read the numbers on it.
6 Q. Okay. And then sixty -- what does 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
7 that say, sir? 7 Q. Let me ask you this, then: If I go to
8 A. 63.77. 8 the index, I'll find something called channel
9 Q. So that's about up here? 9 design criteria, at Page 2.
10 A. Does that agree with this? 10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Yeah. 11 Q. When I go to Page 2, I see a
12 A. Okay. 12 Paragraph 7 that says channel design criteria.
13 Q. You can check it. Check it. 13 A. Uh-huh.
14 MS. SULLIVAN: 14 Q. Now, in fairness to you, what you were
15 You need to take an look at it. 15 doing was you were looking at the actual
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 16 drawings. Right?
17 Q. You don't need to, but if you want to 17 A. Yeah.
18 you can. Because we have done it before. 18 Q. And any good engineer is going to look
19 We've done it two or three times. We can to it 19 at the drawings, because that's going to be
20 again. 20 what dictates what you build.
21 A. As long as these miles agree with 21 A. Correct.
22 this. 22 Q. All right. So --
23 Q. Absolutely. You're right. We did do 23 A. That might not be what dictates what
24 that exercise. 24 was built.
25 A. And there's 64. 25 Q. What would dictate what was --
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Page 78 Page 80
1 A. This is a design memo. The actual 1 Q. I'm going to use design criteria first
2 design drawings that were used in -- this is a 2 and then I'm going to talk about the
3 step before that, so you need to -- I don't 3 rights-of-way.
4 know if those were ever unearthed or not. 4 A. Are they supposed to do something?
5 Q. Okay. For the purposes of my 5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 question, you've got design drawings attached 6 A. To my knowledge, I don't know. I know
7 to that, we just don't know if those are the 7 there are many, many, many cases throughout the
8 design drawings that were actually finally 8 country where there are navigation projects
9 approved. 9 that have been large beyond original design
10 A. Correct. 10 criteria and no action has been taken.
11 Q. Okay. So -- but at least what's 11 Q. Okay. All right. Do you know who we
12 written on Page 2 is some description of what's 12 should speak to to find an answer to that
13 authorized, right? 13 question?
14 A. I believe that would be true. 14 A. I do not.
15 Q. All right. 15 Q. Again, I ask this cautiously, because
16 MS. SULLIVAN: 16 you've already told me what you know and don't
17 Take a look at it. 17 know, but do you have any earthly idea what it
18 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 18 was that dictated the channel bottom width and
19 Q. What is the authorized channel width? 19 the channel depths and the slope? In other
20 A. Channel width, the same as the bottom 20 words, what criteria was utilized?
21 width, it's 500 feet. 21 A. Typically, a navigation, um -- channel
22 Q. Depth? 22 will be for some design vessel.
23 A. 36 feet. 23 Q. Okay. You want to make sure it's deep
24 Q. Slope? 24 enough for whatever vessel's supposed to be
25 A. Looks like -- I don't see a slope. 25 using the channel.
Page 79 Page 81
1 Show me the slope. Here it is. 1 on 2, it 1 A. Correct.
2 says. 2 Q. I got you. All right. Now we also
3 Q. Yeah. Now, do you know whether or 3 talked about rights-of-way because, clearly, if
4 not, based upon a channel bottom width of 4 you have -- well, can we acknowledge that there
5 500 feet a depth of 36 feet and a slope of 1 on 5 is an erosion issue along the MRGO, that is,
6 2, that that would put any limitation on the 6 the width of the surface channel has gotten
7 width of the surface? 7 wider over time, for whatever reason?
8 A. Yes, it would. Yes. 8 MS. SULLIVAN:
9 Q. Would that be a calculated value? 9 Objection. What issue?
10 A. Could be. 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
11 Q. Okay. All right. Now, here's where I 11 Q. Can you answer?
12 get a little confused: Once the Corps is 12 A. It has obviously enlarged.
13 authorized to build that thing, of whatever 13 Q. Over time.
14 size -- 14 A. Over time, yes.
15 A. Uh-huh. 15 Q. Do you know whether or not the Corps
16 Q. -- and if it gets bigger, through 16 regards that issue as a problem or not?
17 erosion or whatever, for whatever reason, is 17 MS. SULLIVAN:
18 the Corps supposed to do something to make 18 Objection.
19 certain that it stays within the authorized -- 19 If you have knowledge of that.
20 let me use the right words -- the authorized 20 A. Well, I would say we consider it a
21 design criteria? 21 problem, certainly, because we have tried to
22 MS. SULLIVAN: 22 take action to prevent it in certain areas,
23 Object. That's vague. 23 particularly where there might be some problem
24 But you can answer. 24 with the hurricane levee.
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
Page 82 Page 84
1 Q. All right. Okay. Now -- 1 A. Is there someone you would go to?
2 A. And I think or environmental issues. 2 Q. Yes, sir.
3 Q. All right. Now, the Corps had a 3 A. Probably at the stage of an existing
4 right-of-way within which to build the MRGO, 4 project you would go to the operations division
5 right? 5 and register a complaint. Now, I'm not sure
6 A. I believe that's correct. 6 about this particular project, but many of the
7 Q. Okay. So one of the other concerns is 7 Corps projects have local sponsors, local
8 the possibility that the banks could erode to 8 sponsors assume operation and maintenance on
9 the point where they might exceed the 9 those projects.
10 right-of-way. 10 Q. Okay.
11 A. That's a possibility, yes. 11 A. So.
12 Q. And that, of course, would be a 12 Q. All right. Again, I'm only asking
13 problem because we'd be encroaching on 13 because you've been designated as a guy that
14 somebody -- possibly encroaching on somebody's 14 knows something about maintenance, do you know
15 property. 15 if the local sponsor of the MRGO was
16 MS. SULLIVAN: 16 responsible for --
17 Objection. 17 A. I do not.
18 If you can answer that 18 Q. -- the maintenance of the channel?
19 question -- 19 A. No, I did not know that.
20 A. It's possible, certainly. 20 Q. All right. Good. But we do know in
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 21 fact that the Corps did maintain the channel,
22 Q. All right. 22 in fact.
23 A. And there are absolute concrete 23 A. Yes. I do know that, yes.
24 examples on the east coast where the Gulf 24 Q. All right. The Corps paid for folks
25 Intracoastal Waterway or the Atlantic 25 to dredge that channel from time to time.
Page 83 Page 85
1 Intracoastal Waterway has done that. 1 Right?
2 Q. All right. Let me ask you this again. 2 A. Yes.
3 Everything I ask you, by the way, is if you 3 Q. All right. And you, I take it, didn't
4 know. It's pretty obvious but I'll just say 4 have anything to do with the planning of the
5 it. 5 dredging of the channel.
6 Now, suppose you had a little camp, a 6 A. Did not.
7 little house right there on the MRGO, and you 7 Q. That's somebody else.
8 walk out there one morning and you see that 8 And so logically, you'd have nothing
9 they've dug this MRGO channel. It's not on 9 to do with the methods chosen by the contractor
10 your property so you got no complaint. A year 10 to dredge. Right?
11 later you come back and you see that that bank 11 A. That's correct.
12 is getting a little -- is getting closer to 12 Q. Okay. Good. Thanks. Now, in this
13 your house than it was the year before. 13 same context of damaging somebody's property,
14 A. Uh-huh. 14 we know that there is a hurricane protection
15 Q. You come back the next year, it's 15 structure alongside the Reach 2 alignment for
16 getting closer, next year it's getting closer 16 some number of miles. Right?
17 and closer and closer. And because I'm the 17 A. Yes.
18 house owner I'm having some concerns about the 18 Q. And we also know, between the time
19 bank ultimately taking my house from me. 19 period '74 to '92, that that channel was -- the
20 A. Uh-huh. 20 channel banks was eroding. Right?
21 Q. Is there any section, division, 21 A. Yeah. I think it was known to be a
22 branch, within the Corps who has the 22 problem, yes.
23 responsibility of ascertaining whether or not a 23 Q. All right. Now, at some point in time
24 project like the MRGO may potentially damage 24 did somebody at the Corps have a certain that
25 someone's property? 25 the erosion of the bank may have -- I'll make
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
Page 86 Page 88
1 this as general as I possibly can -- some 1 Q. Fair enough.
2 impact on the hurricane protection structures 2 A. All I can say -- I do know that there
3 that were built along that alignment? 3 is a rock --
4 MS. SULLIVAN: 4 Q. Right.
5 I'm just going to object. Vague. 5 A. -- protection along at least one side
6 You can answer. 6 of this area. And there might be in that area,
7 A. I would hazard a guess at this point. 7 I don't know.
8 I would say there probably was some concern 8 Q. All right. How about this: I don't
9 that there might be an encroachment into, um -- 9 know if this is within your area or not, but
10 the channel moving close to the levee. 10 just tell me if it's not. Do you know whether
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 11 or not during the time period '74 to -- well,
12 Q. All right. 12 heck, during your tenure at the Corps, from the
13 A. But I couldn't say who. 13 moment you got there until now, has the Corps
14 Q. That's fine. But we do know at some 14 been aware of technologies available to protect
15 point someone decided -- I should say a person 15 banks from erosion --
16 or persons decided to put foreshore protection 16 MS. SULLIVAN:
17 along the bank. 17 I'm going to object. I'm sorry.
18 A. That's a fact. 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
19 Q. All right. And the purpose of that 19 Q. -- caused by any -- for any reason?
20 foreshore protection was to protect the 20 MS. SULLIVAN:
21 hurricane protection structure. 21 I'm just going to object because
22 A. I think it might have been multiple 22 it's asking him to speculate.
23 purpose, because as the banks erode that causes 23 But if you can answer that
24 additional potential shoaling, or dredging 24 question, go ahead.
25 requirements. 25 A. We're aware of every technology
Page 87 Page 89
1 Q. Well, I understand that to be true, 1 available to prevent erosion.
2 but I'm wondering if in fact the major and in 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
3 fact perhaps sole purpose of the bank 3 Q. I thought you might. And that's --
4 protection there was that it wasn't placed 4 A. I say every. Most every conventional
5 anywhere else along that reach. As you know, 5 method. Okay?
6 we have a long reach here. 6 Q. Sure. Of course. And the most
7 A. Uh-huh. 7 conventional method is to just put the rocks,
8 Q. And there's no bank -- and I'm going 8 just like we see -- if we walk out the door of
9 to use these mile markers. How about that? 9 this building we'll see they've got the rocks
10 A. Okay. 10 on the bank.
11 Q. I'm going to use Mile Marker 26 all 11 A. That's one of them, yes.
12 the way to 39. 12 Q. What's that called, by the way?
13 A. Uh-huh. 13 A. Well, they call it riprap.
14 Q. There's no foreshore protection there. 14 Q. Riprap. All right. So we know that
15 A. I'll take your word for it. 15 if someone had decided that it was appropriate,
16 Q. Oh, you don't know. 16 the money was there, et cetera, that the banks
17 A. I don't know. 17 of the MRGO in the north and south side of the
18 Q. Okay. How about you see where these 18 channel could have been protected with riprap.
19 lines are nice and straight -- 19 Right?
20 A. Uh-huh. 20 A. Could have, under the conditions
21 Q. -- from Mile about 25-1/2 to Mile 21 specified, I guess.
22 about 23-1/4? Do you know why those -- do you 22 Q. All right. Do you know if in the
23 know if the shoreline there is straight? Let's 23 original design memorandum -- I'm sorry. Do
24 start with that. 24 you know whether or not in the original request
25 A. Well, first I don't know. 25 for authorization there was a request by the
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
Page 90 Page 92
1 Corps for money for bank erosion protection? 1 A. That's correct.
2 A. I do not know. 2 Q. That was the MRGO project.
3 Q. Okay. Do you know if the design 3 A. That was the MRGO component of the
4 memorandums addressed that issue? 4 Seabrook structure.
5 A. No, I did not. 5 Q. First of all, let's just talk about
6 Q. Fair enough. Okay. Let's talk a 6 salinity generally. Why was salinity even
7 little bit about that Seabrook lock, if you 7 considered in the context of the MRGO? Why
8 don't mind -- 8 bring it up?
9 A. Okay. 9 A. Well, I know that it was, because
10 Q. -- which you alluded to just a little 10 there were model studies done to try to predict
11 bit ago. First of all, I think I recall you 11 the effects of MRGO on salinity levels in Lake
12 telling me that you started having something to 12 Pontchartrain.
13 do with the idea when you got into this 13 Q. Okay.
14 position in '78, that's when you first had 14 A. I'm not -- I'm not sure exactly what
15 something to do with the Seabrook lock? 15 the thinking was in trying to make those
16 A. Correct. 16 assessments in terms of, you know, whether this
17 Q. All right. Now, the Seabrook lock was 17 was pre NEPA, and so -- it was -- but it was
18 originally considered as a component of the 18 recognized to be a potential problem for water
19 Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane 19 intrusion.
20 Protection Plan, right? 20 Q. Before we get to -- because of the
21 A. Correct. 21 record, pre NEPA, help us, just tell us what
22 Q. All right. And what, if you know, was 22 that is. What's pre NEPA?
23 its purpose; in other words, what role was it 23 A. The National Environmental Policy Act
24 to play in hurricane protection? 24 requires environmental impact statements be
25 A. Well, it was to prevent water from 25 done in connection with the --
Page 91 Page 93
1 coming through that corridor into the lake. 1 Q. So what you're telling us is that this
2 Although it was set at such a height that it 2 concern manifested by study of salinity --
3 would -- once the water got to a certain level, 3 A. Uh-huh.
4 it was designed to overtop and act as a relief 4 Q. -- preexisted NEPA.
5 to the IHNC area. 5 A. Correct.
6 Q. All right. I'm a little confused. 6 Q. All right. So obviously NEPA didn't
7 Was the concern that water would come 7 drive the concern. Right?
8 from the IHNC into the lake, or was the concern 8 A. That would be my guess, yes.
9 that the water would come from the lake into 9 Q. Okay. But you don't know?
10 the IHNC? 10 A. I don't know.
11 A. Both. 11 Q. Right. I mean, you don't know what
12 Q. Both. All right. So with regard to 12 concerns, if any, are associated with increased
13 the concern about the potential for water to 13 salinity, right?
14 come from the IHNC into the lake, where would 14 A. Well, I do know --
15 the water come from in that hurricane? 15 Q. Oh. Well, then tell us.
16 A. It would come through this corridor. 16 A. -- some of the concerns.
17 Q. Show me. Can you show me the corridor 17 Q. What are some of the concerns?
18 please? I'll come down to you. 18 A. Particularly if you have a freshwater
19 A. Through this corridor, through the 19 environment, saltwater will change that
20 Lake Borgne, IHNC, GIWW connection, to take 20 environment from a freshwater to a brackish or
21 that route. 21 potentially a saline environment, depending on
22 Q. All right. You also alluded to 22 the amount of the saltwater intrusion.
23 salinity. Help us understand. Salinity wasn't 23 Q. Is that regarded as a problem?
24 a component of the Lake Pontchartrain project, 24 MS. SULLIVAN:
25 right? 25 Objection.
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
Page 94 Page 96
1 You can answer. 1 Q. And the simple answer was, build them
2 A. To some, certainly, yes. 2 higher --
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 3 A. Right.
4 Q. Okay. Could increased salinity kill 4 Q. -- right? Although there was no --
5 marsh? 5 there was really no planning for the outfall
6 A. Could kill it, could change it from 6 canals back then.
7 freshwater marsh to a brackish marsh. 7 A. At that point I don't believe there
8 Q. Can increased salinity kill trees? 8 was.
9 A. Could kill certain trees, yes. 9 Q. All right. Did you have anything to
10 Q. Now, how would this lock deal with 10 do with that, with the '84?
11 increased salinity? If you know. 11 A. Yes, I did.
12 A. Well, the lock was designed to have an 12 Q. You did?
13 auxilliary structure attached to it that had 13 A. Uh-huh.
14 gates that could be opened and closed depending 14 Q. Did you participate in that study?
15 on the tidal cycle, to prevent water from -- 15 A. I coordinated the engineering input,
16 the flood tied from coming in, and allow the 16 um -- a lot of the engineering input for that
17 ebb tide to pull freshwater out, so that it 17 study to model studies, different things, yes.
18 could be operated essentially to maintain a 18 Q. Did you cost it out?
19 freshwater lake environment and/or any 19 A. Um -- I kept records on cost, but I
20 proportion from the existing with MRGO to pre 20 don't -- I wasn't responsible for all of that.
21 MRGO -- 21 That was a, um -- a very large study. Yeah.
22 Q. I understand. 22 Q. Sure. And the fact that the cost was
23 A. -- in the lake. That was the intent 23 an issue because the logic of the move from
24 of it. 24 barrier to high level required, as a premise,
25 Q. Okay. Now, the thing was never built. 25 that the cost wouldn't really change.
Page 95 Page 97
1 A. Never built. 1 A. Let me correct my previous statement.
2 Q. Do you know why? 2 Because I misunderstood what you were asking.
3 A. Yes. 3 The cost of completing a high level plan versus
4 Q. All right. Now you stepped in it. 4 a barrier plan was looked at.
5 Why? 5 Q. Right.
6 A. Because we moved to a high level 6 A. And because much work had been done on
7 barrier plan. I mean a high level plan from 7 the levees and no work on the barriers, it
8 the barrier plan. 8 proved to be cheaper or more cost effective to
9 Q. All right. How did the move from -- 9 go to a high level plan.
10 and I guess the record will reflect already, 10 Q. Right. And it became necessary to
11 you've told us what the high level plan was and 11 assign a number value to protection of the
12 the barrier plan was. You did. 12 outfall canals, right?
13 A. Okay. 13 A. At that point, I believe that's when
14 Q. You did. You did. 14 they began to seriously take a look at the
15 All right. And the barrier plan 15 outfall canals, right.
16 relied on barriers at the Rigolets to keep 16 Q. And they had four scenarios that were
17 surge out of Lake Pontchartrain. Correct? 17 considered in the context of assigning a number
18 A. Correct. 18 to outfall canal protection. Right? You
19 Q. All right. And so the change from 19 remember that?
20 barrier to high level was to not build the 20 A. I don't remember the four scenarios,
21 barriers at the Rigolets. Right? 21 no.
22 A. Correct. 22 Q. Gates, levees --
23 Q. And so now we had a concern with what 23 A. Oh, you mean alternatives?
24 to do with increased surge in the lake. 24 Q. Yeah.
25 A. Correct. 25 A. Yeah. There were -- there was a
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
Page 98 Page 100
1 parallel protection, fronting protection, 1 sponsors we're only going to pay for gates, no
2 pumps, consideration of the auxilliary pumps at 2 pumps.
3 the lake, and -- 3 MS. SULLIVAN:
4 Q. And the last thing was moving the 4 Let me make this continuing.
5 pumping stations to the lake, which was just 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
6 not even -- 6 Q. Is that true?
7 A. I don't even know if that was 7 MS. SULLIVAN:
8 seriously considered. 8 I would like a continuing
9 Q. Well, from the documents, it doesn't 9 objection to this line of questioning.
10 appear -- it was mentioned but not seriously 10 A. I believe that's the bottom line.
11 considered. 11 Yeah.
12 A. Okay. 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
13 Q. But the bottom line is that the number 13 Q. All right. Thank you.
14 value that was selected by the Corps was the 14 Now, would you agree -- I have here a
15 number associated with gates and pumps. Right? 15 couple of pages of testimony from the
16 A. Correct. Initially. 16 deposition that I took of Mr. Accardo. Do you
17 Q. It's a hundred and twenty million 17 know Mr. Accardo?
18 dollar number; is that right? 18 A. Yes, I do.
19 A. As best I recall. That's -- 19 Q. And I don't know if it is in your
20 Q. And after the reevaluation study, even 20 field or not but just tell me if it's not.
21 though the study called for the contemplation 21 Okay? In fairness to you.
22 of gates and pumps, the Corps told the local 22 All right. He says, and I'm quoting,
23 sponsor that they were going to build gates 23 marsh is good because it provides a buffer for
24 only, no pumps. 24 any area that's located inland from the Gulf of
25 MS. SULLIVAN: 25 Mexico. It may not be worth, from a real
Page 99 Page 101
1 Joe, I'm just going to object to 1 estate standpoint, a subdivision where you have
2 the outfall canal questions. I don't 2 a house that you talked about, but the value of
3 know what the relevance is to this 3 marsh is good.
4 case and this witness. But -- 4 Do you agree with that?
5 MR. BRUNO: 5 MS. SULLIVAN:
6 Okay. 6 Objection.
7 MS. SULLIVAN: 7 A. In general, I agree with that, yes.
8 To the extent you can answer, go 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
9 ahead. 9 Q. All right.
10 A. The Corps -- I believe the Corps went 10 MS. SULLIVAN:
11 on record as saying that the gates -- the gates 11 Joe, what page are you on in his
12 plan was the federal plan. 12 testimony?
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 13 MR. BRUNO:
14 Q. Yeah. Because it was the cheapest. 14 I've got an excerpt. I'll give
15 A. Well, not only was it cheapest, it 15 you a copy of this.
16 satisfied the requirement of the authorization 16 MS. SULLIVAN:
17 to provide hurricane protection and did not 17 We have a transcript. I didn't
18 impede interior drainage. 18 know if you knew which page it was.
19 Q. Right. I understand that, but I just 19 MR. BRUNO:
20 make it clear for the record -- if I'm wrong, 20 I'm sorry, I got this before we
21 I'm wrong -- in the reevaluation study, the 21 had the finished transcript.
22 Corps didn't use a value associated with gates 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
23 only, the Corps used a value associated with 23 Q. So then I asked him this question, and
24 gates and pumps. And then after the change 24 I'm curious know if you agree or disagree:
25 from barrier to high level, they told the local 25 Okay? I say, we allege in our complaint -- a
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Page 102 Page 104
1 complaint is this lawsuit thing -- against the 1 I am. I do know that there was an issue of
2 United States of America, that the MRGO caused 2 mitigation -- saltwater mitigation under the
3 the erosion of the marsh and thereby caused the 3 Lake Pontchartrain Project. Okay? So -- when
4 death of trees and swamps and things like that, 4 that was dropped, I don't know -- you know, I
5 in that sense reduced the capacity of the marsh 5 couldn't say whose responsibility or whose
6 to act as a buffer for surge. 6 action it was to further mitigate.
7 And that's our allegation. That's 7 Q. Fine. Now, the Corps acts as the
8 what we allege. That's what we're trying to 8 engineering technical advisor to the Congress
9 prove. 9 of the United States, right?
10 So the question I asked was, does the 10 MS. SULLIVAN:
11 Corps have any interest in ascertaining whether 11 I'm going object because he's
12 or not as they continue to dredge the MRGO they 12 being produced as a fact witness and
13 are in fact contributing to the loss of that 13 he's not speaking on behalf of the
14 buffer? 14 Corps.
15 That's the question. 15 MR. BRUNO:
16 And his answer was, we're doing what 16 I know that. We all know that.
17 Congress told us to do. The authorization -- 17 MS. SULLIVAN:
18 the channel was authorized for navigation 18 I know. Just for the record.
19 purposes. The navigation industry needed that 19 MR. BRUNO:
20 channel to exist, so it was not whether I felt 20 Again.
21 we were hurting the marsh or the project 21 A. We're at the discretion of the
22 management felt they were hurting the marsh, it 22 Congress and the administration.
23 was irrelevant. Congress of the United States 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
24 says, you will dredge that channel and provide 24 Q. All right. And Congress decides how
25 project dimensions for the navigation industry. 25 much money to give you.
Page 103 Page 105
1 It was not about anybody within operations to 1 A. That's correct.
2 question and say, but we're destroying the 2 Q. Right? Congress decides which
3 marsh. Now those questions were raised by 3 projects to approve and not approve. Right?
4 state folk and local interests many years prior 4 A. Correct.
5 to this. 5 Q. Should the Congress be told when one
6 So the question is simple: Do you 6 of its projects is causing damage to somebody's
7 agree with Mr. Accardo? 7 property?
8 MS. SULLIVAN: 8 MS. SULLIVAN:
9 I'm going to object because I 9 Objection.
10 think it's a compound question. 10 A. That I don't know, whose
11 I don't know if you would like an 11 responsibility it is. Typically, if the Corps
12 opportunity to look at what he's read 12 has requested the action, it comes through the
13 to you so you can understand what he's 13 state or local sponsors or whoever to take --
14 asking -- 14 you know, there's a request made and a study
15 THE WITNESS: 15 done and, you know, we go through a process.
16 No, I understand what he said. 16 So, um -- whose responsibility it is, the Corps
17 A. I don't -- I don't know that I agree 17 is not -- does not promote projects. That I
18 or disagree, to be honest with you. In 18 can categorically say is not supposed to
19 general, marsh is good. The loss of marsh is 19 happen.
20 not desirable. Okay? 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 21 Q. Okay. All right. Well, you know,
22 Q. Uh-huh. 22 though, that the Corps did do a reconnaissance
23 A. As to whether or not there was 23 study of bank erosion along MRGO, right?
24 authority to do something about it? 24 A. No, I'm not. I haven't seen it.
25 Mr. Accardo is probably more knowledgeable than 25 Q. Oh. Never mind. Okay.
27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 106 Page 108
1 A. I don't recall seeing it. Let's put 1 that's out for review at this point.
2 it that way. 2 Q. Right. There is nothing more recent
3 Q. Well, that's fine. 3 than this, is there?
4 A. There's a possibility I saw it. 4 A. No.
5 Q. That just means I don't have to ask 5 Q. Are there earlier drafts of this
6 about it, so I'm fine. 6 thing?
7 A. Okay. 7 A. I'm sure there were earlier drafts for
8 Q. All right. Let's talk -- so near as I 8 internal review and --
9 can figure this whole thing out -- so bottom 9 Q. Only. But the only one that's out for
10 line, pre-Katrina, you really don't have 10 comment is the one that I have in my hand.
11 day-to-day responsibility for the MRGO at all. 11 A. Well, correct. But there was a
12 A. Not at all. 12 six-month report produced, um -- as the
13 Q. You don't. Okay. And as regards the 13 Congress requested.
14 hurricane protection project, you assisted in 14 Q. All right. Okay. Let me give you --
15 some calculations with regard to still water 15 I'm going to give you "i" all the way to
16 height? 16 little --
17 A. Very early on, yes. In my early 17 A. This is Volume 1 of the technical
18 career. 18 report? The main report?
19 Q. Did you, after that, do it again? 19 Q. Yes. I'll show you the --
20 A. Not the actual calculation. As I say, 20 (Tendering.)
21 when I worked in the projects engineering 21 Did that help? Remember the question?
22 section I was responsible for coordinating many 22 I was trying to figure out what role you had.
23 of the design memos that were done to support 23 A. Okay.
24 the high level plan and the reevaluation study. 24 Q. And so I thought to myself -- maybe
25 Q. Okay. And you've told us the 25 I'm crazy -- that I'd show you the table of
Page 107 Page 109
1 reevaluation study really did not impact the 1 contents and you could look at the table of
2 Chalmette Plan. Right? 2 contents and tell me which sections of the
3 A. No. It wasn't part of the Chalmette 3 report would be something that you had
4 plan. 4 something to do with.
5 Q. All right. Okay. All right. Now, 5 A. Well, there may be elements of this
6 post-Katrina, you remember the Louisiana 6 that I participated in. The main report was
7 Coastal Protection -- well, you remember -- you 7 written by other folks.
8 participated in the Louisiana Coastal 8 Q. Right.
9 Protection and Restoration Technical Report. 9 A. I was responsible for the appendix,
10 A. Correct. 10 the H&H appendix.
11 Q. All right. Now, maybe -- I don't 11 Q. H&H. Is that in here?
12 know, this may or may not be a good way to do 12 A. It's a very large amount of work.
13 it, but I'm thinking to myself I'll show you 13 There are two volumes, plus addendums.
14 the table of contents, and maybe that would be 14 Q. Two volumes to the H&H appendix?
15 a way for me to understand what sections or 15 A. That's right.
16 parts you had something to do with. 16 Q. All right. Two volumes to that.
17 MS. SULLIVAN: 17 A. That's on the website. You can
18 Joe, I saw that you had graphs on 18 download it.
19 there. Do you have date on the report 19 Q. All right.
20 that you can show him? 20 A. And there's probably stuff I put in
21 MR. BRUNO: 21 there, wrote in there, too, but I couldn't say
22 Sure. This is February, 2008. 22 where.
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 23 Q. All right. Well, this thing here does
24 Q. All right? 24 have a list of appendices identified. So I see
25 A. Uh-huh. I believe that's the one 25 something called Hydraulics and Hydrology
28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Page 110 Page 112
1 Appendix, and it's Page 312. Is that the only 1 some not included, so someone had to decide to
2 appendix of those listed? 2 include certain levees.
3 A. That I had something to do with? Is 3 A. Well --
4 that the question? 4 Q. That's all I'm saying.
5 Q. I'm sorry. What was your question? 5 A. Yeah. It's not someone, but it was I
6 A. My question is, did I have anything to 6 would say a process.
7 do with any of the other appendix? 7 Q. A process by which levees were
8 Q. Yes, sir. 8 included and excluded.
9 A. I had stuff to do with the engineering 9 A. Correct.
10 appendix, also. 10 Q. And I realize that there has not
11 Q. All right. Which is entitled 11 been -- you haven't reached the point where
12 Engineering Appendix. 12 there's a specific recommendation.
13 A. Correct. 13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. All right. Let me ask you about that 14 Q. But -- let me just show you this and
15 one first. What did you have to do with the 15 see if this is not part of this thing or not.
16 engineering appendix? 16 Maybe that's the problem. (Tendering.)
17 A. I worked with the engineering division 17 Take a look at it first. What is it?
18 folks who prepared the cost estimates for the 18 Do you know what it is? And then we'll
19 report, giving them the design height and the 19 identify it for the record.
20 various configurations of the levees, the 20 A. I know what it is.
21 length -- levee length and whatnot. So it's 21 Q. All right. What it is?
22 primarily working with the coordinating, being 22 A. Okay. It's part of the ongoing for
23 sure that the H&H input to that report -- 23 the restoration and protection to provide
24 Q. Uh-huh. 24 100-year protection being conducted by the HPO
25 A. -- and the cost estimating procedures 25 office.
Page 111 Page 113
1 followed what we were designing. Okay? 1 Q. All right. This is a news release
2 Q. Did that include the selection of 2 which announces the award of a contract for the
3 alignments? 3 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Surge Reduction
4 A. Um -- the alignments were done through 4 Project. Right?
5 a process. Um -- they haven't -- the selection 5 A. Uh-huh.
6 has been made yet. The recommendation is not 6 Q. And what I'm -- is this contract part
7 in that report, you'll find, as to what the -- 7 of this Louisiana Coastal Protection and
8 Q. Well, I guess I'm thinking out loud 8 Restoration Report?
9 that if you did some cost analyses you had to 9 A. It establishes the basis for our
10 have a cost analysis of some thing. 10 start -- our existing condition design. Okay?
11 A. Oh, yes. There's about 33,000 miles 11 Q. This being the report.
12 after levee design in that document. 12 A. The report -- the 100-year protection
13 Q. Right. 13 plan is assumed to be in place as an existing
14 A. Okay. 14 project, and all plans are compared against its
15 Q. So somebody had to decide to include 15 level of risk reduction.
16 those levees. 16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Right. 17 A. Okay.
18 Q. Right. 18 Q. And so this contract is part of the
19 A. But what I'm telling you is that the 19 100-year protection.
20 somebody was a process of meetings, the levee 20 A. That contract is part of the 100-year
21 selections mimmick some of the state proposals, 21 protection, correct.
22 as well as public meetings that were held to 22 Q. So the draft assumes that this is
23 come up with different plans. 23 built.
24 Q. Yeah. All I'm trying to say is that 24 A. That's correct.
25 there are some levees included and there are 25 Q. Okay. And this Inner Harbor
29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 114 Page 116
1 Navigation Canal Surge Reduction Project is a 1 MS. SULLIVAN:
2 contract to build what, if you know? 2 Objection on the grounds it's
3 A. Well, it's -- it's a contract to build 3 calling on him to speculate. I don't
4 some means to prevent the surge from entering 4 know if he knows what's in the press.
5 the inner harbor shown on that map right there. 5 A. Yeah. I don't know what's being
6 It's nonspecific in the exact details because 6 speculated in the papers. This -- when one
7 is a design-build, innovative approach to be 7 looks at the system, the entire system, the
8 used. So the Corps is not dictating exactly 8 Caernarvon area and this area are the hottest
9 what's to go there is my understanding. 9 spots in Louisiana in terms of potential surge
10 Q. Right. But can we see if I'm correct 10 creators.
11 in assuming that the idea is to keep surge 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
12 from -- I'm sorry. Let me ask it a different 12 Q. Why is that?
13 way. The idea is to keep surge which comes 13 A. It's a combination of things.
14 from the direction of Lake Borgne from getting 14 Q. Okay.
15 into the IHNC. 15 A. The counter rotation of the storm,
16 A. That's what that specific news release 16 winds going in a circular motion, the
17 is about, yes. 17 Mississippi River levee system below, and the
18 Q. All right. So can I conclude that 18 effect of the shallow shelf there, the many
19 there is a recognition that surge may come from 19 miles of open water, the combination of
20 Lake Borgne across this marshy area through the 20 levees --
21 Intracoastal Waterway into the Industrial 21 Q. Uh-huh.
22 Canal? 22 A. If no levels had ever been built, the
23 A. Yes, sir. 23 surge wouldn't get as high. It's a combination
24 Q. Is that something new? 24 of many factors.
25 A. No. 25 Q. Right.
Page 115 Page 117
1 Q. All right. This is something the 1 A. If the funnel wasn't there, the surge
2 Corps has known for many, many years, right? 2 would still get very high at that location.
3 A. Correct. 3 Okay?
4 Q. All right. We've read in the 4 Q. All right. Before we get too far,
5 newspapers something called the funnel effect. 5 though, you said these were the I believe
6 When I say funnel effect, does the phrase have 6 hottest areas. Tell me what that means.
7 any meaning to you in your field? 7 A. You had asked me about the hottest
8 MS. SULLIVAN: 8 areas. And that's just a description. If you
9 I'm going to object on the 9 read the H&H appendix, I'm not sure, but we
10 grounds that it's vague and ambiguous. 10 have developed in this process a risk
11 But you can certainly answer the 11 assessment for flooding potential throughout
12 question. 12 the state of Louisiana. Okay? In that process
13 A. I've certainly heard the term the 13 we developed what's called surge frequency maps
14 funnel effect. 14 that depict the, say, the 100-year elevation
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 15 everywhere within the system. If you look at
16 Q. Okay. 16 these maps, the particular color range used to
17 A. Um -- it looks like a funnel. 17 reflect the height of the water goes from a
18 Q. Right. 18 blueish color up to a red color, red being the
19 A. The levees do. 19 highest.
20 Q. Of course. And there's been a 20 Q. Highest.
21 suggestion that the funnel effect caused by the 21 A. And at the 100-year level, when you
22 location of the levees has some relationship 22 look at the hot spots, the red spots, these two
23 between a level of surge. Is that an accurate 23 areas appear to be some of the worst.
24 understanding of what at least has been alleged 24 Q. Okay. All right.
25 in the press? 25 A. So I'll go a little bit further. The
30 (Pages 114 to 117)

Page 118 Page 120
1 100-year values in this area, on the order of 1 MS. SULLIVAN:
2 elevation 17 would be a surge level, still 2 Objection.
3 water level of 17, might be slightly higher 3 A. I don't know the answer to that.
4 down here -- 4 Um -- I would say the level of detail and the
5 Q. Uh-huh. 5 effort that went into making these new
6 A. -- out at Seabrook it's around 6 calculations was impossible in the eighties.
7 elevation 10. 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
8 Q. Okay. 8 Q. I understand that.
9 A. Okay? So it's a substantial 9 A. Okay? The technology didn't exist,
10 difference in potential water levels. 10 the approaches weren't developed, the
11 Q. All right. 11 statistical approaches are all new work done
12 A. Just because of the shelf and numerous 12 since Katrina.
13 other things that exist, and the nature of the 13 Q. Right.
14 way the storms come. 14 A. Um -- the type things that influence
15 Q. Okay. Now, you made the point that 15 the level or the height of what's there, if
16 when there were no levees the water wouldn't 16 it's got something to build up against --
17 have gotten quite so high. Right? 17 Q. Uh-huh.
18 A. That's correct. 18 A. -- if it can spread out -- it does
19 Q. All right. So what I'm wondering is 19 mean that if these levees weren't there you
20 if the conclusion about these so-called hot 20 wouldn't have flooding in these areas.
21 spots would have been an accurate conclusion 21 Q. Oh, I understand that.
22 from the time that the levees were built until 22 A. It would go right up to the
23 now, which would be, let's just pick a time, I 23 Mississippi River levees.
24 think the last lift on the MRGO was in, I don't 24 Q. We're talking about relative levels, I
25 know, late seventies, early eighties? So let's 25 think. You've made that crystal clear in your
Page 119 Page 121
1 say from 1980 to the present, do those 1 testimony. This is a relative issue. And that
2 conditions that you described in the 100-year 2 is if you have no levees it doesn't mean you
3 analysis for protection, would there have been 3 don't have flooding it just means you may have
4 any change in those calculations based upon the 4 a higher level.
5 parameters in existence in 1980 as opposed to 5 A. That location wouldn't get quite as
6 the parameters that are in existence today? 6 high.
7 MS. SULLIVAN: 7 Q. Exactly. But let me ask you, the
8 Objection. 8 topographical components, to the extent that
9 A. We did not have the capability to do 9 they have any relevance at all --
10 those kind of calculations at that point in 10 A. Uh-huh.
11 time. This was a dramatic development that's 11 Q. -- in this newfangled technology, are
12 occurred since Katrina where we have hired 12 they different today than they were in 1980, if
13 every expert we could get our hands on -- 13 you know?
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 14 A. Um -- the primary ones, probably not
15 Q. Right. 15 substantially different. If you're headed down
16 A. -- to produce better -- 16 the path of wetland loss, there's probably some
17 Q. I understand that. But can I learn 17 influence. We just -- again, that hasn't been
18 whether or not any of the variables have 18 quantified yet.
19 changed? I recognize that the technology to 19 Q. I think that you've also looked at
20 calculate is different, but say from 1980 when 20 Katrina, the storm itself, in ascertaining how
21 I think all these levees reached their maximal 21 to characterize the thing. What I'd like to
22 lift height, are there any real substantive 22 know is what are the differences, if any,
23 changes in the variables utilized to calculate 23 between Katrina and the standard project
24 these numbers, even with the newfangled 24 hurricane, or hurricanes, since there were at
25 technology of the day? 25 least three tracks, maybe four, if you know?
31 (Pages 118 to 121)

Page 122 Page 124
1 MS. SULLIVAN: 1 Category 5, so.
2 Objection. 2 Q. All right. And wind speed. How does
3 But go ahead. 3 the wind speed compare to the standard project
4 A. Okay. Katrina is different in the 4 hurricane?
5 sense that standard project hurricane is a 5 A. Wind speeds, over land -- over water,
6 storm -- synthetic storm. 6 wind speeds for the standard project hurricane
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 7 were 100 knots, 100 miles per hour, somewhere
8 Q. Yes, of course. 8 in that range.
9 A. Okay? It doesn't -- it isn't affected 9 Q. Okay.
10 by climatological conditions in the peripheral, 10 A. Um -- as I recall, over Lake
11 and decay of the storm does not take place 11 Pontchartrain, by the time the SPH was assumed
12 until landfall occurs, as happened with 12 to be in proximity to the New Orleans area it
13 Katrina. Katrina, for instance, was a Category 13 was in the 80-mile per hour, 85-mile per hour
14 5 at one point south of the river, and it began 14 range winds over Lake Pontchartrain.
15 to degrade as the effects of land and 15 Q. Okay. So the winds were a little
16 additional global weather climate, dry air and 16 stronger than Katrina?
17 things, so that the storm as it approached 17 A. I don't know for fact what New Orleans
18 began to fill, the radius to maximum winds 18 sustained with Katrina, because Katrina was not
19 increased, the energy in the storm didn't 19 critical to the New Orleans metro area,
20 change. You need to understand, the waves 20 actually. So --
21 created by Katrina offshore in the gulf were 21 Q. All right. What does that mean, not
22 some of the largest waves ever observed in the 22 critical?
23 Gulf of Mexico. So all of those activities are 23 A. The track. You'll recall the tracks
24 set in motion, and the surge that Katrina 24 that were selected to produce the maximum surge
25 produced are probably more intense than the SPH 25 and put the critical winds on the -- against
Page 123 Page 125
1 would produce. 1 the levee reaches.
2 Q. Help me. Intense meaning? 2 Q. I got you. Let's compare the Katrina
3 A. Higher. Higher surge. 3 track to the Chalmette track of the standard
4 Q. Higher. I just want to understand the 4 project hurricane. Is there any relationship
5 parameter. I'm sorry. 5 there?
6 A. Yet, when you simply look at wind 6 MS. SULLIVAN:
7 speeds at landfall. If you take Mississippi as 7 Objection.
8 a landfall, or even the mouth of the river, 8 You can answer.
9 there's probably not a great deal of 9 A. I can't recall exactly the tracks, I
10 difference. The SPH had a 30 nautical mile 10 know there's a Track A, C and F, but the
11 radius, Katrina was 25 or thereabouts, I 11 Chalmette -- I don't remember which one was the
12 believe. 12 Chalmette track. I think it was more from the
13 Q. Okay. 13 east than rather from the south like Katrina
14 A. So it's -- 14 came. But I couldn't swear.
15 Q. Well, let's walk through some of the 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
16 perhaps more easily understood parameters. Not 16 Q. All right. Let's see. Has there been
17 to suggest that these are the only parameters. 17 any effort to determine the actual impact of
18 But the central pressure of Katrina, was it 18 the levees on increased surge? In other words,
19 different from the standard project hurricane? 19 we have already established no levees, you
20 A. It was a lower intensity at -- the SPH 20 still got flooding. Levees, you have a little
21 for the Lake Pontchartrain project, when it was 21 higher level of surge. Has anybody tried to
22 set for design, was 934 millibars. I don't 22 figure out how much more surge we get because
23 recall exactly what Katrina 's was, but it was 23 those levees are where they are in the
24 lower than that. Certainly at one point it was 24 Chalmette protection area?
25 a little over 900 millibars when it was a 25 MS. SULLIVAN:
32 (Pages 122 to 125)

Page 126 Page 128
1 Objection. 1 so-called funnel business. And he says, the
2 But you can answer. 2 cost-benefit analysis revealed that it just
3 A. I don't believe that's been done. 3 wasn't going to work to obtain the same level
4 What has been done under LACPR was an effort to 4 of protection.
5 look at the impacts of the Mississippi River 5 That being generally where I'm going,
6 levees below a certain mile point. 6 let me ask you to take a look at that. And
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 7 let's take -- we can do this on a break because
8 Q. All right. 8 I'm almost done and we'll see if I can't visit
9 A. Where we were considering because of 9 with my folks while you're studying that to see
10 the threat to the Plaquemines area and the 10 whether we can finish before lunch. Okay?
11 inability to get 100-year protection for them 11 A. Oh, you want me to study this before
12 because of the new design heights, new wave 12 lunch.
13 conditions and so on and so forth. We were 13 Q. Yeah. Because I'd like to finish
14 considering looking at the possibility of 14 before lunch if I can.
15 causeways to allow water to pass from one basin 15 A. Oh, great.
16 to the other across -- taking the levers down 16 (Brief recess.)
17 to, say, top of banks. That was sort of a very 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
18 theoretical look. 18 Q. Okay. I frankly forgot on your list
19 Q. Uh-huh. 19 of Corps projects you worked on the Mississippi
20 A. We took it even further. We actually 20 River Gulf Outlet ship lock replacement
21 took them all down and looked at it because 21 project, right?
22 when you look at effect of the storm surge and 22 A. Right.
23 the reflection of the surge as it moves across 23 Q. Okay. Well, let me see if I can
24 the gulf and up towards Mississippi and New 24 understand the breadth of that involvement, and
25 Orleans, it's a very pronounced dynamic effect 25 that will assess whether we need to come back
Page 127 Page 129
1 caused by the levee system. That is being -- a 1 after lunch or not.
2 report being written on that study. It's 2 A. Okay. It's not a lot, but go ahead.
3 really out-of-the-box thinking for the Corps, 3 Q. It's not a lot, you said, or is a lot?
4 um -- but hasn't been taken beyond that. It's 4 A. Not a lot.
5 been discussed in the LACPR report as a 5 Q. Not a lot. Well, everybody might be
6 potential option for fewer examination. 6 excited about that. We'll see.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Do you know a 7 So, first, when did you first have
8 gentleman named Steven West? 8 anything to do with the navigation lock
9 A. I don't believe I do. It's possible 9 expansion project?
10 that I do, but I don't know. 10 A. In my position as chief of the
11 Q. I'm going to show you two letters. 11 hydraulic design section, our responsibility
12 One is dated October 21, '69, and it's from a 12 was to design the hydraulic aspects of
13 gentleman named Pinto to the Vice President of 13 designing that lock, the filling and emptying
14 the United States, and it's only as a frame of 14 system. So, um --
15 reference. The real questions will come from 15 Q. Did you have anything whatsoever to do
16 the letter by Mr. West, who is a major, and he 16 with the TERC, the Total Environmental
17 was the acting district engineer for the New 17 Remediation Contract, awarded to the
18 Orleans office in '69. And he talks about -- 18 Washington -- well, Morrison-Knudsen, now
19 I'll let you read this. 19 Washington Group International?
20 A. Okay. 20 A. No.
21 Q. But I want to give you a heads up as 21 Q. No.
22 to what we're looking for. 22 A. Did not.
23 A. Sure. 23 Q. Okay. There it is. You did good.
24 Q. He talks about that there was an 24 Do you know whether or not there are
25 investigation by the Corps to deal with the 25 any guidelines which are published by this
33 (Pages 126 to 129)

Page 130 Page 132
1 office for excavating near a federal flood 1 the, um --
2 control structure? 2 Q. All right. Does it matter --
3 A. There are certainly guidelines for 3 A. -- structure.
4 that as well as any kind of construction, 4 Q. All right. Does the nature of the
5 driving pilings -- and that's administered 5 material you use to fill up the hole, if it's
6 through our permit process. Any applicant 6 different from what was already there when you
7 coming in with intentions of doing work in or 7 took it out, might that affect also --
8 near a federal levee, particularly Mississippi 8 A. I'm not an expert in this area --
9 River, we very closely watch what goes on on 9 Q. Okay.
10 the batture, any activity there. 10 A. -- but yes, I believe it would.
11 Q. Can you tell me why the Corps is 11 Certainly if it were lighter material and it
12 interested in evaluating work that is proposed 12 didn't afford the same resistant forces.
13 to take place in the vicinity of a flood 13 Q. Is permeability relevant?
14 protection project? 14 A. Permeability can be an issue, yes.
15 MS. SULLIVAN: 15 Q. Would you happen to know whether --
16 Objection. Calls for 16 and I'll just get a sense of the guideline. I
17 speculation. 17 mean, is it like ten feet, fifteen feet or a
18 You can answer. 18 hundred feet wherein there's some interest on
19 A. I can tell you why we look at it from 19 the part of the Corps for an evaluation?
20 the hydraulic perspective and why the 20 A. I can tell you on the Mississippi
21 foundation people look at it, particularly if 21 River, you know, we have what's called
22 there's excavation involved. It might affect 22 stability control lines along the river, and
23 the integrity of the system. That's -- 23 infringements of that are not allowed. But
24 Q. Okay. How might an excavation affect 24 analyses are conducted to determine, you know,
25 the integrity of a flood control structure? 25 where the material needs to be, and erosion
Page 131 Page 133
1 MS. SULLIVAN: 1 into that threatens -- from the river side, if
2 Objection. 2 the river decides to change course or erode the
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 3 bank, then generally action is taken when the
4 Q. Mechanically. Just so I can 4 integrity of the system is threatened.
5 understand it. 5 Q. Okay. Let me specifically ask about
6 A. Well, if you consider loading cases 6 the IHNC, all right, and the flood control
7 where the water level is so high and so much 7 structures there. Do you know if there's some
8 resistant force is required to counteract that 8 measure in proximity to the center line of the
9 loading, it's sorts of if you look at it as a 9 hurricane -- I'm sorry -- of the flood control
10 balancing act -- 10 structure, on either side of the bank, which
11 Q. Uh-huh. 11 would mandate an analysis by the Corps of the
12 A. -- it's designed to withstand certain 12 proposed work?
13 loads and it counts on the passive load of 13 MS. SULLIVAN:
14 material that's in situ or there during 14 I want to object for the same
15 construction. They don't want to see it 15 reasons I objected earlier and make it
16 removed. 16 continuing to this line of going.
17 Q. So if you have earth next to a flood 17 MR. BRUNO:
18 control project and you remove the earth, then 18 We made it continuing before.
19 you have less resistance to the water. 19 MS. SULLIVAN:
20 MS. SULLIVAN: 20 Just for the record. Because
21 Objection. 21 we've come back to it.
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 22 MR. BRUNO:
23 Q. Am I generally stating it? 23 Then why do we say it's
24 A. That's generally correct, if in fact 24 continuing if we keep objecting? I
25 that earth was counted for in the design of 25 mean, the purpose of saying it's
34 (Pages 130 to 133)

Page 134 Page 136
1 continuing is so you don't have to 1 analyze any of the engineering work that came
2 continue to object. And when you 2 back to you in that coordinating capacity?
3 object -- I mean, you know, it's like 3 A. I would say there were numerous times
4 why do I bother? 4 I commented and asked for clarification or
5 MS. SULLIVAN: 5 additional work, yeah.
6 We're back to it again. 6 Q. Okay. All right. We'll just clarify
7 MR. BRUNO: 7 for the record, in your role as the coordinator
8 Well, I won't even make it 8 for these engineering studies, did you have
9 continuing. 9 any -- any of those projects have anything to
10 MS. SULLIVAN: 10 do with the MRGO?
11 It's clear on the record. 11 A. I don't believe they did.
12 MR. BRUNO: 12 Q. Well, thank you very much. I really
13 It was clear before. And it's no 13 appreciate it. And we're done.
14 clearer now is the problem. 14 A. Okay. Great.
15 A. I do not know. 15
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: 16
17 Q. There you go. 17
18 Mr. Colletti suggested a number, I 18
19 think, of 300 feet on the water side. Does 19
20 that ring any bells at all or give you some -- 20
21 anything? 21
22 A. (Shakes head negatively.) 22
23 Q. Nothing. 23
24 A. (Shakes head negatively.) 24
25 Q. Who should I talk to to find out what 25
Page 135 Page 137
1 is the geographic limit within which the -- the 1 WITNESS' CERTIFICATE
2 geographic limit within which the Corps would 2
3 have an interest in ascertaining or analyzing 3 I, DAVID VANN STUTTS, do hereby
4 excavation or work as it relates to a flood 4 certify that the foregoing testimony was given
5 control project? 5 by me, and that the transcription of said
6 A. That would come under the permitting 6 testimony, with corrections and/or changes, if
7 process. Anybody intending to do -- take 7 any, is true and correct as given by me on the
8 actions involving digging near a federal 8 aforementioned date.
9 project comes in for a permit, and that's 9
10 routed through engineering, operations -- it's 10 ______________ _________________________
11 routed through the entire organization. So 11 DATE SIGNED DAVID VANN STUTTS
12 depending on the nature of the action, that's 12
13 whose business it would be. So I can't say 13 _______ Signed with corrections as noted.
14 specifically, but it's handled in the permit 14
15 arena. 15 _______ Signed with no corrections noted.
16 Q. All right. Now, just a few more 16
17 questions and we can finish this. 17
18 You'll remember you testified that 18
19 there was a point in your career when you were 19
20 coordinating through -- I think you were in the 20
21 design section. 21
22 A. Design services branch. 22
23 Q. You were coordinating the various 23
24 engineering evaluations. Was it the role of 24
25 the design section to comment or review or 25 DATE TAKEN: April 15th, 2008
35 (Pages 134 to 137)

Page 138
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 I, JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR,
3 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State
4 of Louisiana, do hereby certify that the
5 aforementioned witness, after having been first
6 duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did
7 testify as hereinabove set forth;
8 That said deposition was taken by me
9 in computer shorthand and thereafter
10 transcribed under my supervision, and is a true
11 and correct transcription to the best of my
12 ability and understanding.
13 I further certify that I am not of
14 counsel, nor related to counsel or the parties
15 hereto, and am in no way interested in the
16 result of said cause.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 ____________________________________
24 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR
25 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
36 (Page 138)

KTR00073

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KTR00073

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAVID VANN STUTTS 4/15/2008

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

Deposition of DAVID VANN STUTTS, given

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

30 (Pages 114 to 117)

31 (Pages 118 to 121)

32 (Pages 122 to 125)

33 (Pages 126 to 129)

34 (Pages 130 to 133)

35 (Pages 134 to 137)

You might also like