KTR00080

VICTOR LANDRY April 30, 2008
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION
NO. 05-4182
"K" (2)
PERTAINS TO: MRGO-ROBINSON JUDGE DUVAL
FILED IN: 05-4181, 05-4182, MAG. WILKINSON
05-5237, 05-6073, 05-6314,
05-6324, 05-6327, 05-6359,
06-0225, 06-0886, 06-1885,
06-2152, 06-2278, 06-2287,
06-2824, 06-4024, 06-4065,
06-4066, 06-4389, 06-4634,
06-4931, 06-5032, 06-5155,
06-5159, 06-5161, 06-5162,
06-5260, 06-5771, 06-5786,
06-5937, 07-0206, 07-0621,
07-1073, 07-1271, 07-1285
Videotaped Deposition of
VICTOR A. LANDRY,
329 Virginia Street, New Orleans, Louisiana
70124, taken at the Corps of Engineers, New
Orleans District, 7400 Leake Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana, on Wednesday, the 30th day
of April, 2008.
JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES:
2
1 STIPULATION
3 GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER & 2
WARSHAUER
4 (BY: GERALD E. MEUNIER, ESQ.) 3 It is stipulated and agreed by and between
1100 Poydras Street
5 Suite 2800 4 counsel for the parties hereto
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163
6 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
5 that the deposition of the aforementioned
7 6 witness is hereby being taken under the
WIEDEMANN & WIEDEMANN
8 (BY: KAREN WIEDEMANN, ESQ.) 7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for all
821 Baronne Street
9 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
8 purposes, in accordance with law;
10
ATTORNEYS FOR BARGE PSLC 9 That the formalities of reading and
11 SHER, GARNER, CAHILL, RICHTER, KLEIN & 10 signing are specifically not waived;
HILBERT
12 (BY: R. SCOTT HOGAN, ESQ.) 11 That the formalities of certification and
909 Poydras Street
13 Suite 2800
12 filing are specifically waived;
14
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
13 That all objections, save those as to the
(ALSO PRESENT) 14 form of the question and the responsiveness of
15
16 15 the answer, are hereby reserved until such
17
DUPLASS, ZWAIN, BOURGEOIS, MORTON,
PFISTER & WEINSTOCK
16 time as this deposition, or any part thereof,
(BY: RYAN M. MALONE, ESQ.) 17 may be used or sought to be used in evidence.
18 Suite 2900
3838 North Causeway Boulevard 18
19 Metairie, Louisiana 70002
ATTORNEYS FOR THE BOARD OF
19 * * * *
20 COMMISSIONERS FOR THE LAKE BORGNE 20
BASIN LEVEE DISTRICT
21 (ALSO PRESENT) 21 ROGER D. JOHNS, RDR, CRR, Certified Court
22
SUTTON LAW FIRM 22 Reporter for the State of Louisiana,
23 (BY: CHARLES E. SUTTON, JR., ESQ.)
2101 North Highway 190
23 officiated in administering the oath to the
24 Covington, Louisiana 70433 24 witness.
ATTORNEYS FOR ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT
25 (ALSO PRESENT) 25
Page 3 Page 5
1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED: 1 INDEX
2 2
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
3 CIVIL DIVISION PAGE
TORTS BRANCH 3
4 (BY: KEITH LIDDLE, ESQ.) Landry Number 1............................ 36
Post Office Box 888 4 NRG-003-000001928.......................... 46
5 Benjamin Franklin Station Landry Number 2............................ 54
Washington, D.C. 20044
6 ATTORNEYS FOR UNITED STATES 5 AIN-046-000002154, 55, and 56.............. 54
7 Landry Number 3............................ 71
LAINEY TROTTER, ESQ. 6 NRG-003-000001655 and 1656................. 71
8 7400 Leake Avenue Landry Number 4........................... 103
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 7
9 ATTORNEY FOR UNITED STATES ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS 8
10 9
11 10
12 11
VIDEOTAPED BY: 12
13 Gilly Delormier
Depo-Vue 13
14 14
15 15
16 REPORTED BY: 16
ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, CRR, RDR, CSR
17
17 Certified Court Reporter
State of Louisiana 18
18 19
19 20
20 21
21
22
22
23 23
24 24
25 25
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
Page 6 Page 8
1 VIDEO OPERATOR: 1 Q. All right. So although you're
2 This is the videotaped deposition 2 employed by Evans-Graves, you really assist
3 of Victor Landry. This deposition is 3 the Corps in its liaison with local
4 being held today at 7400 Leake Avenue 4 governmental entities?
5 in New Orleans, Louisiana on April the 5 A. Yes.
6 30th, 2008. The time is 9:01 A.M. 6 Q. Okay. How long have you worked for
7 Would Counsel present please now 7 Evans-Graves?
8 introduce themselves. 8 A. Since July of '06.
9 MR. MEUNIER: 9 Q. And has your position always been
10 Gerry Meunier representing 10 that of Senior Project Manager?
11 Plaintiffs. 11 A. Yes.
12 MR. LIDDLE: 12 Q. And what is the extent of your
13 Keith Liddle on behalf of the 13 formal education?
14 United States. 14 A. I have a B.S. degree in mechanical
15 MS. TROTTER: 15 engineering from Tulane University and I am a
16 Lainey Trotter with the Corps. 16 Registered Professional Engineer in the state
17 MR. SUTTON: 17 of Louisiana in mechanical engineering.
18 Charles Sutton, Orleans Levee 18 Q. And aside from your B.S. from Tulane
19 District, also present. 19 and your Professional Engineer license, do you
20 MR. MALONE: 20 hold any other degrees or formal licenses of
21 Ryan Malone, East Jefferson Levee 21 any kind?
22 District and Lake Borgne Levee 22 A. No.
23 District, also present. 23 Q. Now, Mr. Landry, you have previously
24 VICTOR A. LANDRY, 24 worked for the Corps of Engineers; correct?
25 329 Virginia Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 25 A. That is correct.
Page 7 Page 9
1 70124, after being duly sworn, did testify as 1 Q. When did you start with the Corps?
2 follows: 2 A. June the 1st, 1956.
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 3 Q. So right out of college?
4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Landry. 4 A. Yes.
5 A. Good morning. 5 Q. What was your job history with the
6 Q. As you know, I'm Gerry Meunier and I 6 Corps? I am just interested in the positions
7 represent the Plaintiffs in this case. 7 you held starting with the earliest and
8 You stated your name and address. 8 through the last.
9 By whom are you currently employed? 9 A. Okay. I was employed as a junior
10 A. I am employed by the Evans-Graves 10 engineer and I was placed in the rotational
11 Engineers, and they have a contract with the 11 engineering training program and I worked in
12 Corps to provide professional services to the 12 that position for five months and then I had
13 Hurricane Protection Office. 13 to go on active duty with the Air Force. And
14 Q. What kind of professional services? 14 I was in the Air Force three years, three
15 A. Project management mainly in the 15 months, and eleven days.
16 recovery and restoration of the hurricane 16 Q. Roughly, huh?
17 protection works. 17 A. Exactly.
18 Q. And what is your job title with 18 Q. Okay.
19 Evans-Graves? 19 A. And I remember that because of my --
20 A. Senior Project Manager, and my main 20 I got a little card, a wallet size card with
21 duty is local liaison. 21 your discharge, honorable discharge, and on
22 Q. Liaison with who? 22 the back they had that. I thought that was
23 A. The political subdivisions, 23 kind of funny.
24 consultants, any outside dealings with the 24 Q. Yes.
25 Corps. 25 A. But anyway, I went to jet training.
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
Page 10 Page 12
1 I'm a single engine jet pilot, and I returned 1 A. Negative.
2 to the Corps of Engineers in February of 1960 2 Q. Okay. So your job was more to
3 and I took a job as design engineer in Plant 3 implement and facilitate the implementation of
4 Engineering Section of Operations Division. 4 policy?
5 Q. And the Operations Division was in 5 A. Exactly.
6 the New Orleans District? 6 Q. Okay. So after February 27, '93
7 A. That is correct. 7 what did you do?
8 Q. Okay. How long were you a design 8 A. I -- I started as Executive Director
9 engineer? 9 of the East Jeff Levee District. Matter of
10 A. Five years. Then I went into the 10 fact, I retired on a Friday and went to work
11 Project Operations arena and the Emergency 11 that Monday. And I did that for a little over
12 Operations function. And I had various jobs 12 two years.
13 within that particular branch until I -- until 13 Q. Now, you said the East Jefferson.
14 late 1977, I was transferred to the Executive 14 A. East Jefferson Levee District.
15 Office as executive assistant to the District 15 Q. All right.
16 Engineer. 16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. That was in '77? 17 Q. So you were the Executive Director
18 A. '7 -- Yes. And was officially 18 --
19 consummated in '78. But they -- they detailed 19 A. Yes.
20 me over there to help out until they could go 20 Q. -- for two years?
21 through all the paperwork and whatever to 21 A. A little over two years.
22 satisfy the Federal process. 22 Q. Okay.
23 Q. And how long were you an executive 23 A. About two years, three months.
24 assistant to the District Engineer? 24 Q. All right. So that brings us to
25 A. Until February 27th, '93. 25 about '95, I guess?
Page 11 Page 13
1 Q. Who was the District Engineer or who 1 A. Yes. The middle -- Yes.
2 were the District Engineers during that period 2 Q. Okay. What did you do then?
3 of time? 3 A. Then I -- I did miscellaneous
4 A. 1977? 4 consulting work on a pro bono basis, just
5 Q. From '78 to '93 when you were -- 5 advised people on permits and other matters in
6 A. Okay. I might have them mixed up. 6 the engineering field. But I wasn't gainfully
7 But Early Rush was the DE when I came over. 7 employed. I didn't charge anybody. I just
8 He's the one that selected me. Then Colonel 8 needed something to do and people would call
9 Tom Sands came in, followed by Colonel Bob 9 me and I'd help out.
10 Lee, followed by Colonel Gene Witherspoon, who 10 Q. Okay. And then?
11 was followed by Ken Brown. Then Richard 11 A. Then in July of 1996, Governor
12 Gorsky and then Mike Diffley. Mike Diffley 12 Foster asked me if I would serve on the
13 was the DE when I left in '93 and I have been 13 Orleans Levee Board as a Commissioner because
14 associated with the other DEs ever since I 14 he wanted to try to improve the image and have
15 retired from the Corps, being on the Levee 15 professionals on the board that knew something
16 Board, et cetera. 16 about flood control.
17 Q. And how would you describe your 17 Q. Okay. So you joined the Orleans
18 responsibility as executive assistant to 18 Levee District Board as a Commissioner in July
19 District Engineers? 19 of '06?
20 A. To coordinate the overall program of 20 A. Yes.
21 the District for the District Engineer. 21 Q. And I think you told me that in June
22 Legislative liaison, local interest liaison. 22 of '06 you began --
23 Q. Did you have decision-making 23 MR. SUTTON:
24 authority in the area of policy in that 24 He said '96.
25 position? 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
Page 14 Page 16
1 Q. I'm sorry, in July, '96 is when you 1 Commander.
2 joined the -- 2 Q. And has Colonel Bedey been the
3 A. July, '96. Yes. 3 Commander since you joined Evans-Graves?
4 Q. All right. So you started with the 4 A. Yes.
5 Orleans Levee District as a Commissioner in 5 Q. Okay. And I assume you have
6 July of '96. 6 frequent interaction with him in the work that
7 A. Yes. 7 you do at Evans-Graves?
8 Q. And then how long did you serve in 8 A. Yes.
9 that capacity? 9 Q. Now, Mr. Landry, have you testified
10 A. Eight years. Until October of '04. 10 under oath before today, either in deposition
11 Q. Did you have any other employment 11 or in trial?
12 other than through the Orleans Levee District 12 A. I can't recall when. I know I've
13 from '96 to 2004? 13 given depositions, but I couldn't say for
14 A. No. 14 what. It's been so long.
15 Q. Okay. So then what did you do? 15 Q. Do you ever remember testifying in
16 A. Then I went into full retirement and 16 court in an actual trial proceeding?
17 I played a lot of softball and just took it 17 A. Negative.
18 easy. Worked around the house, helped the old 18 Q. Okay. But you have given
19 people in the neighborhood. Not that I am a 19 depositions before?
20 young man, but they had a lot of people older 20 A. Yes.
21 than me that needed help, so -- 21 Q. Have you testified in any of those
22 Q. Okay. And so you stayed retired 22 depositions as a Corps of Engineers employee?
23 until going to work for Evans-Graves in June 23 A. I can't say. I don't know.
24 of '06? Is that correct? 24 Q. Okay.
25 A. July. 25 A. I don't recall.
Page 15 Page 17
1 Q. July of '06. And you have been 1 Q. Did any of those depositions deal
2 employed full time by Evans-Graves since July 2 with issues concerning the MRGO?
3 of '06? 3 A. No.
4 A. I do not work full time. I do not 4 Q. Did any of the depositions deal with
5 put in -- I put in whatever has to be put in 5 issues of flood control?
6 to get the job done on an hourly basis, and I 6 A. Somewhat.
7 had that agreement, that I work when there was 7 Q. Can you explain that, please?
8 something to do, but I am not going to hang 8 A. It could have been stuff on permits
9 around just to be here. 9 and, naturally, you have to take into
10 Q. Where is Evans-Graves' office 10 consideration the flood control aspects.
11 located? 11 Because I, when I was in Operations Division,
12 A. They -- They have an office at the 12 I handled flood control permits for quite a
13 Galleria on Causeway Boulevard, Jefferson 13 few years and I knew all the nuances as to
14 Parish; and their main office is actually in 14 what was eligible, what was not eligible, the
15 Baton Rouge. 15 technical practices that are required to
16 Q. You told me that as the Senior 16 perform the work under the permit and so forth
17 Project Manager you serve as sort of in a 17 and I just would be giving information
18 liaison capacity with local entities. And you 18 regarding that.
19 also mentioned that you worked with the 19 Q. When you say permits, are you
20 Hurricane Protection Office. That's of the 20 talking about dredging permits?
21 Corps of Engineers? 21 A. No.
22 A. Yes. 22 Q. What kind of permits?
23 Q. Okay. And who heads that office, 23 A. Flood control permits.
24 the Hurricane Protection Office? 24 Q. Flood control permits?
25 A. Colonel Jeffrey Bedey is the 25 A. These are Levee Board permits.
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
Page 18 Page 20
1 Q. Okay. Issued by the -- 1 telephone with anyone in anticipation of
2 A. By the -- 2 today's deposition?
3 Q. -- Orleans or East Jefferson Levee 3 A. I met with our attorneys yesterday
4 Districts? 4 just to discuss the deposition.
5 A. -- Orleans, East Jefferson, 5 Q. When you say "Our attorneys", what
6 Lafourche, Pontchartrain, you name it. 6 do you mean?
7 Because they are the keepers of the levee. 7 A. Well, the Federal. The Department
8 They are responsible and they issue the final 8 of Justice, I guess, and the Corps of
9 permit, but they have to get advice from the 9 Engineers.
10 State and the Federal government before they 10 Q. Did you meet with anyone else other
11 can issue the permit. 11 than Counsel for the Corps?
12 Q. Now, when you say you testified as 12 A. No.
13 to the technical aspects, were you testifying 13 Q. You're aware that you're listed by
14 in any of those cases as an expert witness? 14 the Corps as a fact witness who may testify at
15 That is, someone who was accepted as qualified 15 the trial in the fall of the Robinson case?
16 to express opinions about things? 16 A. I am not. I am not aware of that.
17 A. I would say yes. 17 Q. Well, you had never been made aware
18 Q. And on whose behalf did you 18 of that until now?
19 testify? 19 A. That's correct.
20 A. I'm just trying to recall. I don't 20 Q. So in the meetings with Corps'
21 know whether it was the Orleans Levee Board or 21 Counsel you weren't told?
22 the East Jeff Levee Board. I had to testify 22 A. I am -- I was not made aware that I
23 and I had to be recognized as an expert, and 23 am a witness for the Corps. I was made aware
24 the legal teams on both sides admitted -- 24 that I am being deposed.
25 Q. Accepted you? 25 Q. Okay.
Page 19 Page 21
1 A. -- me as -- accepted me as a 1 A. And I was going to be questioned. I
2 technical expert. 2 don't know.
3 Q. Okay. 3 Q. All right. So this is the first
4 A. But I don't recall. It's been so 4 time you're hearing that the Corps of
5 long. 5 Engineers has listed you as one of the fact
6 Q. Okay. 6 witnesses who may testify at trial?
7 A. I don't even remember the subject 7 A. That is correct.
8 matter. But we talked about permits. 8 Q. Are you familiar with the
9 Q. Right. 9 allegations that the Plaintiffs are making in
10 A. What causes a flood, you know, this 10 the legal case that you're here for today?
11 type of stuff. 11 A. Not fully. Not fully.
12 Q. Okay. But just so I am clear, none 12 Q. Are you generally familiar with
13 of that testimony ever dealt with any issues 13 them?
14 concerning the MRGO itself? 14 A. All I know is that they're claiming
15 A. Not at all. Not at all. 15 that the MRGO caused them to flood.
16 Q. Just a final question about it. Did 16 Q. Okay.
17 you ever write a written -- Did you ever 17 A. That's -- That's all I know. I
18 prepare a written report as an expert in any 18 don't know the exact extent of it --
19 of those matters? 19 Q. Okay.
20 A. No. 20 A. -- or what their allegations are --
21 Q. Now, what, if any, documents have 21 Q. Okay.
22 you looked at in anticipation of today's 22 A. -- or the reasoning behind it or
23 deposition? 23 anything like that.
24 A. None. 24 Q. Do you have an understanding of the
25 Q. Have you conferred in person or by 25 subject matter that you are expected to
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
Page 22 Page 24
1 testify about in this case? 1 Q. And I think you told me earlier, and
2 A. Do I know anything about the MRGO? 2 I want to make it specific as to the MRGO now,
3 Q. No. Do you have any understanding 3 that whatever you did during the 1978 to '93
4 of the subject matter that you are to testify 4 period as executive assistant that dealt with
5 about in this case as a witness? 5 the MRGO would have been in the area of
6 A. No. 6 facilitating policy decisions made by others;
7 Q. This is a broad question, but it may 7 correct?
8 help direct us and facilitate and simplify 8 A. Correct.
9 things today. I am interested in knowing what 9 Q. You were never part of and you never
10 role you played over the years either as an 10 contributed to policy decisions affecting the
11 employee of the Corps of Engineers or even as 11 MRGO?
12 an employee today of Evans-Graves or as a 12 A. That's correct.
13 consultant in addressing any issues or 13 Q. Okay. Were you -- Let's see. In
14 problems concerning the MRGO. Now, I know 14 '63 you would have been with the Corps as a
15 that's a broad question, but I want you to 15 design engineer. Is that true?
16 help direct me to the time period or the job 16 A. That's correct.
17 title or position you held with the Corps that 17 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with a
18 would have brought you into contact with those 18 February, 1963 interim survey report on a
19 issues concerning the MRGO. 19 hurricane study of Lake Pontchartrain,
20 A. Actually, my direct engineering 20 Louisiana and Vicinity done by the Corps'
21 expertise was directed primarily to flood 21 Engineering Division, Lower Mississippi
22 control matters. And the MRGO being a 22 Valley?
23 navigable waterway, I wasn't involved with the 23 A. No, I am not familiar with that
24 day-by-day operations, maintenance, et 24 particular study.
25 cetera. That's about it. 25 Q. All right.
Page 23 Page 25
1 Q. Okay. So just looking at it broadly 1 A. Because I was strictly a design
2 over the course and scope of your entire time 2 engineer and I didn't get involved in any of
3 with the Corps, you were mainly involved with 3 the planning or anything like that. I was a,
4 flood control projects and activities as 4 I guess you would say a journeyman engineer,
5 opposed to the MRGO? 5 but not into a point where I got involved in
6 A. When I was in the organization as a 6 the planning. I was strictly in the old style
7 civil or mechanical engineer, it was primarily 7 on the drawing board and that's it.
8 in the flood control arena. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. Were you aware that as early
9 Q. Okay. And obviously when you went 9 as February, '63 in this interim report there
10 to the Levee Boards, that's what you dealt 10 was discussion about hurricane damages
11 with as well? 11 resulting from surges entering Lake
12 A. Yes. Correct. 12 Pontchartrain from Lake Borgne?
13 Q. But what about during the period you 13 A. I don't -- I don't -- I am not aware
14 were executive assistant to the District 14 of that report. I was not -- not aware of it,
15 Engineer? And that covers I think '78 to 15 no.
16 '93. 16 Q. Did you ever, in the dealings you
17 A. I got involved in the overall 17 did have with MRGO issues, and I understand
18 picture. 18 the nature of those contacts you had, but did
19 Q. Right. 19 you ever hear discussion within the Corps
20 A. Not into the nuts and bolts. 20 about the channeling or increase of storm
21 Q. Okay. So there were some activities 21 surge brought about through the MRGO?
22 during that period when you were executive 22 A. I was aware of hydraulics surveys
23 assistant that you may have dealt with the 23 and resulting reports that said in so many
24 MRGO, but only on a big picture basis? 24 words the MRGO does not add significant amount
25 A. That's right. On the periphery. 25 of flood waters to the system, because in a
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
Page 26 Page 28
1 storm the tidal surge is coming over the marsh 1 Q. Okay.
2 and it would be coming over the marsh to the 2 A. -- mechanical, civil and general
3 same degree whether the MRGO was there or 3 engineer. When I retired, I could have served
4 not. 4 in any one of those functions as a supervisory
5 Q. When did you become aware of these 5 engineer in any one of those fields. But it's
6 hydraulic surveys and reports? 6 just common engineering sense that that's what
7 A. I can't -- I couldn't say. It's 7 happened and what does happen.
8 over a period of time. 8 Q. Okay.
9 Q. All right. So you can't remember? 9 A. I took hydraulics in college and
10 A. Just being in meetings and so forth, 10 everything else.
11 it's information I accumulated. 11 Q. Okay. Well, then I need to ask you,
12 Q. Okay. Did you ever review any 12 just so I understand this, did you ever
13 written surveys or reports that said that? 13 undertake a professional analysis of the
14 A. No. 14 question?
15 Q. So this is word of mouth 15 A. Negative.
16 information? 16 Q. Okay. So you did not take part in
17 A. That's right. That's right. 17 any studies --
18 Q. And your understanding from hearing 18 A. No.
19 this was that any storm surge associated with 19 Q. -- on this issue?
20 a hurricane would be flowing over the MRGO or 20 A. No. No, no detailed studies.
21 the marshes in a way that would not allow the 21 Q. All right. So your belief about
22 MRGO itself to be a factor to increase the 22 this, I know it's based on your common sense
23 surge? 23 as an engineer, but is not a belief that you
24 A. It would not be the hurricane 24 formed through any professional activity on
25 highway so a lot of people liked to say. 25 your part; correct?
Page 27 Page 29
1 Q. All right. And you're saying that 1 A. That's correct.
2 would be true even with respect to a storm 2 Q. Okay. Does the MRGO, and has the
3 that pushed water up through the channel 3 MRGO, let's say, provided a deep direct route
4 itself? 4 for the in-flow of saline currents from the
5 A. Well, if a storm was only strong 5 Gulf of Mexico to the area along the channel?
6 enough to push water up a channel, it surely 6 A. I don't know exactly what you're
7 wouldn't be causing any problem to the -- to 7 talking about as saline currents. You talking
8 the area, because you wouldn't have a great 8 about saltwater intrusion?
9 surge. It wouldn't be a storm. It would have 9 Q. Yes, sir.
10 to-- It would have to -- The tidal wave 10 A. Just to what degree? I know it's
11 would have to come over the marsh to really be 11 claimed by, for instance, the Lake
12 a storm. Because otherwise, it's just a 12 Pontchartrain Basin Foundation that the MRGO
13 little tropical event that would push water. 13 did provide a lot of saltwater to the lake.
14 Q. And before we leave this, I want to 14 That it added a lot. And that they have
15 make sure I understand your testimony. The 15 always been an advocate of closing it.
16 basis for your saying that the so-called 16 Q. Well, let me just ask --
17 funnel effect or surge increase factor of the 17 A. But I don't know anything from a
18 MRGO was non-existent was word of mouth, not 18 study standpoint or anything.
19 based on reading anything, and certainly not 19 Q. All right. Well, I want to ask you
20 based on any opinion that you yourself formed? 20 whether you agree or disagree or just have no
21 A. Oh, yes, it's based on solid 21 position on the statement that "The
22 engineering background and knowledge. 22 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet provides a deep
23 Q. Is it -- 23 direct route for the in-flow of saline
24 A. It's just -- just plain horse sense 24 currents from the Gulf of Mexico to the area
25 as an engineer. I was rated as a GM-15 -- 25 along its channel and to Lake Pontchartrain."
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
Page 30 Page 32
1 A. I don't have any positive opinion on 1 A. No.
2 that. 2 Q. You never -- The first time you have
3 Q. Okay. So you don't agree or 3 ever become aware of that?
4 disagree with that statement? 4 A. Yes.
5 A. I don't agree or disagree. 5 Q. What was your job with the Corps in
6 Q. And if that statement is taken from 6 1968?
7 the Corps' own February, 1963 interim survey 7 A. '68, I was in Project Operations
8 report on a hurricane study of Lake 8 Branch. And as I mentioned, it was strictly
9 Pontchartrain, you wouldn't have any basis to 9 flood control. We had all the flood control
10 dispute it, would you? 10 projects in the District, Bonnet Carre
11 A. No. I haven't seen that report. I 11 Spillway, Morganza, Old River, the reservoirs
12 couldn't -- I couldn't say. 12 up in Arkansas and Texas and levees,
13 Q. All right. You have no reason to 13 floodwalls, et cetera. Pumping stations. I
14 dispute it, though? 14 had no involvement with the MRGO when I was in
15 A. Well, if it's in the report, no, I 15 Project Operations.
16 can't -- I can't dispute it. 16 Q. Okay. And not only do you have no
17 Q. All right. Now, you're generally 17 involvement with it, but until today you're
18 familiar with the history of the MRGO, aren't 18 saying you were not aware that in '68 the plan
19 you? 19 for the MRGO project was modified --
20 A. Somewhat, yes. 20 A. I am not aware of that.
21 Q. You're aware that it was authorized 21 Q. -- to provide for that foreshore
22 by an act of Congress in 1956 as a federally 22 protection?
23 funded navigation project? 23 A. I am not aware of that at all.
24 A. Yes. 24 Q. As a Corps employee in 1974, were
25 Q. Are you also aware that in the '60s 25 you familiar with a lock which the Corps built
Page 31 Page 33
1 there was a debate about whether the cost of 1 in Bayou Dupre as part of the Lake
2 certain foreshore and wave wash protection 2 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
3 along the banks of the MRGO should be borne 3 Protection Plan?
4 entirely by the Federal government as part of 4 A. You talking about the flood control
5 the navigation project or borne in part by 5 structure, the navigable flood gate?
6 local governmental entities? Do you recall 6 Q. Yes.
7 that? 7 A. It's not a lock. It's a navigable
8 A. I am not aware of that, no. 8 flood gate. A lock has two chambers, or it
9 Q. You don't recall that discussion? 9 has one chamber with a gate on each end so
10 A. No. 10 that you can let a vessel in and then open it
11 Q. You're not aware that the MRGO 11 up and it go out, but it's not a lock. A lot
12 project was modified in the '60s to provide 12 of locals call it a lock, but it's not a
13 for foreshore and wave wash protection along 13 lock. It's a navigable --
14 both sides of the channel? 14 Q. A navigable --
15 A. No. 15 A. -- flood gate.
16 Q. This is the first you ever knew 16 Q. -- flood gate?
17 about that? 17 A. Yes. I'm aware of the Dupre the and
18 A. That it was authorized for wave wash 18 Bienvenue.
19 protection, fully funded? 19 Q. And you were in '74 Chief of
20 Q. No, sir. That after it was funded 20 Operations?
21 and constructed, or under construction, the 21 A. I was Chief of Project Operations
22 project was modified to provide a Federal 22 and Emergency Operations Manager.
23 government expense for foreshore and wave wash 23 Q. And with respect to the Bayou Dupre
24 protection along both sides of the channel. 24 structure, you recall that there were
25 And this would have been in 1968. 25 complaints by the St. Bernard Police Jury
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
Page 34 Page 36
1 about that in the fall of 1974? 1 Yeah. That's Dupre. That's Bienvenue
2 A. You're talking about when Hurricane 2 (indicating).
3 Carmen hit? 3 Q. And what was the purpose of that
4 Q. I just know it was the late 4 flood control structure at Dupre?
5 September of '74 that there were reports of 5 A. To keep hurricane-generated flood
6 complaints about that structure by the St. 6 waters from coming into these natural bayous.
7 Bernard Parish Police Jury. 7 Q. Between the MRGO channel and the
8 A. I am not aware of any formal 8 residential property of the --
9 complaints from the Police Jury. 9 A. Well, into this reservoir, because
10 Q. Okay. Let me show you a newspaper 10 you had this Back Levee here that is actually
11 article that appeared in The Times Picayune on 11 the line of protection for St. Bernard and the
12 September 30, 1974. And I apologize, I only 12 Lower Ninth Ward. And they were designed that
13 have one copy. 13 when the outside water elevation got to a plus
14 A. I don't recall making that statement 14 3 in a storm event, they would be closed to
15 to the Police, but I -- I would dispute that 15 keep no more than a plus 3 from coming in.
16 the local governmental bodies were not aware 16 And --
17 of the design of the control structure and so 17 Q. All right. Thank you. Let me just
18 forth, because we had to get approval from the 18 get back to this news report. And since we
19 Lake Borgne Levee District before it was ever 19 referenced this, let me mark this as Landry
20 built. They had to concur with the design and 20 Number 1.
21 everything else. 21 Tell me again, Mr. Landry, what
22 Q. Okay. 22 was your involvement with the construction,
23 A. And the Lake Borgne Levee District 23 design or construction of the Bayou Dupre
24 is responsible to the Police Jury. 24 structure?
25 Q. Does the news articles at least help 25 A. I was not involved in the design nor
Page 35 Page 37
1 refresh your recollection about the -- 1 the construction.
2 A. No. 2 Q. Okay.
3 Q. -- thing? 3 A. Because that was all done before I
4 A. I don't recall there being a dispute 4 even got into the picture.
5 over design, maintenance or anything. I -- I 5 Q. And the news article that I am going
6 know that there was a case, Hurricane Carmen, 6 to mark as Landry Number 1, and this is from
7 we closed those structures to Bienvenue and 7 The Times-Picayune, September 30, 1974,
8 Dupre. Bienvenue being in Orleans Parish; 8 reports that a St. Bernard police juror named
9 Dupre in St. Bernard. They were closed for 9 Cusimano complained that because of cross-flow
10 the first time for a storm. And it -- it kept 10 of the water in the location of the structure,
11 flood waters out of that reservoir on the 11 that some of the best wetlands in the parish
12 inside to protect the Lower Ninth Ward and St. 12 were being destroyed. In other words, there
13 Bernard Parish. 13 was a complaint that there was erosion of
14 Q. Just so we're clear about this, can 14 wetlands that was associated with the
15 you -- is it locatable on that map? There's 15 structure. My question is, do you recall ever
16 one behind it, too. 16 hearing about those complaints?
17 A. This is Bienvenue (indicating). 17 A. No, not -- not of any cross-flow. I
18 Q. I'm sorry, we have to somehow lift 18 know we -- we had a complaint about the water
19 it up. I'll disconnect my mic and come over 19 coming into the structure. It was attacking a
20 here. 20 point of land on the inside. The ebb and flow
21 A. Can I move? 21 of the tide going in and out was attacking a
22 Q. Let me hold it so we can see. 22 point of land on the inside.
23 A. This is Bienvenue (indicating) and 23 Q. Ebb and flow of tide from Lake
24 Dupre is over here (indicating). I think 24 Borgne or --
25 that's Dupre. I -- Yeah, it's got to be. 25 A. Well, from -- from the MRGO.
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
Page 38 Page 40
1 Q. From the MRGO? 1 A. But I don't -- I don't recall that
2 A. Which it's connected to Lake Borgne 2 particularly.
3 and the Gulf and so forth, yeah. 3 Q. Okay.
4 Q. So actual tidal movement within the 4 A. But I do know the structures were
5 channel was causing there to be some erosion 5 closed for the first time in Carmen in '74.
6 of land? 6 Q. In '74. And this was September 30,
7 A. Some minor erosion of land. But I 7 '74, so that dates from around I guess the
8 don't know about this cross-flow bit with -- 8 same time.
9 Q. Okay. 9 A. It was probably as a result of
10 A. And it wasn't -- I don't recall ever 10 Carmen hitting and they closed the structures,
11 having any -- any complaints about causing any 11 and I know we had problems with some of the
12 problems to the wetlands. 12 local boat operators; that once these
13 Q. All right. So despite what might be 13 structures were closed, they wanted them
14 reported in this news article in which your 14 opened and they couldn't be opened. And they
15 name is mentioned, you don't recall the 15 didn't want to go find safe harbor in other
16 specific complaint from a St. Bernard official 16 places. And they complained about it being
17 about destruction of wetlands associated with 17 closed, but it was closed in accordance with
18 the structure? 18 the O&M manual.
19 A. No, not wetlands. 19 Q. Staying with the general protocol
20 Q. And when you are mentioned in the 20 for a moment, what would then happen, assuming
21 article as Chief of Operations for the Corps 21 that a police juror did put in writing to the
22 -- 22 Corps the complaint that's reported here, say,
23 A. Chief of Project Operations. 23 about erosion of wetlands due to a structure
24 Q. There's no quote marks around what 24 like this? Tell me how that complaint would
25 they attribute to you, but your -- what's 25 then be processed if it were put in writing.
Page 39 Page 41
1 attributed to you is a comment that "These 1 A. Well, we'd send somebody in the
2 complaints," referencing again from Mr. 2 field to investigate; first off, our
3 Cusimano, St. Bernard Police Juror, "These 3 investigator or inspector would go meet with
4 complaints must be put in a letter and mailed 4 this particular individual, say, "Okay, tell
5 to the Corps which will address itself to 5 me exactly what your problem is, show me, and
6 correcting any deficiencies that may exist." 6 we'll evaluate the situation and we'll get
7 Do you deny making that statement at the time 7 back to you."
8 of this complaint? 8 Q. Okay. So first there would be a
9 A. I can't deny or affirm to that. 9 field inspection by the Corps following an
10 Q. Okay. 10 understanding of the complaint?
11 A. I really don't remember it. My God, 11 A. Yes. First there would be a meeting
12 that's 30-something years ago. 12 and then a field inspection.
13 Q. All right. Well, is that comment 13 Q. Field inspection.
14 that's attributed to you, though, consistent 14 A. Yeah.
15 with the protocol that was in place at the 15 Q. Now, tell me what would happen
16 time with respect to complaints like that? 16 then. I know it would depend upon the results
17 A. I would say in all probability if 17 of the field inspection, but just play this
18 somebody lodged a complaint and you didn't 18 out for me. One of two things. Say the field
19 have an answer for it, you would say "Write us 19 inspection either verifies the complaint or
20 a letter and we'll get back to you. We'll 20 finds a basis for it, or it does not. Tell me
21 give you the answer." And -- But -- 21 what happens under the protocol that was in
22 Q. Okay. 22 place then in those scenarios.
23 A. -- that's just normal protocol to do 23 A. I don't quite follow you.
24 that. 24 Q. Okay. This is a theoretical
25 Q. Okay. 25 question. I am trying to figure out the
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
Page 42 Page 44
1 protocol and procedure. Not just this 1 about it?
2 specific thing. You get the written 2 A. Oh, no.
3 complaint; you have a field inspection to 3 Q. Whether the Corps did anything --
4 determine whether there's a basis for the 4 A. No.
5 complaint. What happens then after the field 5 Q. -- to investigate it in the field or
6 inspection? What's the next step in the 6 anything?
7 process? 7 A. No.
8 A. Well, it depends on what is found in 8 Q. You don't have any recollection of
9 the inspection. And if it is determined to be 9 that one way or the other?
10 caused as a result of the structure being in 10 A. No.
11 place, then some remedial measures would have 11 Q. By the way, I was referencing
12 to be taken. 12 earlier just very briefly the history of the
13 Q. And you -- 13 MRGO being built in '56 as a Federally funded
14 A. Depending on authorities, too. 14 navigational project. And this is before your
15 Because, you see, I'm sure you are aware that 15 time with the Corps, I understand that, but I
16 with the Lake Pontchartrain Ba- -- Lake 16 am asking about your awareness of that
17 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane 17 history. Were you aware at any time while you
18 Protection Project, local agencies provided an 18 were with the Corps that in the actual design
19 act of assurances saying that they would 19 and conceptualization of the MRGO, the Corps
20 provide all land easements, rights-of-way, 20 itself was cool on the idea of a Mississippi
21 they would operate and maintain after 21 River Gulf Outlet?
22 completion, and hold and save the government 22 MR. LIDDLE:
23 free of all damages. And I -- And that's what 23 Objection, vague.
24 I earlier said, that local interests was fully 24 THE WITNESS:
25 informed of the design and -- and the location 25 You said cool?
Page 43 Page 45
1 of the particular structure and they had to 1 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
2 agree. 2 Q. Yes, doubtful.
3 Q. Do you, therefore, mean that if a 3 A. I don't know anything about that.
4 field investigation of a complaint like this 4 Q. The first you're ever hearing about
5 took place, say, erosion due to the Bayou 5 that?
6 Dupre flood control structure, and indeed the 6 A. Yes.
7 field inspection showed we got an erosion 7 Q. Are you not aware that the
8 problem with this structure, I am just 8 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet was justified
9 assuming that, are you saying that you believe 9 for economic reasons?
10 the solution to that problem would then be 10 A. I would imagine it would be, yes. I
11 turned over to local authorities? 11 don't know what the B-C ratio was or anything
12 A. It depends on the situation. If it 12 like that. But you would -- it would have to
13 was definitely a design deficiency, then the 13 have the proper economics to get a positive
14 Federal government would pick it up. If it's 14 report.
15 considered not to be a design deficiency, if 15 Q. When you say "B-C ratio", are you
16 it's something like a normal occurrence or a 16 talking about benefit-cost ratio?
17 normal sequence of events that occur as a 17 A. Benefit-cost ratio, yes.
18 result of that, that's something else. You 18 Q. I'm going to ask you a little bit
19 just can't just come up with a definite 19 more about B-C ratios.
20 answer. It would have to be evaluated on an 20 When you were with the New Orleans
21 individual basis. 21 District in the fall of 1979, do you recall
22 Q. Okay. And I gather from your 22 having meetings with various officials, State
23 earlier testimony about not remembering this 23 and local, to discuss the possibility of a
24 particular complaint that you also do not 24 freshwater diversion at the site of the new
25 recall whether there was a follow-up letter 25 Industrial Canal lock?
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
Page 46 Page 48
1 A. No, I don't remember any -- any such 1 lock.
2 meetings. I went to so many meetings I -- I 2 Q. Okay. What I wanted to ask you
3 couldn't keep track of them. 3 about was the reference in Mr. Dicharry's memo
4 Q. All right. By the way, I should 4 of this meeting that the St. Bernard Parish
5 have mentioned the Bates number on the news 5 representatives at the meeting expressed what
6 article that has been marked as Landry Number 6 he called deep concern for the saltwater
7 1. Let me do that now for the record. That 7 intrusion that was occurring along the MRGO
8 news article which is Landry Number 1 is Bates 8 destroying valuable non-brackish marsh land.
9 numbered NRG-003-000001928. 9 Do you recall those complaints being made by
10 Let me next show you a September 10 St. Bernard Parish officials --
11 11, 1979 memo reflecting a meeting of 11 A. No.
12 September 10, 1979 at which apparently you 12 Q. -- in the fall of 1979?
13 were in attendance. 13 A. I don't -- I don't recall that. I
14 I think there's a repeat of the 14 was involved in a gigantic organization that
15 second and third page. 15 we had -- Our district extended from southwest
16 A. I don't remember this meeting. I 16 Arkansas, northeast Texas, down the Red River,
17 went to so many meetings. You see, Joe 17 the Mississippi from Old River down to the
18 Dicharry was the project manager for the new 18 Gulf of Mexico through the Atchafalaya Basin,
19 lock study; Bob Buisson was the freshwater 19 and I had so many different projects that came
20 diversion guru in Planning Division, and they 20 before me that it was impossible to keep up
21 were the key project managers that would have 21 with the real details of every one.
22 been involved in that meeting. I was there 22 Q. Okay. So even though one of your
23 just as a representative of the Corps with 23 job responsibilities, as I understand your
24 Colonel Tom Sands, and the idea being liaison 24 testimony, was to serve as a liaison --
25 with the locals just to keep up to speed as to 25 A. That's right.
Page 47 Page 49
1 what's going on, what their desires are, and 1 Q. -- between the Corps and some local
2 this type of stuff. 2 officials like these St. Bernard officials,
3 Q. Colonel Sands was District Engineer 3 your testimony today is that you have no
4 in '79? 4 recollection of the St. Bernard Parish
5 A. Yes, that's correct. 5 officials talking about their deep concern as
6 Q. You were -- 6 to saltwater intrusion?
7 A. I was executive assistant. 7 A. Not that it was that strongly
8 Q. -- his executive assistant? 8 presented or any big, big, great objections.
9 A. That's correct. 9 No, I don't.
10 Q. And again, you said before your 10 Q. All right. So do you recall there
11 focus was to try to serve as a liaison with 11 being some objections about it, but just not
12 the locals? 12 expressed as deeply as this memo suggests?
13 A. That's correct. For instance, if 13 A. That -- That's right.
14 they would have said, "We have this problem, 14 Q. Okay. Well, you did understand then
15 could you arrange a meeting," I would get the 15 that these objections in particular were that
16 technical people that's really involved in 16 the saltwater intrusion forces, if you will,
17 those particular cases or studies or whatever 17 of the MRGO were destroying valuable wetlands
18 and get them together, the right people, and 18 and marshes adjacent to the channel? You
19 we would all sit down and talk. 19 understood that to be the nature of the
20 Q. And Joe Dicharry, who appears to 20 complaint?
21 have been the man who prepared this memo to 21 A. Not really.
22 the files on the meeting, what was his 22 Q. What did you understand the nature
23 position? 23 of the complaint to be?
24 A. He -- He was the Project Manager for 24 A. No, they just wanted freshwater
25 the study to replace the Industrial Canal 25 diversion.
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
Page 50 Page 52
1 Q. No, but I am talking now about the 1 Q. All right. Well, this meeting is in
2 saltwater intrusion that's mentioned in this 2 '79. So this meeting --
3 memo. 3 A. Well, I'm getting my dates mixed
4 A. I don't think it was as great as 4 up. Yeah, okay. Well, the Freshwater Act of
5 what you're making it out to be at that time. 5 '74 was passed which required 404 permits for
6 Q. All right. I am not making it out 6 any activity in a wetland.
7 to be anything. 7 Q. A 404 permit is what?
8 A. Yeah. 8 A. That's under the -- the Freshwater
9 Q. I'm reading Mr. Dicharry's words. 9 Act.
10 A. Yeah. 10 Q. That refers to a section of the act?
11 Q. These are not my words. 11 A. Yes. Right. Right.
12 A. Yeah. 12 Q. And that requires that the permit
13 Q. So please, I mean, I am not making 13 take into account the extent to which the
14 this up. 14 project might be impacting on the wetlands?
15 A. I am not saying you're making it 15 A. Yes. Yes.
16 up. I am just saying -- 16 Q. Okay.
17 Q. You don't recall? 17 A. But all of this was built before the
18 A. I don't recall. 18 Freshwater Act ever -- The hurricane
19 Q. Okay. But you told me you don't 19 protection project, the MRGO was all built
20 recall it being that strong a concern, but you 20 before that was ever implemented.
21 do have some recollection of a concern? 21 Q. Okay. So after the Freshwater Act
22 A. Some recollection they asked for 22 passed in '74, you're saying there was an
23 freshwater diversion, yes. 23 increased awareness within the Corps that you
24 Q. All right. Do you have a 24 had to take wetland erosion factors into
25 recollection that the reason they wanted the 25 account for projects?
Page 51 Page 53
1 freshwater diversion had to do with the 1 A. You had to take that into
2 destruction of valuable non-brackish marsh 2 consideration, yes.
3 land due to saltwater intrusion? 3 Q. And after that, would you say there
4 A. Not any great, great recognition. I 4 was an increased awareness of the relationship
5 don't -- I don't -- I don't -- I don't recall 5 between the MRGO's saltwater intrusion, or the
6 it that way. 6 saltwater intrusion associated with the MRGO
7 Q. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. 7 and the loss of adjacent wetlands?
8 Landry. Did you ever as an engineer, and if 8 MR. LIDDLE:
9 this is beyond the scope of your training and 9 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
10 expertise, please tell me, but did you ever as 10 THE WITNESS:
11 an engineer form your own understanding or 11 I -- I can't -- I can't say
12 belief about the saltwater intrusion 12 that.
13 associated with the MRGO being a cause for the 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
14 loss of wetlands and marsh lands adjacent to 14 Q. In this same memo of the meeting in
15 the channel? 15 September of '79, Mr. Dicharry's -- there is a
16 A. Not back in '74, no. 16 reference by Mr. Dicharry to discussion of the
17 Q. Well, at any time. 17 possibility of using dredged material from the
18 A. Over a period of time with the 18 MRGO to rebuild the banks on either side. Do
19 inception of the Freshwater Act in '74, it 19 you recall that discussion?
20 became more of a factor on projects as far as 20 A. No.
21 preservation of wetlands and it came to the 21 Q. Not just at this meeting, but at any
22 forefront more so than back in those days. 22 time do you recall there being --
23 Q. You said Freshwater Act of '74? 23 A. I don't recall of rebuilding the
24 A. I think it was the Freshwater Act of 24 banks with the dredged material.
25 '74, yeah. 25 Q. And again, I am not limiting that
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
Page 54 Page 56
1 question to 1979. At any time during your 1 system.
2 period with the Corps, do you recall there 2 Q. Okay.
3 being discussion about the use of dredge 3 A. The internal system.
4 material from the channel to rebuild the banks 4 Q. All right. And this form, and I am
5 of the channel? 5 looking at the first page again, it's -- the
6 A. No, I don't recall that. 6 author is a guy named, or person named
7 Q. All right. Let me mark as Landry 7 Picciola?
8 Number 2 the September, 1979 memo that we have 8 A. Picciola.
9 been referring to. It's Bates numbered 9 Q. Picciola.
10 AIN-046-000002154, 55, and 56. 10 A. Rodney Picciola. He was the Chief
11 Do you recall, Mr. Landry, in the 11 of the -- They used to call it the Foundations
12 summer of 1980 that there was a proposed 12 and Materials Branch. It's now the Geotech
13 fabric-reinforced embankment of a test section 13 Branch.
14 along the MRGO? 14 Q. All right. And he's --
15 A. Not specifically, no. 15 A. He's deceased.
16 Q. Let me show you a series of 16 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Picciola sends a
17 documents, and the top page is a disposition 17 copy to Vic Landry, Exec Office, so at this
18 form which apparently was copied to you. I'll 18 point you were executive assistant to the
19 ask you if this refreshes your recollection. 19 District Engineer?
20 A. Boy, that's going way back. Colonel 20 A. That's correct.
21 Nelson Connell was the Director of WES. Gee 21 Q. You would have been receiving any
22 whiz. 22 number of copies like --
23 What do you -- What you have X'd 23 A. Everybody used to send me a copy of
24 out in highlight marker, is that -- we should 24 stuff like that and I would scan it to see if
25 just ignore that? 25 it should be brought to the DE's attention or
Page 55 Page 57
1 Q. Yes. 1 whatever and this type of thing.
2 A. It's not pertinent to what -- 2 Q. Okay.
3 Q. Not pertinent. 3 A. But I got thousands of those a week
4 A. Okay. I don't ever recall seeing 4 and there's no way I could remember every one
5 this. 5 of those.
6 Q. All right. Are you familiar with 6 Q. Okay. Fair enough. I know this
7 the disposition form that is shown as being 7 goes back a long period of time.
8 sent to you, the very first page of that 8 A. But even if that was two years ago,
9 material? 9 I couldn't say I saw that.
10 A. It's a disposition form. I got 10 Q. Okay.
11 thousands of copies of correspondence and I 11 A. Because --
12 can't remember every one. That's impossible. 12 Q. So we can't blame it on 1980.
13 Q. No, the question I am asking is are 13 A. No.
14 you -- You have seen this form before. This 14 Q. Even though it's 2006.
15 disposition form? 15 A. It's -- My in-basket was like this
16 A. Oh, I have seen a disposition form, 16 (indicating).
17 yeah. 17 Q. Okay.
18 Q. What is it used for? What's a 18 A. And if I had to try to digest every
19 disposition form used for? 19 copy of correspondence that came through the
20 A. It's in-house correspondence. 20 executive office, I'd be there for 30 days
21 Q. All right. But it's called 21 trying to do a day's work.
22 disposition form. Is it meant to inform 22 Q. All right. So I assume if I ask you
23 people about certain action steps that are 23 do you remember the fabric-reinforced
24 being taken? 24 construction on dikes along the MRGO that's
25 A. It's information throughout the 25 discussed here in 1980, the answer would be
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
Page 58 Page 60
1 "No, I don't know"? 1 A. No.
2 A. No, I don't. I don't recall any -- 2 Q. Let me show you a Times-Picayune
3 Q. Do you even know what is meant by 3 news article of May 31, 1982.
4 fabric-reinforced embankment? 4 A. Well, I'm glad I brought my
5 A. Yes. 5 glasses. I didn't know I would have to read
6 Q. What does that mean? 6 anything.
7 A. It's a geotech style fabric that 7 Q. I can't do without them either.
8 they would -- they would grade the bank with 8 A. Oh, I could hardly read the print on
9 the geotextile fabric down to form like a 9 this with glasses. I might need another pair
10 foundation and then they would put the rock or 10 of glasses on top of this.
11 whatever on top of it. 11 Q. Does that article refresh your
12 Q. Okay. 12 recollection, Mr. Landry, about this practice
13 A. And that would keep it from 13 drill concerning a severe hurricane?
14 sinking. It just forms a -- What it does is 14 A. Not at all. I don't even recall the
15 gives you a wider bearing surface rather than 15 name of that hurricane.
16 have each individual rock bear down. This is 16 Q. Lou-Ann.
17 all in one big area. It's got a platform to 17 A. Lou-Lou, you said?
18 sit on. That's basically what it is. 18 Q. Well, it was a fictitious hurricane
19 Q. It's used along the river, isn't 19 named Lou-Ann.
20 it? Is it a black fabric? 20 A. Yeah. Lou-Ann. Okay.
21 A. Well, it's different colors. They 21 Q. So I guess my question is, and I am
22 -- I don't -- I don't know if they used that 22 assuming that the writer of this news article
23 on the revetment plan, the big mats that we 23 is not making all of this up when they quote
24 put out. I think they just go down right on 24 you and refer to you giving comments.
25 the surface. They grade the bank and they put 25 A. Don't ever believe what you read in
Page 59 Page 61
1 the mats down. 1 the paper.
2 Q. It is a technique to prevent bank 2 Q. All right.
3 erosion? 3 A. I promise you.
4 A. It's a technique -- The geotextile 4 Q. But why would you as an executive
5 fabric is a base for the hard material that 5 assistant to District Engineer Lee have been
6 you would put there to break up the waves. 6 making comments about the severity of
7 What it does is provide a foundation. 7 hurricanes and what might happen?
8 Q. Okay. And so the whole design here 8 A. Because I grew up with them.
9 is to prevent wave action from eroding the 9 Q. Okay.
10 soil of the bank? 10 A. I was here for Hurricane Betsy,
11 A. Eventually, yes, right, with the 11 Hurricane Camille. I was in the Emergency
12 rocks in place. It would retard it. It's not 12 Operations Center. And also Hurricane
13 going to prevent it completely because it's 13 Carmen. And Hurricane Hilda. And I know
14 got to be maintained constantly and whatever. 14 hurricanes. I knew the concepts of the
15 Q. All right. And you don't know 15 hurricane protection project, what it was
16 whether that proved to be successful? 16 designed to do and what was the paths of
17 A. No. No, I don't. 17 hurricanes and so forth. It was just common
18 Q. Now, we're getting more recent as we 18 knowledge for engineers that was aware of the
19 go here. May of '82, in May of '82 you would 19 hurricane velocity, strengths, surges and so
20 have been executive assistant to District 20 forth and knowing about what tracks it would
21 Engineer Robert Lee? 21 go on, what effects it would have on the
22 A. Right. 22 city.
23 Q. And do you recall at that time a 23 Q. Okay.
24 practice drill for a fictitious hurricane 24 A. I'm sure you could find 100 people,
25 named Lou-Ann, L O U-A N N? 25 several hundred people here that could quote
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
Page 62 Page 64
1 that same stuff. 1 was designed for.
2 Q. All right. 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
3 A. It was -- It was party line. 3 Q. What category was it when it came
4 Q. Right. So you don't deny the quote 4 ashore?
5 that's attributed to you that if one of these, 5 A. Tidal surge, it was greater than a 5
6 naming one of these storms, turns out to be a 6 as far as I'm concerned.
7 granddaddy of a hurricane we would be in 7 Q. What was the official categorization
8 trouble? 8 of it as a storm?
9 A. Definitely. Well, look at Katrina. 9 A. Well, they said it was a 3 when it
10 Q. And you're also -- what's also 10 hit shore. But you don't take and cut off a
11 attributed to you here is a statement that the 11 tidal surge -- If you got a Category 5 tidal
12 Corps' Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity 12 surge a mile off a shore, it's coming in at a
13 Hurricane Protection Plan, essentially a 13 Category 5 surge. It was a 28 foot surge.
14 system of levees and floodwalls, is not fully 14 The greatest ever to hit the coast of the
15 implemented. 15 United States. And you are going to tell me
16 A. That's correct. 16 it's a Category 3? I don't believe that. The
17 Q. And that was your statement in -- 17 wind might have been, but --
18 A. And after 40 years it still wasn't 18 Q. I am not telling you it was a
19 completed. 19 Category 3.
20 Q. It still wasn't fully implemented on 20 A. No, but I am just saying. The wind
21 August 29, 2005, was it? 21 may have subsided, but the tides didn't. And
22 A. That's correct. It wasn't 22 all those tides reflected on over through --
23 complete. 23 through the areas to the east, went into Lake
24 Q. And why is that? 24 Borgne, Lake Pontchartrain and the whole
25 A. Lack of funding. Congress ignoring 25 thing, and it was just a devastating effect.
Page 63 Page 65
1 the area. They had better ways to spend their 1 Q. So are you suggesting that because
2 money, I guess. But all we could do was ask 2 of the size of the surge associated with
3 for money to build the project and the Corps 3 Hurricane Katrina that the lack of a fully
4 would give the capability as to what we could 4 implemented hurricane protection system was of
5 spend, but we never did get what we needed. 5 no moment?
6 Q. Do you think the lack of a fully 6 MR. LIDDLE:
7 implemented hurricane protection system due to 7 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
8 lack of funding explains why Hurricane Katrina 8 THE WITNESS:
9 was such a disaster for the city? 9 Of no what?
10 MR. LIDDLE: 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
11 Objection, vague, ambiguous. 11 Q. It didn't matter? The thing you
12 THE WITNESS: 12 mention in this news article in '82, that we'd
13 Come again? 13 be in real trouble if a big storm hit because
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 14 we don't have a fully implemented hurricane
15 Q. Do you think that the lack of full 15 protection system, and you say that's because
16 implementation of the hurricane protection 16 of lack of funding.
17 system due to a lack of funding, you say, 17 A. Yeah. Yeah. Even --
18 explains why Hurricane Katrina was such a 18 Q. You said that was true even in
19 disaster for the city? 19 August of 2005.
20 MR. LIDDLE: 20 A. Even if the system would have been
21 The same objection. 21 totally complete, the floodwalls, with the
22 THE WITNESS: 22 tidal surge we had coming in across Lake
23 That's hard to say. Katrina was 23 Borgne and across the marsh, it would have
24 at a strength greater, a strength and 24 caused the floodwalls to be overtopped
25 size greater than for what the system 25 anyway. Because they weren't designed that
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
Page 66 Page 68
1 high. 1 Betsy came in over Grand Isle and went up just
2 Q. Was the surge from Katrina coming 2 west -- Well, it shows here as a critical
3 across the marsh greater than it would have 3 path. That was Betsy.
4 been because of the lack of buffering marshes 4 Q. Why would it be a critical path to
5 and cypress wetland? 5 run parallel to the MRGO?
6 MR. LIDDLE: 6 A. I don't know.
7 Objection, vague, ambiguous. 7 Q. Well, why did you say that?
8 THE WITNESS: 8 A. Because that was what the hydraulics
9 I can't say. 9 guys put out as part of the official
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 10 presentation.
11 Q. You're also quoted in this news 11 Q. So you were just relying on
12 article of May, '82, in the discussion about 12 hydraulics people when you say that?
13 what a critical path would be for a storm, one 13 A. Yeah.
14 critical path would be a super storm that 14 MR. LIDDLE:
15 moved in parallel to the Mississippi River 15 I object. I don't think he's
16 Gulf Outlet and then came right over New 16 testified that he made that statement
17 Orleans. 17 yet.
18 A. I think -- I don't recall -- There's 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
19 several critical paths and I don't recall them 19 Q. All right. Maybe I am
20 all. 20 misunderstanding the statement. Let me show
21 Q. Well, some of them -- Look at the 21 you what I am talking about. And this is
22 news article. 22 referring to comments that you are said to
23 A. The most -- The most critical path 23 have made in the article. I'll show it to you
24 was pretty much what Katrina did. If it would 24 again.
25 come over about Port Sulphur from the west, 25 A. I can't say I made them, but if you
Page 67 Page 69
1 come over Port Sulphur and then just go just 1 say so, it's in the paper. And like I say,
2 east of New Orleans, that would be the most 2 you can't believe what you read in the paper.
3 critical. Because that would push the water 3 Q. All right. But I am going to ask
4 -- As it's coming in, it would push the water 4 you about what's said here. "A hurricane
5 up to the north shore and, as it passed, it 5 would be on a critical path for this area, he
6 would slosh back into the south shore, which 6 said," meaning Landry, "if it came in over
7 would tend to overtop the levees. 7 Grand Isle, moved north and then went either
8 Q. So that's a landfall west of the 8 just east or just west of New Orleans."
9 city? 9 Okay? Then the statement is "Another
10 A. Just -- Just west of the city. 10 alternative would be a super storm that moved
11 Q. West of the city. 11 in parallel to the Mississippi River Gulf
12 A. And coming over the river, and 12 Outlet, then came right over New Orleans, he
13 that's pretty much what Katrina did. 13 said," meaning Landry.
14 Q. Okay? 14 A. But that doesn't mean -- that
15 A. And it came right on in just to the 15 doesn't mean that just because the route was
16 east of New Orleans. And that -- that wasn't 16 parallel to the MRGO that the MRGO had
17 -- I'd say that wasn't parallel to the MRGO. 17 anything to do with anything as far as any
18 It was kind of on an angle. 18 water or anything. That would just be a
19 Q. Well, when you're quoted in that 19 track. I know what you're -- what you're
20 article as saying one critical path would be 20 trying to get at.
21 the one that was parallel to the MRGO, and I 21 MR. LIDDLE:
22 don't know if that path is depicted on the 22 Let him ask a question. Let him
23 sketch that accompanies the article -- 23 ask a question.
24 A. There's one that shows it pretty 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
25 much. Betsy had a path similar to that, but 25 Q. I am just trying to get at what is
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
Page 70 Page 72
1 in Vic Landry's head here, and what my 1 take a brief break before finishing up.
2 question is -- and let's just assume that Joan 2 A. That's a good idea.
3 Treadway got it right when you talked to her 3 (Whereupon a discussion was held
4 in May of '82 and that you said this. Okay? 4 off the record.)
5 MR. LIDDLE: 5 VIDEO OPERATOR:
6 I am going to object to the 6 We're off the record. It's
7 questioning. 7 10:23.
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 8 (Recess.)
9 Q. All right. Well, maybe should ask, 9 VIDEO OPERATOR:
10 do you deny making this statement in this news 10 Returning to the record, it is
11 article? 11 10:37.
12 A. I can't deny or affirm. 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
13 Q. Okay. Well, then since you don't 13 Q. Mr. Landry, in the mid to late '80s
14 deny it, let me just assume that Joan Treadway 14 the Corps of Engineers undertook a
15 is correctly and accurately stating what you 15 reconnaissance report on bank erosion along
16 said. And my question is, why would you 16 the MRGO in St. Bernard Parish. Were you
17 consider that to be a critical path, namely, 17 aware of that?
18 the path you describe here of a super storm 18 A. No.
19 moving in parallel to the MRGO and then coming 19 Q. Do you know what a reconnaissance
20 right over New Orleans? 20 report is?
21 A. Because that -- that's what the 21 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively).
22 designers had determined. 22 Q. What is it?
23 Q. Which designers? 23 A. Yes. Well, they would go out and do
24 A. The hydraul- -- 24 a very quick survey, look at what's being
25 Q. Corps of Engineers designers? 25 proposed and come up with some cost and
Page 71 Page 73
1 A. Yes. 1 comment as to what could be done. But I don't
2 Q. Hydrologists? 2 -- I don't know any details on that.
3 A. Yes. 3 Q. So a reconnaissance report comes
4 Q. Can you be more specific about the 4 before an official request to Congress for
5 studies or the titles of the studies? 5 funding?
6 A. No. 6 A. A reconnaissance is before a
7 Q. I assume they existed, though, prior 7 feasibility; and then the feasibility would
8 to May 31, 1982? 8 warrant the information to be sent.
9 A. They had -- They had brochures 9 Q. Okay. You were at the Corps in
10 published with an overall hurricane protection 10 1988; correct?
11 plan, that it depicted the Lake Pontchartrain 11 A. Yes.
12 and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project and 12 Q. And I know you were not -- you were
13 it went on to explain the possible critical 13 not -- your job didn't bring you into contact
14 paths of hurricanes and which could have 14 with the MRGO except on some very, as you put
15 effects, the greatest effects on New Orleans. 15 it, big picture basis. So I assume you didn't
16 And that's where that information came from. 16 have any personal involvement in the recon
17 Q. Okay. 17 report dealing with bank erosion?
18 A. I didn't create it, that's for sure. 18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. But the Corps of Engineers 19 Q. Were you aware that it was being
20 did? 20 studied or done or looked at?
21 A. I would say yes. 21 A. I don't -- I don't recall it, no.
22 Q. All right. Let me mark as Landry 22 Q. You don't recall that?
23 Number 3 the May 31, '82 Times-Picayune news 23 A. No.
24 article. The Bates numbers are 24 Q. Were you aware that in comments made
25 NRG-003-000001655 and 1656. And why don't we 25 within the Corps and set forth in this
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
Page 74 Page 76
1 reconnaissance report there was discussion 1 official request.
2 about the alternative of completely closing 2 Q. Okay.
3 the MRGO as an alternative to bank erosion 3 A. To me, that is.
4 efforts, or bank erosion prevention? 4 Q. Okay. And, I'm sorry, I may have
5 A. I don't recall that. 5 asked you already, but can you date that for
6 Q. In your capacity in any of your job 6 me? Was that like '60s, '70s, '80s?
7 positions with the Corps, do you ever recall, 7 A. I couldn't even start.
8 prior to Katrina, do you ever recall hearing 8 Q. Okay. Was the basis for their
9 about or taking part in discussions concerning 9 concern the erosion of wetlands?
10 the closure of the MRGO? 10 A. More the salinity in the lake and I
11 A. No. 11 guess wetland -- effects on wetlands, yes.
12 Q. You never heard that discussed? 12 Q. When you say salinity in the lake,
13 A. Other than the Lake Pontchartrain 13 you mean obviously Lake Pontchartrain?
14 basin foundation was advocating the closure. 14 A. Lake Pontchartrain, yes.
15 That was just kind of their public relations 15 Q. Were you aware of comments made by
16 move. 16 the Corps of Engineers in this 1988
17 Q. Who was that? The Lake -- 17 reconnaissance report that closure, complete
18 A. Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. 18 closure of the MRGO would reduce the
19 Q. When was that? Can you date that 19 possibility of catastrophic damage to urban
20 for me when they were -- 20 areas by a hurricane surge coming up this
21 A. No. 21 waterway, meaning the MRGO?
22 Q. So were you sort of a liaison to 22 A. I am not aware of that, no.
23 groups like that as well? 23 Q. Is this the first you have ever
24 A. All -- All entities -- 24 heard about that?
25 Q. Okay. 25 A. Right.
Page 75 Page 77
1 A. -- that was involved in the water 1 Q. Do you have any reaction to that
2 resources development arena. 2 comment in your capacity as an engineer, that
3 Q. Okay. 3 in '88 it was said that closing the MRGO would
4 A. Whether it be private, state, local, 4 reduce the possibility of catastrophic damage
5 Federal, whatever. 5 to urban areas by a hurricane surge coming up
6 Q. Okay. And that foundation, that's a 6 the waterway?
7 non-governmental foundation. That's a private 7 MR. LIDDLE:
8 group? 8 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
9 A. It's a private group, but it's 9 THE WITNESS:
10 authorized by the State as far as I know. 10 I don't know.
11 Q. Okay. And you recall them proposing 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
12 or favoring the position that the MRGO be 12 Q. You have no position --
13 closed? 13 A. No.
14 A. Yes. 14 Q. -- one way or the other on that?
15 Q. Correct? And did they communicate 15 A. No. I don't know the basis of the
16 that in a way that you had to respond to it as 16 report or any of the background, so I can't
17 a liaison? 17 say.
18 A. No. 18 Q. Does the comment that I have just
19 Q. Did you have to communicate or 19 quoted from this 1988 reconnaissance report
20 interact with them at all on that matter? 20 surprise you?
21 A. No, this is just stuff I read in the 21 MR. LIDDLE:
22 paper. 22 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
23 Q. Okay. So it didn't involve you 23 THE WITNESS:
24 officially? 24 Like I say, I don't know the
25 A. No. They never did come with an 25 basis of the report and I really can't
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
Page 78 Page 80
1 comment on it. 1 Q. How do you spell that name?
2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 2 A. F R U G E.
3 Q. Because I thought you told me 3 Q. Where was his office?
4 earlier that you were aware of studies that 4 A. I think in Lafayette.
5 showed that the MRGO did not create a 5 Q. Okay. And while I know you're not
6 funneling effect, did not potentiate storm 6 familiar with the MRGO except in very general
7 surge in that way. 7 terms, you are aware, aren't you, that there
8 A. I was not aware of any particular 8 was a specified depth to which the channel was
9 study. It was just the consensus of the 9 meant to be dredged --
10 system that it didn't happen. 10 MR. LIDDLE:
11 Q. The consensus of the system being 11 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
12 the -- 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
13 A. The technical arm of the Corps of 13 Q. -- when it was built? There was a
14 Engineers. 14 design depth for the MRGO? Are you aware of
15 Q. The technical. But you would agree 15 that?
16 that the statement I just read to you is 16 A. I know that the design is 36 feet.
17 inconsistent with that? 17 Q. Okay. Has it, to your knowledge,
18 A. I would say. 18 ever been dredged deeper than 36 feet by the
19 Q. Do you know what is meant by the 19 Corps of Engineers?
20 term "buffering marshes"? Have you come 20 A. I understand from time to time it
21 across that term in your work at the Corps? 21 may have been dredged a foot or so below that
22 A. Well, I could just guess that it's 22 to allow for settlement.
23 -- it's wetlands that -- between the 23 Q. To allow for settlement? What do
24 populated areas and the Gulf of Mexico that 24 you mean?
25 would tend to knock down the tidal surge of a 25 A. Well, kind of advanced measures, so
Page 79 Page 81
1 hurricane. 1 to speak.
2 Q. And would you agree that cypress 2 Q. So you overdredge it expecting that
3 wetlands, where mature cypress trees grow 3 there will be some return of sediment --
4 would be included in the concept of buffering 4 A. Some fluff and whatever.
5 against a storm surge? 5 Q. -- to keep it at the 36 feet?
6 A. I'd say any growth in the wetlands. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you would agree that saltwater 7 Q. Do you know how -- You say
8 kills cypress trees? 8 overdredged by a foot or so. Is that your
9 A. Oh, yes. 9 understanding?
10 Q. Did you ever have any dealings with 10 A. And it may -- most probably was in
11 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during your 11 different reaches. I don't -- I don't know
12 years with the Corps? 12 the details on it.
13 A. Other than on the periphery, no. 13 Q. Do you know that the original bottom
14 Q. What do you mean by periphery? 14 width of the channel was 500 feet?
15 A. For instance, if they had meetings 15 A. I don't remember the dimensions.
16 with all the agencies involved. I knew 16 Q. Okay.
17 various people that worked with Wildlife and 17 A. I remember the depth, but not the
18 Fisheries, but as far as having any 18 dimensions.
19 negotiations with them, no. 19 Q. Not the width?
20 Q. Did you ever know a gentleman by the 20 A. No.
21 name of Wilfred Kucera, K U C E R A, in 21 Q. Okay. Were you aware that the MRGO,
22 Lafayette, Louisiana who was with the U.S. 22 after it was built, widened at a rate of about
23 Fish and Wildlife Service? 23 15 feet a year?
24 A. No. Dave Fruge is the one that I 24 A. No.
25 remember. 25 Q. Is this the first you have ever
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
Page 82 Page 84
1 heard about that? 1 they do it. All I can say is just the reports
2 A. Right. 2 from the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
3 Q. Does that surprise you? 3 complaining about the salinity levels in the
4 MR. LIDDLE: 4 lake. It's al- -- always put that in the
5 Objection, vague, ambiguous. 5 newspaper.
6 THE WITNESS: 6 Q. That those had increased because of
7 I know there is claims that it 7 the MRGO? Was their --
8 widened, but I couldn't tell you at 8 A. That's their claim, yes.
9 what rate and how much. 9 Q. Do you know if that, Mr. Landry, if
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 10 that complaint was ever investigated or
11 Q. Are you aware that the widening of 11 verified by the Corps?
12 the MRGO every year has been attributed to 12 A. I don't know. I'm sure it was, but
13 erosion mostly caused by wakes of fast moving 13 I don't know.
14 vessels? 14 Q. You don't know? So you're not
15 MR. LIDDLE: 15 familiar with a recording of salinity levels
16 Objection, vague, ambiguous. 16 done in 1981 by the Corps of Engineers?
17 THE WITNESS: 17 A. No. I'm sure that we took samples
18 It's -- It's just natural. If 18 and have done that over the years, but I don't
19 you are going to have erosion, 19 know the nuances there.
20 something's got to cause it. 20 Q. Were you ever made aware of
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 21 projections by the Corps of Engineers as to
22 Q. Are you aware that by 1978 over 22 how much additional marsh and wetland would be
23 3,000 acres of marsh that existed prior to the 23 lost in the future because of erosion
24 MRGO had been eliminated either by the space 24 associated with the MRGO?
25 of the MRGO or by the erosion of adjacent 25 A. No.
Page 83 Page 85
1 areas? 1 Q. Do you agree that the loss of marsh
2 A. No, I am not familiar with any 2 generally can be associated with higher storm
3 specific figure. 3 surges because of the loss of natural barriers
4 Q. Are you aware that before the MRGO 4 against surges?
5 was built, the course -- the territory that it 5 MR. LIDDLE:
6 was laid out in was a relatively fresh to 6 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
7 brackish marsh? 7 THE WITNESS:
8 A. Yes. 8 I -- Yeah, that is quite
9 Q. Are you familiar with the comparison 9 ambiguous.
10 of salinity levels between the early period of 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
11 the MRGO's existence and later periods? 11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Salinity levels from point what to 12 A. You talking about aware that loss of
13 point what? 13 marsh is attributed to storms? Or the loss of
14 Q. You mean in time, in point of time? 14 marsh will increase the intensity of --
15 A. No, no, no, no. What location? You 15 Q. No.
16 talking about in Lake Pontchartrain? 16 A. I don't quite follow you.
17 Q. Oh, you mean along the course 17 Q. Let me try to ask you, be more
18 itself? 18 precise. I think we have already talked about
19 A. Yes. Or just in the channel 19 the fact that marsh, and in particular cypress
20 itself? 20 swamp, will serve as a natural buffer and
21 Q. Well, let me broaden the question. 21 barrier against storm surge. You agree with
22 What awareness or understanding do you have 22 that?
23 about salinity samples or analysis at any 23 A. Marsh does serve as a buffer, yes.
24 point along the MRGO? 24 Q. So if marsh -- And this is a general
25 A. I don't know about the analysis, how 25 question, but if marsh is eliminated,
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
Page 86 Page 88
1 destroyed, and the loss or destruction 1 I really can't say because I
2 includes cypress trees and things that grow in 2 wasn't involved with the dredging
3 fresh water, you would agree that that removes 3 program and I couldn't say what causes
4 a natural barrier against storm surge? 4 it. I think the biggest problem was
5 A. Naturally. 5 the shoaling.
6 Q. Okay. And, therefore, would you 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
7 agree that when loss occurs such as that, the 7 Q. I'm sorry, what?
8 area is susceptible to higher and greater 8 A. The shoaling at the Gulf.
9 storm surge? 9 Q. What do you mean by shoaling?
10 A. Yes. 10 A. Just sand. The natural ebb and flow
11 Q. Okay. Did you ever become aware of 11 that -- the literal currents going back and
12 discussions within the Corps that the loss of 12 forth, it deposits sand.
13 marshland and wetlands adjacent to the MRGO 13 Q. The tidal action within the channel
14 channel made the area along the MRGO more 14 carries sand in from the Gulf?
15 susceptible to greater and higher storm 15 A. No. Well, a little bit, I guess.
16 surge? 16 But the main thing is you got the tide going
17 A. No. It's the whole coast. That's 17 back and forth and a literal drift of the
18 why they got the coastal restoration project. 18 tide, it just deposits sand. And I don't know
19 The whole southern coast that has been lost 19 how far it carries it as far as in the
20 over the years, that's the main reason for the 20 channel. I couldn't say on that.
21 intensity of hurricanes increasing. 21 Q. Did you ever hear discussions in the
22 Q. All right. So the -- 22 Corps when you were there that without the
23 A. The effects of the hurricane. 23 buffering effect of the marsh adjacent to the
24 Q. Okay. So -- 24 channel of the MRGO in St. Bernard Parish,
25 A. Because it would be cut off a long 25 that without the buffering effect of the
Page 87 Page 89
1 time before it ever got to -- to Lake Borgne 1 marsh, the developed areas where people lived
2 area. 2 would be more susceptible to flooding?
3 Q. Well, but even with the protection 3 A. No, I didn't hear anything like
4 that otherwise would be afforded by the 4 that.
5 coastal marsh and wetlands, you agree that the 5 Q. Did the Corps, when you were there,
6 marsh and wetlands adjacent to the channel of 6 acknowledge that the erosion and break-up of
7 the MRGO also would serve as a buffer or a 7 the banks of the MRGO had created many
8 barrier against storm surge? 8 additional routes for saltwater to intrude
9 A. I don't know that. 9 into formerly less saline interior marshes?
10 Q. You don't know that to be true? 10 MR. LIDDLE:
11 A. No. I can't say one way or the 11 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
12 other. 12 THE WITNESS:
13 Q. Okay. The Corps of Engineers did a 13 No, I don't recall seeing any
14 further recon report, reconnaissance report on 14 report on that.
15 bank erosion along the MRGO in January of 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
16 1994. Were you aware of that? 16 Q. Okay. If that statement appears in
17 A. I was retired. 17 the 1994 recon report of the Corps, would that
18 Q. You were retired by then. If the 18 surprise you?
19 buffering marshes that are along the MRGO are 19 MR. LIDDLE:
20 lost or were lost, does that result in 20 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
21 increased dredging of the channel for any 21 THE WITNESS:
22 reason? 22 I can't comment on that. I don't
23 MR. LIDDLE: 23 know.
24 Objection, vague, ambiguous. 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
25 THE WITNESS: 25 Q. What was your job position in August
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
Page 90 Page 92
1 of 2006? 1 Q. Why, just in summary, why do you say
2 A. August, 2006, I was in the Hurricane 2 that?
3 Protection Office as a consultant. Because I 3 A. Because all of the marine traffic
4 started in July of '06. 4 moving east and west, north and south has to
5 Q. Okay. So you were with Evans and 5 use that lock and it would be catastrophic if
6 Graves -- Evans-Graves? 6 that lock fails. So what I was trying to get
7 A. Evans-Graves in the Hurricane 7 a point across, I didn't say that it would be
8 Protection Office. 8 closed, but it could possibly be closed.
9 Q. Do you recall making a statement to 9 Congress might -- might consider closing it if
10 City Business in August of 2006 that the MRGO 10 it didn't -- if it wasn't the only alternate
11 could have been closed years ago had locals 11 to the Gulf.
12 not fought the construction of the new 12 Q. So the new lock would have allowed a
13 Industrial Canal lock? 13 route for marine commerce that would have made
14 A. I recall the interview with City 14 the MRGO less necessary?
15 Business, but exactly the way that's quoted 15 A. It would have provided deep draft
16 there, I don't know if that was taken out of 16 access to the Industrial Canal and the port
17 context. I think what I told that lady was 17 facilities back on the Industrial Canal and
18 that if the Industrial Canal locks would be 18 along the MRGO.
19 replaced, there would be more chance of the 19 Q. And what is the basis for the local
20 MRGO being closed. It would be deauthorized 20 opposition to the lock?
21 if there was an alternate route into the 21 A. I --
22 Industrial Canal. That was the intent of that 22 MR. LIDDLE:
23 statement. 23 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
24 Q. Okay. Let me -- 24 THE WITNESS:
25 A. But there was no guarantee that it 25 I can't -- I can't say. It's
Page 91 Page 93
1 would be. 1 just I guess personal opinions. It's
2 Q. Okay. Let me just show you a copy 2 their personal opinions, thinking that
3 of the City Business article of August 21, 3 it's going to be dangerous -- I mean
4 2006. 4 harmful to the neighborhood.
5 A. Okay. I think that statement that I 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
6 -- on the second page there pretty well is 6 Q. Is this the Lower Ninth Ward when
7 what I had said all along. 7 you say the neighborhood?
8 Q. Okay. And I want to ask you about 8 A. It would be -- Not necessarily just
9 that, but let me go in order of what's 9 the Lower Ninth Ward. The Holy Cross
10 reported here. The quote that they attribute 10 neighborhood and others.
11 to you that the MRGO could have been closed 11 Q. Have environmental concerns been
12 years ago had locals not fought the 12 expressed by the impact of the new lock?
13 construction of the new Industrial Canal lock, 13 A. The only environmental --
14 what is referred to when you say years ago 14 MR. LIDDLE:
15 there being local opposition to the 15 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
16 construction of a new Industrial Canal lock? 16 THE WITNESS:
17 A. That's been going on for many, many 17 Okay.
18 years. Neighborhood organizations had 18 MR. LIDDLE:
19 objected to it and -- and really, that -- that 19 Sorry.
20 lock -- I don't want to go into a sales pitch 20 THE WITNESS:
21 for that lock, but it's a necessary piece of 21 It's just the idea of dredging,
22 infrastructure that's got to be repaired 22 that's all.
23 because -- or get replaced because it means 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
24 great -- greatly to the economy of the United 24 Q. What do you mean, the idea of
25 States. 25 dredging?
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
Page 94 Page 96
1 A. Contaminated soils and things like 1 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
2 that. And that's all been tested. 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
3 Q. And I know, you know, from the quote 3 Q. Is that true?
4 and from what you're saying here, you're aware 4 A. I don't know exactly how the ratio
5 generally of the opposition and I know your 5 is arrived at, but it has to be positive to
6 position is that despite that, the lock needs 6 even be considered by Congress.
7 to be replaced, but -- 7 Q. Right. So if you do a benefits-cost
8 A. That is my personal opinion -- 8 or a benefit or B/C, the B number has to be
9 Q. Your personal opinion. 9 higher than the C number? True?
10 A. -- as an engineer. This is not the 10 A. Yes.
11 Corps of Engineers or Evans-Graves talking or 11 Q. Have you ever taken part in a
12 anybody else. 12 benefit-cost ratio analysis?
13 Q. Well, that's what I wanted -- 13 A. No.
14 A. That's my personal opinion. 14 Q. And I mean not only with the Corps,
15 Q. That's what I wanted to confirm, 15 but with any --
16 that you don't speak for the Corps or 16 A. No.
17 Evans-Graves on this. 17 Q. Okay. That is left for the more
18 A. That's correct. 18 technical -- Well, let me ask you this. Is
19 Q. And I also want to confirm that your 19 that ratio analysis done by policy people, by
20 personal opinion about it is not based on any 20 technical people, by both? I mean --
21 professional analysis that you have undertaken 21 MR. LIDDLE:
22 as an engineer? True? 22 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
23 A. Let's put it this way. It's 23 THE WITNESS:
24 professional understanding and knowing 24 Economists.
25 economics and knowing what's necessary. Just 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
Page 95 Page 97
1 common sense, -- 1 Q. Economists?
2 Q. Okay. 2 A. Yeah.
3 A. -- in plain English. 3 Q. All right. So within the Corps
4 Q. Well, I guess my question really is 4 there are educated, trained economists who
5 have you undertaken any kind of professional 5 come up with that number?
6 analysis of -- 6 A. Yes.
7 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. And are they given input by
8 Q. -- the local opposition -- 8 technical people? Engineers and people like
9 A. No. 9 that?
10 Q. -- arguments? 10 A. I'm sure they are.
11 A. I have not done any professional 11 Q. Okay. Do you know how the
12 analysis. 12 economists arrive at the number?
13 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about 13 A. No.
14 benefit-cost ratio before we go back to this 14 Q. Do you know whether, in deriving a
15 article. Over the years with the Corps you're 15 benefit-cost ratio, the Corps of Engineers
16 familiar that benefit-cost ratios are used to 16 evaluates environmental benefits such as the
17 analyze the pros and cons of different 17 preservation of wetlands?
18 projects; right? 18 MR. LIDDLE:
19 A. Yes. 19 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
20 Q. And I assume that the Corps has, for 20 THE WITNESS:
21 lack of a better word, a grading system or 21 I don't know how they evaluate
22 rating system that's meant to be uniform for 22 that, no.
23 how you come up with the numbers in a 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
24 benefit-cost analysis? 24 Q. Do you know if -- Go ahead.
25 MR. LIDDLE: 25 A. But the environmental impact
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
Page 98 Page 100
1 statement would have to stand on its own to 1 to move to this quote on page 2 of the article
2 say that the project wouldn't harm the 2 that we have here where you were said to have
3 environment. But as far as the monetary 3 stated this. "Technically the MRGO does not
4 value, I don't know how they arrive at that. 4 contribute considerably to any flooding
5 Q. Well, there has to be an EIS, there 5 situation. It might have a tidal influence in
6 has to be an environmental impact statement -- 6 this area. It's very small compared with the
7 A. Exactly. 7 influence you're going to have from a tidal
8 Q. -- as a matter of law. I guess my 8 surge coming across the marsh. That's your
9 question is, and if you don't know we can move 9 biggest danger." When you make this
10 on, but when I am coming up with the numbers 10 statement, Mr. Landry, are you again stating
11 on a B/C analysis and I am looking at market 11 this as Vic Landry, engineer, private citizen,
12 benefits of keeping the channel open, for 12 and not as a spokesman for the Corps?
13 example, et cetera, those kinds of hard data, 13 A. As a private citizen, yes.
14 do you know if anywhere in that process the 14 Q. As a private citizen. Are you
15 Corps has a system that assigns value to the 15 basing this opinion on actual work that you
16 intangible benefits of preserved wetlands or 16 have done as an engineer?
17 marsh territory? 17 A. No.
18 A. No, I don't. 18 Q. Okay. What are you basing it on?
19 Q. Okay. 19 A. Knowledge obtained over the years.
20 A. I am not aware anything like that. 20 Q. Well, does that knowledge that you
21 I don't get into the nitty-gritty of the 21 have obtained over the years include reference
22 mechanics of putting together a B-C ratio. 22 to scientific studies of the question?
23 Q. All right. Going back to the City 23 A. It's the participation in meetings
24 Business article, you're quoted as saying 24 where reports were discussed, but I was not a
25 that, you know, opposition to the new locks in 25 part of the system that put the reports
Page 99 Page 101
1 the Industrial Canal came from residents of 1 together, but I was privy to the results.
2 the Holy Cross neighborhood and the Lower 2 Q. Okay. And these are Corps of
3 Ninth Ward and you say that Congress delayed 3 Engineers --
4 the funding of the lock because of local 4 A. Yes.
5 opposition. 5 Q. -- studies and reports?
6 A. Yes. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you say "I think that was 7 Q. You can't cite them, name them, give
8 totally unfounded and really a shame." 8 me dates?
9 A. The opposition was unfounded. 9 A. Oh, no. No. This is just over a
10 That's my opinion. 10 period of years.
11 Q. Yes. Okay. 11 Q. And you took those reports to be
12 A. And I will stand by that. 12 true?
13 Q. But you were not speaking -- You 13 A. Yes.
14 were speaking for Vic Landry? 14 Q. And it's based on the assumption
15 A. Vic Landry. 15 that they were true that you make this
16 Q. Personally? 16 statement?
17 A. Personal. 17 A. And -- And engineering judgment. It
18 Q. Right. Okay. 18 made sense.
19 A. Because I wasn't working for the 19 Q. Why did it make sense from an
20 Corps and I made -- made it -- made the lady 20 engineering --
21 quite aware that I was speaking as a private 21 A. Because it seemed reasonable.
22 citizen, a consultant engineer, and not an 22 Q. All right. Can you explain?
23 employee of the Corps, Evans-Graves, or 23 A. Because I have been through
24 Hurricane Protection Office. 24 hydraulics and other -- I have been trained in
25 Q. All right. And then finally I want 25 other areas and it -- it -- it's a common
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Page 102 Page 104
1 sense type of thing. 1 A. I sat in on a lot of public interest
2 Q. Okay. You say "There's a little bit 2 meetings where everybody was called together
3 of tide coming up through the MRGO." 3 and the project manager, Greg Miller, would
4 A. Oh, yes. 4 give the status of the study and ask for input
5 Q. "And it would raise the MRGO level 5 and so forth and so on. But I did sit in and
6 and overflow the banks," but you say "That's 6 listen to the conversation back and forth, the
7 not what's going to bring the big wall of 7 testimony of the individuals.
8 water into Orleans and St. Bernard." 8 Q. Does Vic Landry, private citizen,
9 A. That's correct. 9 long time professional engineer, have an
10 Q. You say "That's going to come from a 10 opinion on whether the MRGO should be closed?
11 tidal surge coming across the marsh." 11 MR. LIDDLE:
12 A. Right. 12 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
13 Q. You haven't seen any models that 13 THE WITNESS:
14 actually try to depict a surge either coming 14 I -- I really don't have a firm
15 up through the MRGO or across the marsh? 15 opinion one way or the other because I
16 A. Not models, but film where they show 16 won't have anything to say about it
17 hurricane tidal surges and it's coming from 17 and I can't do anything about it.
18 the Gulf, across the southern marshes, across 18 It's up to Congress.
19 everything. 19 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
20 Q. Okay. 20 Q. Yes, sir. But you had strong
21 A. And if you still had all of your 21 opinions about that lock in the Industrial
22 barrier islands and all your marsh to the 22 Canal.
23 south, the results of hurricane would be 23 A. Well, I didn't say that the MRGO
24 diminished considerably. 24 should be closed.
25 Q. Right. Right. And you don't deny 25 Q. No, --
Page 103 Page 105
1 that the MRGO has had an erosive effect on 1 A. The lock should be built.
2 marsh and wetland? 2 Q. No, I know.
3 MR. LIDDLE: 3 A. There's no question about that.
4 Objection, vague, ambiguous. 4 Q. I understand.
5 THE WITNESS: 5 A. But I said the MRGO could be closed.
6 I can't deny it and I can't 6 Q. Right.
7 affirm it. 7 A. I'm not saying it would be. And I
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 8 didn't advocate closing the MRGO.
9 Q. All right. I think we have covered 9 Q. Right. Right.
10 the rest of whatever comments you have in here 10 A. Because I am not in a position to
11 about the lock and why that would have been a 11 take a stand on that.
12 good idea. 12 Q. Okay.
13 Let me mark as Landry Number 4 the 13 A. Because you got flood control on one
14 three-page August 21, 2006 article from City 14 side supposedly, the individuals, and the
15 Business. And I don't have Bates -- There are 15 navigation interests on the other.
16 no Bates numbers on this document. 16 Q. Right. But having sat in on these
17 All right. Finally, before we 17 public meetings --
18 wrap up here and break, I mean finish the 18 A. I heard both sides.
19 deposition before lunch, I want to ask you if 19 Q. And I guess you sat in on them just
20 in your work with Evans-Graves, obviously 20 to be abreast of this development in your
21 since retiring from the Corps, you've had any 21 capacity as --
22 involvement in discussions about the closure 22 A. So that if a local politician would
23 of the MRGO which is now the subject of a 23 call and ask for my thoughts of what went on
24 deauthorization report to Congress by the 24 at the meeting I would be in a position to
25 Corps. 25 explain the status.
27 (Pages 102 to 105)

Page 106 Page 108
1 Q. But you have not been giving either 1 benefit-cost decision to close the MRGO?
2 Evans-Graves or these local politicians that 2 MR. LIDDLE:
3 you deal with your view on closure? 3 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
4 A. No. 4 THE WITNESS:
5 Q. And as I understand your testimony 5 I haven't heard anything.
6 today, you really don't have a view one way or 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
7 the other on whether it should be closed? 7 Q. In the discussions you heard -- Have
8 A. I -- I do not. I -- 8 you been in more than one public meeting about
9 Q. Did you finish? 9 the closure?
10 A. I don't have a view. 10 A. When I was available, I'd go to it.
11 Q. Okay. 11 Q. Okay.
12 A. Because I am not in a position to 12 A. Mainly to deal with the politicians
13 take sides, and it's up to Congress. 13 that came and -- and kind of offer hospitality
14 Q. Why do you understand the Corps to 14 or whatever, just to welcome them, say "We
15 be recommending the deauthorization of the 15 appreciate you come and giving your comments"
16 MRGO for deep draft navigation? 16 even though I didn't have to do it. It's just
17 MR. LIDDLE: 17 public relations.
18 Objection, vague, ambiguous. 18 Q. Okay. In the MRGO deep draft
19 THE WITNESS: 19 deauthorization interim report to Congress of
20 I guess it would go back to the 20 December, 2006, done by the Corps of
21 B-C ratio. 21 Engineers, and I took the deposition of Mr.
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 22 Miller who was, as you know, a co-author of
23 Q. What do you mean by that? 23 this document, there are three things
24 A. Well, utilization and cost to 24 mentioned as to views and studies pertinent to
25 maintain. 25 the closure of the MRGO and I would just like
Page 107 Page 109
1 Q. Well, and I know you have been in 1 to identify them and ask for you to comment on
2 the meetings and you have heard Mr. Miller and 2 your understanding. One is that the
3 others explain this. Can you be more specific 3 construction and use of the MRGO has caused
4 about your understanding of their reason, of 4 the loss of wetlands habitat. Have you heard
5 the Corps' reasons for concluding that there 5 that talked about at the meetings you have
6 should be a deauthorization for deep draft 6 been to?
7 navigation? 7 A. Yes.
8 A. I'd say that the biggest was the 8 MR. LIDDLE:
9 amount of traffic and the maintenance cost. 9 Objection, vague, ambiguous.
10 Economics is the main -- the main thing. 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER:
11 Q. The cost of keeping it open is not 11 Q. And you, either on behalf of the
12 justified by the economic benefits of the 12 engineering firm you now consult with or just
13 traffic? 13 as a private citizen matter or engineer, don't
14 A. Yes. Yes. 14 have any reason to dispute or oppose that
15 Q. That's because of diminished -- 15 factor?
16 A. Usage, yes. 16 A. I have no basis to affirm or deny
17 Q. Usage. Yes. Was that true before 17 what is being said there.
18 Hurricane Katrina as well? 18 Q. All right. There's also mention in
19 A. I don't know. I didn't see any 19 the deauthorization report "Some parties
20 figures. I would imagine it couldn't have 20 believe that the MRGO exacerbates storm surges
21 changed that much in that short period. 21 in the region." Now, you've I think told us
22 Q. So let me ask it just another way. 22 today that you, based on hydrology reports and
23 Do you know of anything or have you heard of 23 studies that you have just heard about, do not
24 anything that is new information since 24 believe it to be true that the MRGO funnels or
25 Hurricane Katrina that goes into this 25 creates any storm surge?
28 (Pages 106 to 109)

Page 110 Page 112
1 A. That's correct. 1 outweigh the cost of --
2 Q. But you're likewise not aware of 2 A. I'm not saying -- I'm not saying
3 studies to the opposite effect? 3 that -- that the B-C ratio reflected such a
4 A. I am not aware of studies. I am 4 thing. I just said that because of the cost
5 aware of local opposition. And -- 5 to maintain and amount of usage, it just
6 Q. Yes. Okay. 6 didn't seem like it was reasonable to keep it
7 A. -- people who have unfounded beliefs 7 open.
8 that that's what's causes it. 8 Q. Okay.
9 Q. When you say unfounded beliefs, 9 A. But I don't know of any B-C, whether
10 though, you're not aware of studies on the 10 it's .5, .7, 1.2 or anything like that.
11 opposite of that question? 11 MR. MEUNIER:
12 A. No. No. 12 Okay. Well, Mr. Landry, I thank
13 MR. LIDDLE: 13 you for your time and attention.
14 Objection, vague, ambiguous. 14 THE WITNESS:
15 EXAMINATION BY MR. MEUNIER: 15 Well. You're quite welcome.
16 Q. And then, finally the factor 16 MR. MEUNIER:
17 mentioned, the third factor, maintenance 17 And those are all the questions
18 dredging costs outweigh the economic benefits, 18 that I have.
19 and you have mentioned that already. 19 VIDEO OPERATOR:
20 At the public meetings where 20 This concludes this deposition.
21 you've heard the closure discussed, have you 21 It's 11:26.
22 heard discussion about the acreage amounts 22 * * *
23 involved in the loss of wetlands and marshes? 23
24 A. It may have be stated. I don't 24
25 recall any -- 25
Page 111 Page 113
1 Q. You don't recall? 1
2 A. -- any numbers. 2 WITNESS'S CERTIFICATE
3
3 Q. Have you heard reference to the 4 I, VICTOR A. LANDRY, read or have
4 salinity levels? 5 had the preceding testimony read to me, and
5 A. It was mentioned, yes. 6 hereby certify that it is a true and correct
6 Q. But again, on those topics you defer 7 transcription of my testimony, with the
7 to others and don't have any personal 8 exception of any attached corrections or
8 opinions? 9 changes.
10
9 A. Right. I can't get involved with
11
10 the nitty-gritty of every project. _____________________
11 Q. Okay. I assume you have heard it 12 (Witness' Signature)
12 said at these meetings that the marsh habitat 13 ____________
13 along the MRGO is important to preserve as a DATE SIGNED
14 buffer or a barrier against storm surge? 14
15 A. I may have. I -- I can't say for 15 DEPONENT PLEASE INITIAL ONE:
16
16 sure. _____ Read with no corrections
17 Q. Do you know what the benefit-cost 17
18 ratio or conclusion was in the analysis by the 18 _____ Read and correction sheet attached
19 Corps on closure of the MRGO? 19
20 A. No. 20
21 Q. I mean, I'm talking about the actual DATE TAKEN: APRIL 30, 2008
21
22 numbers. 22
23 A. No, I don't. 23
24 Q. You only know that the benefit was 24
25 -- that the benefit of closure was found to 25
29 (Pages 110 to 113)

Page 114
1
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3
4 I, ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, RDR, CRR,
5 Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify
6 that the above-named witness, after having
7 been first duly sworn by me to testify to the
8 truth, did testify as hereinabove set forth;
9 that the testimony was reported by me in
10 shorthand and transcribed under my personal
11 direction and supervision, and is a true and
12 correct transcript, to the best of my ability
13 and understanding; that I am not of counsel,
14 not related to counsel or the parties hereto,
15 and not in any way interested in the outcome
16 of this matter.
17
18
19
20 ROGER D. JOHNS
21 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
22 STATE OF LOUISIANA
23
24
25
30 (Page 114)

KTR00080

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

KTR00080

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VICTOR LANDRY April 30, 2008

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

27 (Pages 102 to 105)

28 (Pages 106 to 109)

29 (Pages 110 to 113)

You might also like