KTR00061

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION
NO. 05-4182
and Consolidated Cases
"K" (2)
JUDGE DUVAL
MAG. WILKINSON
----------------------------------------------
ROBINSON CIVIL ACTION
NO. 06-2286
VERSUS
THE UNITED STATES
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
ARTHUR R. THEIS,
688 South Lakeview Drive, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana 70810, given in the offices of
Lambert & Nelson, 701 Magazine Street, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70130 on Thursday, November
8, 2007.
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 2 Page 4
1 APPEARANCES:
2 O'DONNELL & ASSOCIATES
1 INDEX
(BY: PIERCE O'DONNELL, ESQ.) 2 PAGE
3 Suite 1000
550 Hope Street 3 Theis Exhibit Number 1...................... 9
4 Los Angeles, California 90071-2627 4 Theis Exhibit Number 2..................... 10
ATTORNEYS FOR ROBINSON PLAINTIFFS
5 5 Theis Exhibit Number 3..................... 56
6
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 6
7 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION 7
(BY: ROBIN D. SMITH, ESQ.)
8 DAN BAEZA, ESQ. 8
Room 8095N
9 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
9
Washington, D.C. 20530 10
10 ATTORNEYS FOR UNITED STATES
11 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:................... 6
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH M. BRUNO
12 (BY: JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQ.)
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL:.............. 65
FLORIAN BUCHLER, ESQ.) 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:.................. 74
13 855 Baronne Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL:.............. 82
14 PLAINTIFF LIAISON COUNSEL 15
15 -------------------------------
16 ALSO PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE: 16
17 LAMBERT & NELSON
(BY: HUGH LAMBERT, ESQ. 17
18 LINDA NELSON, ESQ.) 18
701 Magazine Street
19 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 19
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
20
20
21 VIDEOTAPED BY: John Wadsworth, 21
Hart Video of Louisiana
22 22
23
REPORTED BY: ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, CRR, CSR
23
24 Certified Court Reporter, 24
State of Louisiana
25 25
Page 3 Page 5
1 STIPULATION 1 VIDEO OPERATOR:
2 It is stipulated and agreed by and between
counsel for the parties hereto 2 We are on the record. This is
3 that the deposition of the aforementioned 3 the deposition of Arthur Theis and we
witness is hereby being taken under the 4 are at the office of Lambert and
4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for all
purposes, in accordance with law; 5 Nelson, located at 701 Magazine, New
5 That the formalities of reading and 6 Orleans, Louisiana. This is November
signing are not waived;
6 That the formalities of certification and
7 8th, 2007. My name is John Wadsworth
filing are specifically waived; 8 with Hart Video of Louisiana. The
7 That all objections, save those as to the 9 Court Reporter is Roger Johns with
form of the question and the responsiveness of
8 the answer, are hereby reserved until such
10 Johns Pendleton and Associates.
time as this deposition, or any part thereof, 11 Would Counsel please introduce
9 may be used or sought to be used in evidence. 12 themselves.
10 * * * *
11 ROGER D. JOHNS, RDR, CRR Certified Court 13 MR. SMITH:
Reporter, for the State of Louisiana, 14 My name is Robin Smith. I
12 officiated in administering the oath to the 15 represent the United States.
witness.
13 16 MR. BAEZA:
14 17 Dan Baeza for the United States.
15
16
18 MR. O'DONNELL:
17 19 Pierce O'Donnell and Hugh Lambert
18 20 for the Plaintiffs.
19
20 21 Mr. BUCHLER:
21 22 Florian Buchler also for the
22 23 Plaintiffs.
23
24 24 VIDEO OPERATOR:
25 25 Would the Court Reporter please
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 6 Page 8
1 swear in the witness. 1 A. Yes, I'll be glad to.
2 ARTHUR R. THEIS, 2 Q. Thank you. Do you understand what
3 688 South Lakeview Drive, Baton Rouge, 3 this case that we're here to take testimony in
4 Louisiana 70810, after having been duly sworn 4 today is about?
5 by the before-mentioned court reporter, did 5 A. Yes, I think I know the overall
6 testify as follows: 6 import.
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 7 Q. What's your understanding of this
8 Q. Good morning, Mr. Theis. 8 case?
9 A. Good morning. 9 A. Well, it's related to the
10 Q. My name is Robin Smith and I 10 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet project in
11 represent the United States in this case and I 11 Louisiana as related to the flooding
12 have come to ask you a few questions today. 12 associated with Hurricane Katrina and the
13 You understand that you're under oath? 13 damage it did to the adjacent areas.
14 A. Yes. 14 Q. And have you been retained by the
15 Q. And that the Court Reporter is going 15 Plaintiffs in this case to provide
16 to be transcribing your testimony and the 16 professional opinions?
17 videographer is going to be making a video 17 A. Yes.
18 recording of your testimony. Do you 18 Q. When were you retained by the
19 understand that, sir? 19 Plaintiffs?
20 A. Yes. 20 A. I don't remember the exact date, but
21 Q. Because the Court Reporter is going 21 I suspect it was sometime in early September.
22 to be making a written record of your 22 Q. September of this year?
23 testimony, I would like you to remember and 23 A. Uh-huh (affirmatively).
24 help me by saying "yes" or "no" and giving a 24 Q. And who were you retained by?
25 verbal response to my questions rather than 25 A. By Mr. O'Donnell.
Page 7 Page 9
1 nodding your head. Do you understand? 1 Q. And did he discuss with you at that
2 A. Yes. 2 time what he wanted you to do?
3 Q. Is there any reason why you're not 3 A. He discussed that he would like to
4 able to give testimony here today in this 4 have a declaration from me based on my
5 matter? 5 knowledge of the Mississippi River Gulf
6 A. None that I know of, no, sir. 6 Outlet, and in particular Reach 2 of the -- as
7 Q. Are you under any medication? 7 related to the protection along that channel,
8 A. Yes, I take some medication for 8 and information about my background and
9 heart problems, but nothing serious. 9 knowledge of the area.
10 Q. It doesn't affect your -- 10 Q. And did you agree to undertake that
11 A. No. 11 assignment?
12 Q. -- ability to recall things -- 12 A. Yes.
13 A. No. 13 Q. And at some point did Mr. O'Donnell
14 Q. -- or to understand? 14 ask you to prepare a report?
15 A. Other than my I guess Alzheimer's 15 A. He asked me to prepare a
16 that goes along with my age. 16 declaration, which I did and provided to him I
17 MR. O'DONNELL: 17 guess about a month ago, something like that.
18 I have been with him. He's 18 Q. I'm going to hand you what has been
19 pretty good. 19 marked Theis Exhibit Number 1 for
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 20 identification and ask whether this is a true
21 Q. Well, if you at any time during our 21 copy of the report, the declaration that you
22 time together this morning don't understand a 22 prepared for Mr. O'Donnell.
23 question that I ask you, do you agree to tell 23 A. Yes, it appears to be the
24 me that you don't understand and give me an 24 declaration and the resume and -- attached to
25 opportunity to rephrase my question? 25 it and the biographical sketch.
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 10 Page 12
1 Q. And those were the attachments that 1 people who prepared it. We were not under an
2 you -- 2 obligation to go and request those plans and
3 A. Yes. 3 -- and participate in the development of
4 Q. -- sent to Mr. O'Donnell for 4 them. But we as a matter of routine
5 attachment to your declaration? Is that 5 cooperation with the people that designed the
6 correct? 6 projects, we reviewed them and made comments.
7 A. Yes, that's correct. 7 Q. What was the purpose of those
8 Q. All right. You may keep that, sir. 8 reviews and those comments?
9 Or give it to the Court Reporter if you don't 9 A. They were engineering reviews to
10 need it. 10 help us understand what the purpose of the
11 You have already referred to Reach 11 project and how it was to be constructed and
12 2 of the MRGO. I'm going to show you what's 12 the engineering criteria used.
13 been marked Theis Exhibit Number 2 and ask if 13 Q. Did you review those drawings and
14 this map indicates what you understand to be 14 specifications for adequacy, to determine
15 Reach 2 of the MRGO. 15 whether they were adequate for the work to be
16 A. Yes, that -- that -- the reach with 16 performed?
17 the arrows on here indicating the length of 17 A. Not for adequacy in terms of the
18 the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet from the 18 amount of protection provided. Because the
19 vicinity of Yscloskey, I guess, up to the 19 studies were made by the other participants.
20 intersection of the GIWW. 20 We did not have the personnel to do a full
21 Q. Thank you, sir. So will you agree 21 analysis of those activities.
22 with me today, then, that when we refer to 22 Q. If plans and specifications had been
23 Reach 2 of the MRGO, that that's the portion 23 presented to you during your employment by the
24 of the MRGO that we're referring to? 24 State of Louisiana for the construction of
25 A. Yes. 25 levees along the MRGO that in your
Page 11 Page 13
1 Q. And does that map also illustrate 1 professional opinion were inadequate to
2 Reach 1 of the MRGO? 2 function and provide flood protection to the
3 A. Yes, it has Reach 1 indicated on it. 3 people who were going to be on the protected
4 Q. And is that your understanding, or 4 side of those levees, would you have indicated
5 could we refer to that reach of the MRGO as 5 that to others?
6 Reach 1 today? 6 MR. O'DONNELL:
7 A. Yes, that would be fine. 7 I do have to object. That's a
8 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. 8 hypothetical. You can ask him if he
9 Mr. Theis, what is a levee? 9 ever did, but I think it's
10 A. What is a levee? A levee is an 10 speculative.
11 earthen embankment constructed for the purpose 11 You can answer the question.
12 of protecting an adjacent area. 12 THE WITNESS:
13 Q. Protecting the area from what? 13 To what others are you talking
14 A. Protecting it from floods or high 14 about? When you say others, what do
15 water, inundation from an exterior source. 15 you mean?
16 Q. Were you for many years employed by 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
17 the State of Louisiana as a civil engineer? 17 Q. Would you have made any -- Would you
18 A. Yes. I was employed from 1953 until 18 have brought that to the attention of anyone
19 I retired in 1986. 19 if you had reviewed plans and specifications
20 Q. And during your employment by the 20 during the course of your employment by the
21 State of Louisiana, was it your responsibility 21 State of Louisiana that you, based upon your
22 to review or to direct other engineers to 22 professional opinion, found to be inadequate
23 review plans and specifications for the 23 for the work to be performed?
24 construction of levees within the state? 24 A. If -- If it was our opinion that
25 A. Yes, when -- when asked by the 25 they were -- the plans and specifications were
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 14 Page 16
1 inadequate, we would have so informed the 1 control?
2 people that were being -- that were doing the 2 A. By reviewing with them the project
3 engineering as well as the people that were 3 needs for a proposed project and to develop
4 done -- the project was being done for. 4 the plans and specifications for their use and
5 Q. During your employment by the State 5 determine the funding required and the amount
6 of Louisiana, did you review plans and 6 of contract work required to accomplish such
7 specifications for the construction of levees 7 project.
8 along the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet? 8 Q. Did you review or provide any
9 A. No. 9 engineering expertise concerning the Lake
10 Q. Did anyone under your supervision as 10 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
11 a subordinate employee engineer -- 11 Protection Project while you were the District
12 A. No. 12 Engineer?
13 Q. -- review any plans or 13 A. We reviewed some of the information
14 specifications for the construction of levees 14 that was being prepared by the Corps of
15 along the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet? 15 Engineers. Some of it we commented on, some
16 A. Not to my knowledge. 16 we did not.
17 Q. Did you or anyone under your 17 Q. What was the purpose of those
18 supervision or responsibility as an employee 18 comments?
19 of the State of Louisiana review any plans or 19 A. To try to determine whether or not
20 specifications for the construction of any 20 the engineering aspects of the project met
21 flood protection structures along Reach 2 of 21 normal engineering requirements.
22 the MRGO? 22 Q. And if you had found that any of the
23 A. No. 23 plans or specifications that you reviewed
24 Q. Let's turn to the period of your 24 during that time were inadequate or deficient
25 employment as a District Engineer by the State 25 for the work that was to be performed, would
Page 15 Page 17
1 of Louisiana. Do you recall the period of 1 you have informed the local interests of that
2 time that you were the District Engineer? 2 deficiency?
3 A. Yes, I was a District Engineer for 3 MR. O'DONNELL:
4 the Southeast District of the Louisiana 4 The same objection. Calls for
5 Department of Public Works from the mid '60s 5 speculation.
6 to 1970. 6 You can answer.
7 Q. If your curriculum vitae indicates 7 THE WITNESS:
8 that that was from 1965 to 1970, would that be 8 We probably would not have
9 correct? 9 informed them the -- the local
10 A. Yes, that's correct. 10 interests they were inadequate. We
11 Q. What were your duties as the 11 would have informed the developer of
12 District Engineer? 12 the plans and specifications that we
13 A. Duties of the District Engineer for 13 didn't necessarily agree and suggested
14 the Department of Public Works, to -- was to 14 changes or modifications to what we
15 assist local interests in engineering related 15 thought would be a proper engineering
16 to water resources development and to provide 16 approach to the problem.
17 such engineering expertise as they might 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
18 require as regards those kinds of activities. 18 Q. Did you communicate with the U.S.
19 When I say water resources, that covers a 19 Army Corps of Engineers while you were the
20 broad area. It covers drainage, flood 20 District Engineer concerning --
21 control, navigation, coastal development, 21 A. Yes.
22 shoreline protection, all of those 22 Q. -- concerning any flood protection
23 activities. 23 projects that were underway at that time?
24 Q. How would you provide engineering 24 A. Yes.
25 expertise to local entities concerning flood 25 Q. Would the Lake Pontchartrain and
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 18 Page 20
1 Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project have 1 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
2 been one of those? 2 Protection Project.
3 A. In the earlier stages, yes, in the 3 A. Yes, I understand that.
4 initial development. But not in terms of 4 Q. And for simplicity, because that's
5 final plans and specifications, because they 5 such a mouthful, can we just call it the LPV?
6 were not developed during my tenure. 6 A. That's fine.
7 Q. As District Engineer? 7 Q. The LPV project, and you'll know
8 A. As District Engineer. 8 what I am talking about?
9 Q. And how do you know that those were 9 A. Fine.
10 not developed prior to 1970? 10 Q. Do you know whether construction of
11 A. Because we didn't -- we didn't get 11 works of any sort under the LPV project were
12 information from the Corps concerning that 12 underway while you were the District Engineer?
13 data. 13 A. Not while -- Are you speaking of
14 Q. So it's your testimony today that 14 Reach 2 only?
15 you do not remember receiving information from 15 Q. Anywhere.
16 the Corps of Engineers concerning the Lake 16 A. Anywhere?
17 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane 17 Q. Anywhere.
18 Protection Project prior to 1970? 18 A. That's hard to say, because I wasn't
19 MR. O'DONNELL: 19 in touch with them on all of the projects. We
20 I think he said final plans and 20 did not provide local interest requirements to
21 specifications. 21 the Corps for the Lake Pontchartrain and
22 THE WITNESS: 22 Vicinity project. That was provided by other
23 Well, in terms of -- of complete 23 public entities. So I can't say that we saw
24 plans and specifications that were 24 all of the projects or that we commented on
25 being proposed for the development of 25 all the projects.
Page 19 Page 21
1 the project, we did consult with them 1 Q. I am not asking you whether you saw
2 concerning the planning aspects of the 2 all of them, because I wouldn't expect you to
3 overall project and also participated 3 have seen all of them. I was asking whether
4 in even going to Washington, appearing 4 you saw any of them.
5 before Congressional committees, et 5 A. I expect we did.
6 cetera. But not in terms of 6 Q. But you don't recall today what you
7 developing -- the development of the 7 may have seen at that time?
8 final plans. 8 A. The only one I recall having some
9 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 9 direct information on had to do with the 17th
10 Q. Well, let me be clear. I am not 10 Street Canal in Orleans and Jefferson Parish.
11 asking you about the development of final 11 And I am not sure what other levee systems
12 plans. I am asking you if you reviewed any of 12 were involved.
13 the plans or specifications that were prepared 13 Q. Are you suggesting that -- Now,
14 by others for the construction of flood works 14 again, I am restricting this question, just so
15 along the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet while 15 you understand, to make sure we're
16 you were the District Engineer. 16 communicating here, to your time while you
17 A. No. 17 were the District Engineer between 1965 and
18 Q. Do you know whether the Corps of 18 1970.
19 Engineers began building levees along the MRGO 19 A. Right.
20 while you were the District Engineer? 20 Q. In 1970, did you become the
21 A. To my knowledge, they did not. 21 Assistant Chief Engineer for the Department of
22 Because that was not part of the original 22 Public Works for the State of Louisiana?
23 navigation project. 23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I am not asking about the navigation 24 Q. And did you remain in that position
25 project. I am asking about the Lake 25 until 1976?
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 22 Page 24
1 A. Yes. 1 and then subsequent to that time it would have
2 Q. You can consult your C.V. if you 2 remained at the District responsibility when
3 need to, sir. That's fine. 3 you became the Assistant Chief Engineer?
4 A. I'm trying to think about the 4 A. That's correct.
5 dates. That's approximately correct. 5 Q. Were the reviews that were performed
6 Q. Well, I got that off your C.V. It's 6 by the New Orleans District office passed to
7 not a trick question. 7 your office for review prior to being
8 A. Okay. That's true. 8 released?
9 Q. What were your duties and 9 A. Their comments were not necessarily
10 responsibilities as the Assistant Chief 10 passed to me for review, but we normally
11 Engineer for the State of Louisiana? 11 discussed the project as it was being
12 A. To assist in the overall 12 developed and occasionally I would meet with
13 administration of the public works program, 13 them and with the Corps to discuss some aspect
14 which included all of the five districts in 14 of it.
15 Louisiana, and also in assisting the Chief 15 Q. Do you recall what works were being
16 Engineer and meeting with local interests on 16 constructed during the period 1970 to 1976
17 projects and then meetings with the Corps of 17 while you were the Assistant Chief Engineer?
18 Engineers on Federal projects in Louisiana, as 18 When I say "works being constructed", I mean
19 well as the development of compacts such as 19 with respect to the Lake Pontchartrain
20 the Red River compact between the four states, 20 project.
21 Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, as a 21 A. No, I don't remember what projects
22 water resources project. And assisting 22 were being -- Some of the canals, the interior
23 generally in the development. Also in working 23 canals and probably some of the New Orleans
24 with the legislature committees as directed by 24 East area, because those areas were under
25 the Chief Engineer. 25 development as far as approach to the barrier
Page 23 Page 25
1 Q. Do you remember whether you 1 plan that was under consideration.
2 consulted with or conferred with the U.S. Army 2 Q. Do you know whether flood works were
3 Corps of Engineers concerning the Lake 3 being constructed along Reach 2 of the MRGO
4 Pontchartrain and Vicinity project at that 4 while you were the Assistant Chief Engineer?
5 time, while you were the Assistant Chief 5 A. No, I do not.
6 Engineer? 6 Q. If they had been under construction
7 A. I'm sure I did. 7 at that time, would you have been aware of
8 Q. Do you know whether you reviewed 8 that at that time?
9 plans and specifications for the Lake 9 MR. O'DONNELL:
10 Pontchartrain project while you were -- 10 Objection. Speculation.
11 A. No, I would not have reviewed plans 11 Go ahead.
12 and specifications. I would have probably 12 THE WITNESS:
13 coordinated that with some of our other staff. 13 Possibly have been aware of it,
14 Q. When you say you would have 14 but not necessarily participated in
15 coordinate -- I'm sorry, go ahead, sir. 15 it. If I might explain.
16 A. Such as the New Orleans District 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
17 office that was the local office. And working 17 Q. Yes, please.
18 with them and reviewing whatever information 18 A. The Louisiana Department of Public
19 they could get from the Corps. 19 Works would normally respond to local interest
20 Q. So I understand, then, is it your 20 requests for engineering services when
21 testimony today that it would have been the 21 needed. The sponsor for the MRGO project was
22 New Orleans District office that would have 22 the New Orleans Dock Board and they had their
23 had the responsibility for reviewing plans and 23 own engineering staff. As a result, they did
24 specifications for the Lake Pontchartrain 24 most of their own engineering reviews and --
25 project while you were the District Engineer, 25 and worked with the Corps of Engineers
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 26 Page 28
1 directly, and my office did not. 1 paragraph.
2 Q. In your C.V. you suggest that you 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
3 directed engineering services provided by your 3 Q. -- turned to it.
4 office to Federal agencies while you were the 4 MR. O'DONNELL:
5 Chief Engineer. Would that be a correct 5 Go ahead.
6 statement of your responsibilities, as the 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
7 Chief Engineer now? 7 Q. If you'd look at the third paragraph
8 A. Yes. 8 down from the top, sir.
9 Q. And you were liaison to the U.S. 9 A. That starts out with "To carry
10 Army Corps of Engineers while you were the 10 out"?
11 Chief Engineer? 11 Q. Yes. Could you just read that
12 A. We did coordination work in an 12 sentence there?
13 attempt to develop a relationship with the 13 A. "To carry out the programs and
14 Corps on projects authorized in Louisiana. 14 policies of the department, I was responsible
15 Q. And would it be safe to say that you 15 for planning and directing all engineering
16 were in continuous contact with the Army Corps 16 efforts, directing all engineering cooperative
17 of Engineers while you were the Chief Engineer 17 programs with Federal, state, and local
18 for the State concerning flood works that were 18 agencies, directing statewide emergency
19 being performed by the Army Corps of Engineers 19 operations for flood control and natural
20 while you were the Chief Engineer? 20 disasters, and representing the State in all
21 A. I would not say I was in continuous 21 water resource development activities."
22 contact with them. We did meet occasionally, 22 That's a pretty broad statement. Probably
23 particularly when the New Orleans District 23 covers more than I actually performed.
24 office indicated a problem being -- that was 24 Q. All right. But is that a fairly
25 developing that we needed to have further 25 accurate description of what your
Page 27 Page 29
1 consultation on. But as a normal rule I did 1 responsibilities were?
2 not participate in day-to-day correspondence 2 A. That was generally the program
3 or day-to-day activities with the Corps. 3 responsibilities of the Department of Public
4 Q. I would just like to direct your 4 Works.
5 attention to Arnold -- I'm sorry, we're not 5 Q. Okay. And at the last paragraph on
6 doing Arnold today, are we? 6 that page, it refers to I believe continuous
7 MR. O'DONNELL: 7 contact in work --
8 We'll get him if you need him, 8 A. Yes.
9 but -- 9 Q. -- with the Lower Mississippi Valley
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 10 Division. That's a part of the Corps of
11 Q. But to your C.V., sir. In your 11 Engineers; is that correct?
12 C.V., if you would look to your C.V. that you 12 A. The Lower Mississippi Valley
13 have there in your -- attached to your report 13 Division is primarily the overseer on that
14 or to your declaration. 14 MR&T project, and underneath that division is
15 A. Yes. 15 the various district offices like the New
16 Q. If you'd turn to page -- I guess it 16 Orleans District, the Memphis office and
17 would be the -- I guess it would be the third 17 others.
18 page of your C.V. 18 MR. O'DONNELL:
19 MR. O'DONNELL: 19 Could he tell us what the MR&T
20 That's it. That's the page. 20 is, please?
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
22 Q. The first C.V. I think Mr. 22 Q. Yes, would you please explain that?
23 O'Donnell may have already -- 23 A. I'm sorry, it's Mississippi River
24 MR. O'DONNELL: 24 and Tributaries project, which is the primary
25 I found the page and the 25 flood control project for the Mississippi
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 30 Page 32
1 Valley. Until recently it was mainly below 1 Southeast District of the State Department of
2 Cairo. 2 Public Works have been in regular contact with
3 Q. I have gotten a little bit ahead in 3 the Levee Boards and with the Corps concerning
4 talking about your duties as a Chief Engineer, 4 the work that was being performed?
5 but let me go back to your period as the 5 A. They would have been in contact with
6 Assistant Chief. So this would be 1970 to 6 the Levee Boards, primarily the Lake Borgne
7 1976. At that time, do you know today as you 7 Basin. The Department of Public Works did not
8 sit here whether levees were being constructed 8 have the same relationship with the Orleans
9 along Reach 2 of the Mississippi River Gulf 9 Levee Board since the Orleans Levee Board had
10 Outlet? 10 their own engineering staff and did not call
11 A. No, I do not. 11 on the Department of Public Works for
12 Q. So I take it you wouldn't know 12 engineering support except on rare occasions.
13 whether you knew that then either? In other 13 Q. I want to direct your attention,
14 words, could this be something that you knew 14 turn now to your period again as Chief of
15 at the time, but you have forgotten since then 15 Engineers for the State of Louisiana. Was
16 or -- 16 that approximately a ten year period, from
17 A. Well, since we were not in daily 17 1976 to 1986?
18 contact with the Corps of Engineers on the MRG 18 A. Yes.
19 -- MRGO project and it was a Dock Board 19 Q. What were your duties and
20 project, we don't have a, you might say a 20 responsibilities as the Chief Engineer?
21 daily itinerary that would cover working with 21 A. Primarily to oversee the Department
22 the Corps on that project. So I wouldn't have 22 of Public Works program, which involved water
23 known whether or not they were working on it 23 resources in Louisiana as well as things like
24 from time to time. 24 the compact I discussed earlier between four
25 Q. All right. Now, again, you have 25 states on the Red River Valley. And it was
Page 31 Page 33
1 referred to the MRGO as being a Dock Board 1 somewhat a tenuous time frame from the
2 project, but I would like to focus your 2 standpoint of in 1978, the Legislature decided
3 attention not on the MRGO project, which was a 3 to do a little consolidation work and
4 navigation project in aid of navigation, but I 4 practically did away with the Department of
5 would like to focus your attention on the Lake 5 Public Works by combining it with the Highway
6 Pontchartrain project, which was not a Dock 6 Department to form what is now, or was then
7 Board project, was it? 7 termed as DOTD, Department of Transportation
8 A. Right. 8 and Development, "Transportation" being the
9 Q. It was a Levee Board project. Would 9 highway part and "Development" being the
10 that be fair to say in terms of the State 10 public works sector. And then during that
11 entity that was -- 11 time frame, from '78 into '86, we were in a
12 A. Yes. 12 state of transition, going from a separate
13 Q. -- most interested in that work that 13 agency to a combined agency and developing an
14 was being done? 14 all new program and areas of responsibility.
15 A. I'm not sure where the division of 15 Q. If plans and specifications for the
16 activities occurred between the Orleans Levee 16 construction of levees were furnished to your
17 Board and the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District 17 office for review during that period, what
18 since part of it was in St. Bernard Parish. 18 would have been the nature of the review that
19 But yes, they would have been the ones that 19 would have been performed by your office?
20 were in daily contact with the Corps. 20 A. They probably would have been
21 Q. And would the District Engineer for 21 performed by the Southeast District office in
22 the -- I believe you said it was the Southeast 22 New Orleans, the Area office or the District
23 District of the five districts that were under 23 office. And that review would be to look at
24 your supervision as the Assistant Chief 24 the engineering information provided,
25 Engineer. Would the New Orleans District, the 25 profiles, cross sections, soils information,
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 34 Page 36
1 construction details, et cetera, to determine 1 the analysis would have begun in the New
2 their general appearance in terms of normal 2 Orleans District office.
3 engineering activities in flood control. 3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And why would you have undertaken 4 Q. Would it have been -- Would you have
5 such a review or someone under your authority 5 had the capability and the expertise in your
6 within the Department? 6 office to determine whether the flood works
7 A. To assist the Levee Board and Levee 7 that were proposed to be built in the plans
8 Boards in this case, with information that we 8 and specifications that were provided were
9 could provide them as to whether or not they 9 adequate for the purpose of providing flood
10 were being provided with an adequate project. 10 protection?
11 The Levees Boards were, of course, the local 11 A. Not completely, in that Public Works
12 interests and providing rights-of-way, 12 had no capabilities in terms of oceanography
13 relocations, et cetera, and the plans and 13 and determining flood levels from -- from
14 specifications would necessarily have dealt 14 hurricanes or those kind of activities to
15 with the amount of right-of-way required and 15 determine whether or not the elevation was
16 construction details for the elevations, the 16 sufficient to protect the area under
17 cross sections, those kind of things. 17 consideration. The State assumed that the
18 Q. Would it have been the 18 Federal government had much more capabilities
19 responsibility of either the District Engineer 19 in terms of background, experience, and
20 himself or one of his superiors in the 20 knowledge to determine what elevation was
21 Department to inform the Levee Boards if the 21 required and that we either accepted or gave
22 plans and specifications that had been 22 them comments on those conditions. So we
23 reviewed had been found defective in any way 23 reviewed the plans and specifications and
24 or were inadequate for the work to be 24 based on the planning effort that had been
25 performed? 25 previously discussed with the State and with
Page 35 Page 37
1 A. I'm not sure that "defective" or 1 the local interest.
2 "inadequate" is -- would be the proper 2 Q. So apart from design elevation,
3 description as to whether or not they were 3 which as I understand you to be indicating
4 complete to the standpoint of providing the 4 would have been beyond the purview of your
5 protection desired. 5 expertise or people in your -- under your
6 Q. Can you elaborate on that answer? 6 supervision and direction to determine whether
7 A. Well, whether or not the locations 7 the flood elevation was adequate, other than
8 that they proposed for the levees or other 8 that, would the engineering details shown in
9 improvements were reasonable in terms of 9 the specifications and designs have been
10 right-of-way required and in terms of the 10 reviewed for adequacy?
11 local -- since local interest had to put up 30 11 A. They would have been reviewed from
12 percent or thereabouts of the construction 12 the standpoint of construction details, as to
13 cost, whether or not that would meet their 13 how construction was proposed and whether or
14 availability for accomplishing the 14 not it was in general accordance with accepted
15 requirements for the local interest. So you 15 engineering standards for levee construction.
16 would determine whether or not the size and 16 Q. Did you ever perform any site visits
17 location of the features were adequate for the 17 to the flood works that were being erected
18 program as we understood the program as 18 along Reach 2 of the MRGO while you were
19 developed by the planning aspects of the 19 employed by the State of Louisiana?
20 Corps. and to meet what the local interest 20 A. I visited the site several times in
21 understood was the project needs. 21 the company with the Corps of Engineers Area
22 Q. And would your office have had the 22 Engineer who I was well acquainted with and he
23 ability or -- And when I say your office, I 23 offered to take me on the site on a number of
24 mean the subsidiary offices under you; in this 24 occasions during the construction of the
25 case I guess you have indicated specifically 25 channel, not the levee system.
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 38 Page 40
1 Q. I asked you specifically about the 1 peripheral standpoint. In other words, we
2 levee system. 2 were -- I was, and other people in Gulf
3 A. No. 3 Engineers were interested in the overall
4 Q. Were you ever out there to see the 4 planning development of the Lake Pontchartrain
5 flood -- the flood works that were being 5 and Vicinity project, because Gulf Engineers
6 constructed? 6 had a planning section that had done a
7 A. No. 7 tremendous amount of work through the years
8 Q. Not at any time while you were 8 for the Corps of Engineers. So it was just
9 employed by the State? 9 general information and general knowledge that
10 A. Right. 10 we kept aware of what was going on.
11 Q. Did you ever direct any of your 11 Q. Just general knowledge in the field,
12 subordinates, while you were employed by the 12 so to speak?
13 State of Louisiana, to conduct a site 13 A. Right.
14 inspection of the flood works? 14 Q. Nothing specific?
15 A. No. 15 A. Nothing specific.
16 Q. Do you know whether any such 16 Q. No detailed knowledge?
17 inspections were performed by the Department 17 A. (Witness shakes head negatively.)
18 of Public Works while you were -- 18 I'm sorry, I didn't mean -- just
19 A. I do not know. The -- The District 19 shaking my head. The answer was no.
20 Engineer had considerable latitude in visiting 20 Q. Thank you. I appreciate that. We
21 projects under development by the Corps, under 21 have a videographer here, but it doesn't help
22 development by local interest, whether it be 22 our Court Reporter.
23 Levee Boards or parish government, whatnot, 23 After August the 29th, 2005, did
24 and assisting him very possibly with comments 24 you have an occasion to undertake a study of
25 if requested. 25 the works that had been constructed under the
Page 39 Page 41
1 Q. After 1986, did you leave government 1 auspices of the Corps of Engineers along Reach
2 service at that time? 2 2 of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet?
3 A. I left state service and went into 3 A. Yes, it was part of the project that
4 private practice. 4 Team Louisiana undertook as a result of a
5 Q. And you were employed by Gulf 5 contract developed by DOTD, Department of
6 Engineers and Consultants, Incorporated? Is 6 Transportation and Development, with the LSU
7 that correct? 7 Hurricane Center and the forensic analysis of
8 A. Well, I started out the first year 8 the failures in the levee system in New
9 after I retired and worked for Gulf South 9 Orleans.
10 Research Institute for about a year and then 10 Q. And what investigation did you
11 went with Southeastern Engineers which later 11 personally undertake?
12 became Gulf Engineers and Consultants. 12 A. Well, we visited practically all of
13 Q. And during your period of employment 13 the sites where levee failures or structural
14 with those two entities, Gulf South Research 14 failures were involved in -- within that New
15 Institute and Southeastern which became Gulf 15 Orleans metropolitan area, which included the
16 Engineers and Consultants, did you review any 16 MRGO as well as New Orleans East and Orleans
17 plans and specifications for the flood works 17 and Jefferson Parish.
18 that were being constructed along the 18 Q. So you traveled -- How did you
19 Mississippi River Gulf Outlet? 19 travel to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet
20 A. No. 20 area to view those breach sites?
21 Q. Did you at that time have any 21 A. We were fortunate enough to have a
22 knowledge concerning any construction that was 22 good boat available from the LSU Hurricane
23 ongoing for purposes of flood protection along 23 Center and they provided transportation to go
24 Reach 2 of the MRGO? 24 down the waterway and beach it at various
25 A. Well, it came up with it from a 25 locations and inspect the site.
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 42 Page 44
1 Q. And do you recall when that would 1 development. And the -- the remains of it as
2 have occurred? 2 a result of the hurricane activities.
3 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't remember the 3 Q. Had you ever undertaken such an
4 dates. 4 investigation prior to this time?
5 Q. Would that have been within a month 5 A. Yes. On -- As far as the Lake
6 or two months of the -- 6 Pontchartrain and Vicinity project?
7 A. Probably would have been at least 7 Q. No. Had you ever gone to a breach
8 two months after the hurricane, because it was 8 site where a levee had been destroyed and
9 probably at least a month before we had a 9 investigated it?
10 contract developed for the team operations. 10 A. Yes. In other river basins in
11 LSU had already done some investigations on 11 Louisiana and on the Mississippi River also.
12 their own and were tantamount in developing a 12 We've had a number of floods in Louisiana and
13 team, so the inspections would have been 13 we have had levee problems that resulted in
14 several months after the actual occurrence. 14 loss of levees, scour, all of those things
15 Q. On how many occasions did you travel 15 associated with flood control damage.
16 to the MRGO breach sites? 16 Q. Can you identify some of the other
17 A. Probably a half a dozen. And that 17 occasions in which you undertook such
18 was over a year's period time frame. 18 investigations?
19 Q. Did you go alone at any time? 19 A. Some of it was on the Mississippi
20 A. No. Generally, since LSU was 20 River as a result of high waters, and I don't
21 providing the boat, they provided an operator 21 remember the dates of those high waters. But
22 and I went with other members of the team. 22 -- And on the Red River and on the Ouachita
23 Q. So every time that you visited the 23 River as well as along the Atchafalaya Basin.
24 breach sites along the MRGO, you were visiting 24 Q. Would it refresh your memory if you
25 it with other team members from Team 25 looked at your C.V.? I think in that last
Page 43 Page 45
1 Louisiana? 1 paragraph you refer to major floods that
2 A. Yes, that's correct. 2 occurred in '73, '79 and '83? Would those
3 Q. And every time you traveled by 3 have been occasions on which you might have
4 boat? 4 undertaken such --
5 A. Yes. I was trying to think. Some 5 A. Yes, but I don't remember which site
6 of the area is available like in Reach 1, for 6 visits went with which date. But we had
7 instance, by road off the Paris Road activity, 7 problems that we were called on to provide
8 and we did drive to a couple of locations like 8 engineering assistance on the Mississippi
9 that. But most all of the visits were made by 9 River, for instance, at the site of Angola
10 boat to the Bayou Bienvenue structure, Bayou 10 Prison where we developed the flood control
11 Dupre structure, those kind of things. 11 project to protect the prison, and we had --
12 Q. And those would have been along 12 back in the '50s we had tremendous floods on
13 Reach 2? 13 the Red River Basin that caused a considerable
14 A. Right. 14 amount of damage and loss of levees and
15 Q. Do you recall whether your first 15 flooding of agricultural lands, et cetera.
16 visit was after Hurricane Rita? 16 Also, I --
17 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't. 17 Q. Were you employed by the State of
18 Q. What were you engaged in, what work 18 Louisiana in the '50s? I'm sorry, I --
19 were you engaged in while you were at the 19 A. I probably didn't mention it.
20 site? 20 Q. Yes, you were. You were. I just
21 A. I was engaged in looking at the 21 needed to check.
22 amount of destruction and the way in which the 22 A. Well, in '57 I was the Area Engineer
23 destruction occurred and some of the 23 in Shreveport and had jurisdiction or
24 conditions that were existing at the site 24 responsibilities for that portion of the Red
25 relative to the materials and site 25 River from Alexandria to the Arkansas line.
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 46 Page 48
1 But in addition to that, the other areas that 1 Number 2, I believe?
2 we talked about, was mentioning about flood 2 MR. O'DONNELL:
3 control, was the -- working and visiting the 3 Yes.
4 site on a number of times with the Corps on 4 THE WITNESS:
5 the Atchafalaya Basin. 5 Right. This is the Exhibit
6 Q. Now, were all of these other 6 Number 2. And the IHNC reach covers
7 occasions that you have described here in the 7 that part of Orleans Parish adjacent
8 Mississippi River, on the Red River, on the 8 to the Ninth Ward. And then the Back
9 Ouach- -- 9 Levee system in St. Bernard Parish,
10 A. Ouachita. 10 from the Orleans Parish line down to
11 Q. Ouachita? Ouachita River? 11 Paris Road, down to Violet, Violet to
12 A. It looks like "Oh-chita". 12 Verret, Verret around to Caernarvon.
13 Q. Yes, I know. 13 So we had a number of failures and
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 damages in those areas. In addition
15 Try saying "Atchafalaya" three 15 to that, we had investigated a number
16 times. 16 of damages on the Mississippi River
17 THE WITNESS: 17 levees and the back levees in
18 Yeah. 18 Plaquemines Parish all the way to
19 MR. SMITH: 19 Venice (indicating).
20 Yes. 20 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 21 Q. You're indicating with your finger,
22 Q. Were these all breaches that 22 and I would just like to make it clear. Why
23 resulted from riverine flooding? 23 don't you just take this pen, if you will, and
24 A. Right. 24 mark what you're referring to as the back
25 Q. Had you ever investigated 25 levee area.
Page 47 Page 49
1 hurricane-induced levee failure prior to this 1 A. Well, we generally refer to the back
2 time? When I say "prior to this time", prior 2 levee as the 40 Arpent Canal (writing).
3 to your work with Team Louisiana. 3 MR. O'DONNELL:
4 A. Yes, after -- after Hurricane Betsy, 4 It's the yellow?
5 I was the District Engineer in New Orleans 5 THE WITNESS:
6 part of that time, between 1960 and 1970, and 6 Yes, it's the yellow line that
7 we had a considerable amount of damage to the 7 goes all the way down to here and then
8 levee systems in and around New Orleans and 8 back to -- back to Caernarvon. So
9 Plaquemines Parish as a result of Hurricane 9 it's this levee (indicating).
10 Betsy. 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
11 Q. Can you be more specific about where 11 Q. All right. And you --
12 those levee failures that you may have looked 12 A. Generally referred to as the Back
13 at after Hurricane Betsy were? 13 Levee or the 40 Arpent Canal Levee.
14 A. Well, the levee failures were 14 Q. All right. And in your report, you
15 primarily in the Ninth Ward of Orleans Parish, 15 have just overmarked that just for --
16 which is the area immediately adjacent to the 16 A. Yes.
17 Reach 1 you show on the -- No, I think you 17 Q. -- the Court Reporter with a blue
18 indicate it as "IHNC" on the map. 18 ink pen on this map?
19 MR. O'DONNELL: 19 A. Right.
20 Yes. 20 Q. In your report, you refer to that I
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 21 think in section -- section 4 on page 11? Is
22 Q. You're referring to -- 22 that the same levee that you're referring to
23 A. This section along here 23 as the Chalmette Back Levees?
24 (indicating). 24 A. Yes. That's correct.
25 Q. You're referring to Theis Exhibit 25 Q. All right. Were there any Federal
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 50 Page 52
1 levees that failed in that area during 1 improved after Hurricane Betsy and prior to
2 Hurricane Betsy? And when I say "that area", 2 Katrina?
3 I am referring to the areas that you say you 3 A. I don't know of any work that was
4 investigated levee failures while you were the 4 accomplished on Reach 1 or 2 as immediately
5 District Engineer. 5 after Betsy.
6 A. No, those were not Federal levees. 6 Q. No, I'm sorry. I didn't mean
7 Those were local levees. 7 immediately after. At any time after
8 Q. Were any Federal levees constructed 8 Hurricane Betsy.
9 in those areas after Hurricane Betsy? 9 A. No. I don't know when the -- when
10 A. Well, after Hurricane Betsy, no, not 10 that levee was constructed along Reach 2 and
11 Federal levees. None of -- None of this -- 11 Reach 1.
12 None of this part that's marked in blue -- or 12 Q. Was one eventually constructed along
13 I mean in red that later became part of the 13 Reach 1 or Reach 2?
14 Federal levee system was done after Betsy. I 14 A. Well, that's the area of concern
15 mean, it was -- it was performed after Betsy, 15 now, is this Reach 2 along the south bank of
16 of course, but before Katrina. 16 the MRGO, and Reach 1 ties in to the levees up
17 Q. But you mean not immediately? 17 near the IHNC.
18 A. Not immediately, no. The -- The 18 Q. Right.
19 levee system that existed was one that the 19 A. And all of those have been
20 Department of Public Works had developed for 20 constructed after Betsy.
21 the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District. 21 Q. What do you know about the
22 Q. But subsequently, after Hurricane 22 construction of those levees along Reach 1
23 Betsy and prior to Hurricane Katrina, does the 23 after Hurricane Betsy?
24 red line on that Exhibit Number 2 indicate 24 MR. O'DONNELL:
25 where the Federal levee system was 25 I'm only going to object because
Page 51 Page 53
1 constructed? 1 I don't think the witness will adopt
2 A. Well, this represents part of the 2 "levee" as a technical. If you're
3 Federal levee system now (indicating). 3 using it as a generic --
4 Q. And you're pointing to the bottom of 4 MR. SMITH:
5 -- 5 I'm sorry.
6 A. Right, the area from the MRGO around 6 MR. O'DONNELL:
7 to -- 7 "Floods works" is fine.
8 Q. Caernarvon? 8 MR. SMITH:
9 A. To Verret and then down to 9 That's fine.
10 Caernarvon. That part was incorporated into 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
11 the Chalmette reach or whatever that -- I 11 Q. What's your knowledge concerning the
12 can't think of the exact terminology that the 12 construction of flood works along Reach 2
13 Corps had on it for the part of the Lake 13 under the auspices of the Corps of Engineers?
14 Pontchartrain and Vicinity. But that was 14 A. Well, my knowledge of it primarily
15 improved as part of the Federal levee project. 15 relates to having visited the sites as a
16 Q. That was prior to Katrina? 16 result of Team Louisiana's activities, but not
17 A. Yes. 17 having reviewed in detail any plans and
18 Q. And what about the Reach 2; was that 18 specifications for those areas.
19 improved prior to Katrina as well? 19 Q. Okay. So the report or the
20 A. I don't know. 20 declaration that you provided in this case is
21 Q. What about Reach 1; do you know 21 based on the site visits, the information that
22 whether that was improved? 22 you obtained about those works at the site
23 A. No, I don't. 23 visits?
24 Q. So as you sit here today, you don't 24 A. Yes.
25 know whether either Reach 1 or Reach 2 was 25 Q. And not upon the review of any plans
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 54 Page 56
1 or specifications? 1 show you what's been be marked Theis Exhibit
2 A. That's correct. 2 Number 3 and ask you just to take a chance to
3 MR. O'DONNELL: 3 review that.
4 Just to be clear, he would like 4 A. Yes.
5 to review them, and we have asked that 5 Q. Mr. Theis, are these letters that
6 they can be made available. We 6 were signed by you while you were the Chief
7 haven't been able to find them yet, 7 Engineer for the State of Louisiana?
8 but if we find them, I am probably 8 A. Yes.
9 going to give them to him. 9 Q. And why were these letters
10 MR. SMITH: 10 prepared?
11 Okay. Well, they have been 11 A. I expect they were prepared at the
12 available on the Internet since 12 request of Mr. Chantrey with the Corps in
13 shortly after Hurricane Katrina. 13 response to them furnishing engineering
14 THE WITNESS: 14 information to us.
15 Well, that's a rather -- 15 Q. Did these reveal whether those plans
16 MR. SMITH: 16 and specifications were reviewed by your
17 So that's been provided for 17 department at that time?
18 months to Plaintiff's Counsel. 18 A. Well, they indicate that they were
19 THE WITNESS: 19 reviewed by our department and -- or an office
20 That's some rather sticky wicket. 20 in our department and that there were no
21 MR. O'DONNELL: 21 comments or there are comments or whatever's
22 Let's move on. We'll go to the 22 in that particular letter.
23 Internet once again. 23 Q. And directing your attention to page
24 MR. BRUNO: 24 3, the third letter in Theis Exhibit Number 3,
25 We probably need to formalize 25 does that indicate that your office reviewed
Page 55 Page 57
1 that process so we don't have any back 1 plans and specifications for Chalmette Area
2 and forth. Maybe we could do that 2 Plan Hurricane Protection Levee from Bayou
3 with you in the room. You could show 3 Bienvenue to Bayou Dupre?
4 us how to -- since we're not doing it 4 A. It refers to advanced plans and
5 properly. 5 specifications. That would have been what we
6 MR. SMITH: 6 would normally refer to as preliminary plans
7 Sure. Okay. 7 for what was being proposed. And that area
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 8 between Bayou Bienvenue and Bayou Dupre is the
9 Q. Your opinion in your declaration, 9 upper section of Reach 2, I believe.
10 sir, appears on page 14, in paragraph 30? 10 Q. Well, let's just refer to our
11 A. Yes. 11 exhibit.
12 Q. Is that opinion based upon the 12 A. This --
13 information that you obtained during the half 13 Q. Bayou Bienvenue would be shown here
14 dozen site visits that you conducted as part 14 at the upper -- the northwestern end of Reach
15 of Team Louisiana? 15 number 2?
16 A. Yes. 16 A. Right.
17 Q. And is that the sole basis of those 17 Q. And Bayou Dupre would be at the --
18 opinions? 18 about three-fourths of the way down toward the
19 A. Primarily. Since I did not review 19 Southeastern end of Reach number 2?
20 the plans and specifications and have other 20 A. I don't know how distance-wise it
21 information, that's primarily the basis for 21 matches, but it's right adjacent to the
22 the comments. That's, of course, in addition 22 entrance into Lake Borgne.
23 to the 50-odd years of levee construction 23 Q. All right. There's two water
24 experience. 24 courses essentially, and one is Bienvenue and
25 Q. Certainly. Would you -- I want to 25 the other is Dupre?
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 58 Page 60
1 A. Well, they -- actually, this is 1 the work planned, not -- not actually shown
2 normally referred to as the Violet Canal that 2 for construction, but the work planned would
3 goes into Bayou Dupre that emptied into the 3 be suitable for the anticipated levee closure
4 lake prior to the construction of MRGO. So 4 system.
5 they were referred to as the Bayou Dupre 5 Q. I would like you to turn to the next
6 control structure. 6 page, please, page 4. Can you read the first
7 Q. All right. And does page 3 of Theis 7 paragraph of that letter, please?
8 Exhibit Number 3 indicate that your office 8 A. "Dear Mr. Chantrey. This office has
9 reviewed the advanced plans and specifications 9 reviewed the advanced plans and specifications
10 for a levee closure along that reach? 10 for Lake Pontchartrain Louisiana and Vicinity
11 A. That's what it seems to -- It seems 11 Chalmette area plan hurricane protection
12 to state that. 12 levee, first enlargement MRGO baseline
13 Q. You don't have any -- Is it 13 stations 945 to levee station 1113, St.
14 ambiguous to you today, sir? 14 Bernard Parish, and find them adequate for the
15 A. Well, it's not necessarily ambiguous 15 work to be performed."
16 insomuch as being incomplete, in that these 16 I don't know exactly where that
17 were advanced plans and specifications and 17 is, but -- I am not familiar with those
18 probably had very little details for us to 18 particular station numbers.
19 review. So what was being reviewed was 19 Q. But can you indicate to us today
20 general concept drawings, you might say, of 20 what those station numbers represent?
21 what the Corps proposed. 21 A. Well, they're stationing along the
22 Q. And did your office determine that 22 levee alignment, or proposed levee alignment
23 those plans were adequate for the work to be 23 between those areas indicated. I am not sure
24 performed? 24 -- I suspect that the stationing developed
25 A. No. 25 from the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal going
Page 59 Page 61
1 Q. Pardon me? 1 southeast along the channel, but I don't know
2 A. No, I don't think they determined 2 that exactly. I don't know how those stations
3 they were adequate. 3 existed.
4 Q. Would you please read the letter, 4 Q. But the stations are referenced as a
5 please, the first paragraph of the letter? 5 way of identifying the particular reach --
6 A. Where it says -- 6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Just if you could just read it aloud 7 Q. -- that's being identified here in
8 if you wouldn't mind. 8 these plans?
9 A. The whole paragraph? 9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Yes. 10 Q. And does the indication that this is
11 A. "We have reviewed the advanced plans 11 the first enlargement indicate that there is a
12 and specifications furnished with your letter 12 levee there that is being enlarged, or to be
13 of July 12, 1982 for the Lake Pontchartrain 13 enlarged, excuse me, that's the work that's to
14 Louisiana and Vicinity Chalmette area plan 14 be performed that you referred to? A levee
15 hurricane protection levee, Bayou Bienvenue to 15 enlargement? Is that what's referred to here?
16 Bayou Dupre levee closures, Orleans and St. 16 A. It refers to first enlargement. And
17 Bernard Parishes, Louisiana. The plans appear 17 I am not sure exactly what that means in terms
18 to be adequate for the work to be performed. 18 of the overall structure. "First enlargement"
19 I have no further recommendations to offer." 19 would -- would normally refer to building on a
20 Q. Does that indicate that a review of 20 -- building additional works on top of
21 adequacy for the work to be performed had been 21 existing works.
22 done by your office? 22 Q. And so if you were going to perform
23 A. The review apparently was made by 23 an enlargement of a hurricane protection
24 our New Orleans office of those preliminary 24 levee, what would be the purpose of that?
25 plans and would indicate that it appeared that 25 MR. O'DONNELL:
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 62 Page 64
1 I have to object. He hasn't said 1 Q. And what are those station numbers?
2 that it was a hurricane protection 2 A. Stations 380 plus 50 to station 692
3 levee at this point. 3 plus 30. And I do not know where those
4 MR. SMITH: 4 stations are.
5 It's just a hypothetical 5 Q. But does it indicate that that's in
6 question. I'm going to ask him. He's 6 St. Bernard Parish?
7 an expert. 7 A. It indicates St. Bernard Parish,
8 MR. O'DONNELL: 8 yes.
9 Fine. As long as he -- 9 Q. And does this letter represent that
10 THE WITNESS: 10 a review of those advanced plans had been
11 Well, the purpose of enlarg- -- 11 performed under your authority as -- by your
12 May I answer? 12 department at that time?
13 MR. O'DONNELL: 13 A. It indicates that we received them
14 Oh, sure. Of course. 14 from the Corps and that we furnished our
15 THE WITNESS: 15 comments back to the Corps of Engineers for
16 The purpose of enlargement, of 16 the -- based on the furnishing of the advance
17 course, would be to raise the grade, 17 plans.
18 attempting to develop toward the 18 Q. And did your office find those plans
19 future enlargements to reach the 19 to be appropriate for the work to be
20 design project requirements. 20 performed?
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 21 A. That's what we state.
22 Q. Would it be to increase the 22 Q. And you don't know otherwise, do
23 protection provided by the existing structure? 23 you, sir?
24 A. Well, you would increase the 24 A. No, I don't.
25 protection by providing additional height. 25 MR. SMITH:
Page 63 Page 65
1 Q. And that would be provided through 1 I want to take a brief break if
2 an enlargement. Is that correct? 2 we can now.
3 A. Right. 3 MR. O'DONNELL:
4 Q. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. 4 Sure. Great.
5 A. Yes, that's correct. 5 VIDEO OPERATOR:
6 Q. I would like to direct your 6 Off the record.
7 attention to the next page, which is a letter 7 (Recess.)
8 dated April 9th, 1985. This is a letter that 8 VIDEO OPERATOR:
9 you signed; is that correct, sir? 9 We're on the record.
10 A. Yes. 10 MR. SMITH:
11 Q. Can you read the first paragraph of 11 Mr. Theis, I have no more
12 that letter? 12 questions for you today. Thank you
13 A. "Dear Mr. Chantrey. Our department 13 very much, sir.
14 has reviewed the advanced plans, file number 14 THE WITNESS:
15 H8-29808, and specifications furnished with 15 Thank you.
16 your letter of March 14, 1985 for the proposed 16 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL:
17 project and find them to be appropriate for 17 Q. I just have a few. Mr. Theis,
18 the work to be performed". 18 you're familiar with the Lake Pontchartrain
19 Q. Does the "Re" line in this letter 19 and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Project
20 indicate the particular reach that this letter 20 which I believe Robin said were called the LPV
21 and these plans pertain to? 21 for short. It was passed shortly after
22 A. Yes. It references to the Chalmette 22 Hurricane Betsy by the U.S. Congress and
23 extension hurricane protection levee second 23 signed by President Johnson in 1965?
24 enlargement and it gives station numbers in 24 A. Generally.
25 St. Bernard Parish. 25 Q. Okay. Let's go to Exhibit 3, the
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 66 Page 68
1 collection of five letters that you signed 1 Q. Okay.
2 between 1977 and 1985 that we just reviewed. 2 A. But not detailed soils information
3 Do you have those in front of you? 3 or detailed construction procedures.
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. The Army Corps was the Federal
5 Q. The first letter dated, April 26, 5 sponsor of the Chalmette planning. Correct?
6 1977, to the Army Corps of Engineers discusses 6 The U.S. Army Corps was the Federal sponsor?
7 examining the, quote, "advanced plans and 7 A. Yes.
8 specifications for the Chalmette slip levee 8 Q. Who was the local sponsor?
9 enlargement," unquote. Do you see that? 9 A. For the Chalmette slip, I am not
10 A. Yes. 10 sure whether it would have been the Lake
11 Q. Okay. Tell me what advanced, in 11 Borgne Basin Levee District or in some
12 1977 through 1985, what were advanced plans 12 relation with the Dock Board.
13 and specifications? 13 Q. But it was not the Louisiana
14 A. Advanced plans and specifications as 14 Department of Transportation and Development
15 prepared by the Corps were generally the most 15 by whom you were employed?
16 preliminary action taken. It was primarily 16 A. To my knowledge, no.
17 just a general location of the proposed work 17 Q. Okay. What was the purpose of your
18 without details of the construction procedures 18 department -- You didn't personally review any
19 or materials required or location of borrow 19 of these advanced plans and specifications
20 anything like that. It was strictly a 20 referred to in Exhibit 3. Is that correct?
21 preliminary -- a very preliminary location. 21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. More like a conceptualization? 22 Q. Okay. Well, somebody on your staff;
23 A. Correct. 23 did, right?
24 Q. For example, "We're thinking of 24 A. Yes.
25 putting a structure in this particular area 25 Q. And --
Page 67 Page 69
1 from station A to station B" or whatever they 1 A. Primarily in the New Orleans
2 have? Is that right? 2 District office.
3 A. That's correct. 3 MR. SMITH:
4 Q. Are there detailed construction 4 I'm going to object to the
5 drawings? 5 leading questions if you don't mind.
6 A. No. 6 MR. BRUNO:
7 Q. Are there details about the 7 He's an expert.
8 materials to be used? 8 MR. O'DONNELL:
9 A. No. 9 That's fair. I can make it
10 Q. The porosity of the materials? 10 longer.
11 A. No. 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL:
12 Q. How they might compact the 12 Q. You didn't personally review any of
13 materials? 13 these five sets of advanced plans and
14 A. No. 14 specifications for the various areas indicated
15 Q. Whether or not it might be a clay 15 in the collection marked as Exhibit 3;
16 cap? 16 correct?
17 A. No. 17 A. I don't remember reviewing any of
18 Q. Whether there might be armoring? 18 that information.
19 A. It might have some information about 19 MR. SMITH:
20 armoring and details -- general information 20 Same objection.
21 about anticipated right-of-way requirements, 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL:
22 that kind of -- 22 Q. Now, the architect, if you will, of
23 Q. Okay. 23 the concept for the Chalmette area you said
24 A. And access to the site, that kind of 24 was the Army Corps of Engineers?
25 information. 25 A. Yes.
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 70 Page 72
1 Q. Okay. So let's go to the second 1 stretch of Reach 2; correct?
2 letter. Again, it refers to advanced plans 2 A. That's what they appear to be, yes.
3 and specifications. You see that? 3 Q. Okay. The second sentence says "The
4 A. Yes. 4 plans submitted appear to be adequate for the
5 Q. And there's station numbers like 360 5 work to be performed." Do you see that?
6 plus 70. What does that nomenclature mean in 6 A. Yes.
7 engineering, 360 plus 70? 7 Q. Who determined the work to be
8 A. 360 is -- is the stationing from 8 performed?
9 wherever zero might have been further up, 9 A. The Corps of Engineers.
10 probably further west. And that stationing 10 Q. Okay. Were you to any extent
11 then is a linear measurement along the 11 commenting on the adequacy of flood protection
12 anticipated levee alignment or project 12 that might be provided by these conceptual
13 alignment going down and parallel to the MRGO. 13 plans?
14 Q. So if you go from station 360 to 14 A. No.
15 361, do you know what that distance is, or 15 Q. When Congress enacted the Lake
16 does it vary from project to project? 16 Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane
17 A. Well, it's roughly 3,000 feet. 17 Protection Project, it specified that the
18 Q. Got it. Okay. This letter 18 project was to protect greater New Orleans
19 indicates, the letter of December 10, 1979 19 from the most severe combination of
20 signed by you to the Army Corps, that again 20 meteorological conditions that considered
21 you have no comments to make on these plans 21 reasonably characteristic of the region. Are
22 and specifications at this time. Do you see 22 you familiar with that generally?
23 that? 23 A. Pardon?
24 A. Yes. And, of course the reason why, 24 Q. Are you familiar that that --
25 they were strictly preliminary in nature and 25 A. Yes.
Page 71 Page 73
1 had no really details to -- 1 Q. -- was one of the requirements --
2 Q. Okay. All right. Let's go to the 2 A. Right.
3 third letter, which is dated September 13, 3 Q. -- that Congress mandated to the
4 1982 from you to the Army Corps. Here as the 4 Corps?
5 description of the area, which Mr. Smith 5 A. Right.
6 brought out, is Bayou Bienvenue to Bayou Dupre 6 Q. Were you commenting in your letter
7 levee closures. Do you see that? 7 of September, 1982 or your letter of October,
8 A. Yes. 8 1982 or your letter of April 9, 1985 whether
9 Q. And going to Exhibit 2, Bayou 9 or not the work to be performed proposed by
10 Bienvenue is up here where Reach 1 and Reach 2 10 the Army Corps satisfied that requirement I
11 almost come together; correct? 11 just read?
12 A. It's near the junction with MRGO and 12 A. No, it had no relation to the
13 the GIWW. 13 meteorological event.
14 Q. Okay. And Bayou Dupre, just for our 14 Q. Okay. There's a reference in one of
15 benefit -- 15 these, a couple of these letters to a first
16 A. It is down near the entrance into 16 enlargement and a second enlargement. Do you
17 Lake Borgne. 17 recall that?
18 Q. In fact, on Exhibit Number 2 it says 18 A. Yes.
19 "Bayou Dupre", does it not, among other words 19 Q. Would this -- would another
20 there? It shows us where Bayou Dupre is on 20 description of that from an engineering point
21 Exhibit 2? 21 of view be "lifts"?
22 A. It looks like Bayou Dupre control 22 A. That's what we would normally refer
23 structure. 23 to as a lift or next layer.
24 Q. All right. So these were other 24 Q. Okay. Increasing the height of the
25 advanced plans and specifications for that 25 structure?
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 74 Page 76
1 A. Right. That's correct. Or 1 of the project that were revealed in the plans
2 increasing the cross sectional area. 2 and specifications that were reviewed by your
3 Q. The width of it; right? 3 office were adequate from an engineering
4 A. Right. 4 perspective? Is that true?
5 MR. O'DONNELL: 5 A. As a proposed improvement, yes.
6 Nothing further. Thank you. 6 Q. Was there any value at all in the
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 7 review that was being done by your office?
8 Q. I have a few follow-up questions. 8 A. Only to the extent that if we had
9 Mr. Theis, -- 9 trouble with the alignment or trouble with the
10 A. Yes. 10 location or what was generally to be included
11 Q. -- as you sit here today, do you 11 in the project, since it was adjacent to the
12 remember the contents of the advanced plans 12 MRGO, we probably would have commented on it.
13 and specifications that were reviewed by your 13 And I refer to that as relationship to its
14 office? 14 proximity to the MRGO as to whether or not it
15 A. No, I do not. 15 had any bank protection works or other
16 Q. So your responses to Mr. O'Donnell's 16 activities that would have provided future
17 questions about what would have been contained 17 protection for the levee.
18 in those advanced plans and specifications are 18 Q. And what if these drawings revealed
19 based upon what? 19 the materials to be used? Would that have
20 A. General knowledge of what the Corps 20 been something that your engineers would have
21 furnishes and provides in advanced plans being 21 reviewed and determined whether they were
22 very preliminary in nature and you might say 22 adequate for the work to be performed?
23 the basic information as to a proposed 23 MR. O'DONNELL:
24 project. 24 I have to object. I think it's
25 Q. You don't have personal knowledge, 25 inappropriate. You didn't provide the
Page 75 Page 77
1 do you, sir, of what was contained in the 1 plans and specifications to the
2 advanced plans and specifications that were 2 witness, and they obviously exist; the
3 reviewed by your office with respect to these 3 Corps has them, you have the cover
4 letters that are in Theis Exhibit Number 3, do 4 letter, so I think this is very unfair
5 you, sir? 5 examination. I want to note that.
6 A. No, I do not. 6 With that caveat, he can answer.
7 Q. When your office reviewed plans and 7 THE WITNESS:
8 specifications, advanced plans and 8 I'm sorry, would you restate the
9 specifications to determine the adequacy for 9 question?
10 the work to be performed, that was an 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
11 engineering analysis, was it not, sir? 11 Q. Sure.
12 A. Yes, it was the engineering and 12 MR. SMITH:
13 conceptual analysis for the proposed project. 13 Can you repeat the question,
14 Q. And if those plans were inadequate 14 please?
15 from an engineering standpoint, you would not 15 (Requested question read back.)
16 have indicated that they were adequate in 16 THE WITNESS:
17 these letters, would you, sir? 17 If the -- If the preliminary
18 A. I seriously doubt that we would have 18 plans or the advanced plans had
19 been able to determine whether or not those 19 indicated anything about the material,
20 plans were adequate for the -- were adequate 20 we probably would have commented about
21 for the proposed protection. Only to the 21 the use of proposed soils, whether
22 extent that they were adequate for the 22 they were reasonable for levee
23 proposed development of a project. 23 construction or needed to have other
24 Q. From an engineering standpoint then, 24 adjustments.
25 sir, would it be fair to say that the outlines 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH:
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 78 Page 80
1 Q. What about construction methods? If 1 and specifications for the work to be
2 those plans and specifications, advanced plans 2 performed have included a review of the
3 and specifications had revealed construction 3 construction methods that were within those
4 methods such as the use of hydraulic fill, 4 plans?
5 would that have been something your engineers 5 A. If they had included that
6 would have reviewed for adequacy from an 6 information, we probably would have commented
7 engineering perspective? 7 on it, being agreeable or not agreeable
8 A. I think if they had proposed some 8 probably would have asked for meetings with
9 other than normal construction, we would have 9 them to discuss it in more detail.
10 -- procedures, we would have commented on 10 Q. If you had found it to be
11 it. Such as hydraulic fill not being 11 inadequate?
12 appropriate for that type of construction. 12 A. If they had had the information you
13 Q. So if these plans and specifications 13 have talked about, having it, which they
14 indicated that, your letter would have 14 didn't, I'm sure --
15 indicated that your review determined that 15 Q. Well, you don't know, sir, do you,
16 those were adequate for the use for the work 16 whether they were in the advanced plans or
17 that was to be performed. Is that correct? 17 not?
18 MR. O'DONNELL: 18 A. Well, advanced plans by the Corps
19 I'm going to object. There's two 19 never include all of those kind of details.
20 -- It's compound, speculation. If 20 That's not their procedure. The Corps doesn't
21 this, and if that. 21 include construction information and
22 MR. SMITH: 22 construction details in advanced plans and
23 I'll rephrase the question. 23 specifications. They're only general in
24 MR. O'DONNELL: 24 nature and very preliminary in nature. So
25 I think it's unfair to ask the 25 they would have no details that you could grab
Page 79 Page 81
1 witness 30, 40 years later, 20, 30 1 onto or -- or make objection to. Details I'm
2 years later what was in advanced plans 2 talking about. Details of soils and -- They
3 and specifications. If they're so 3 probably would, at the most, it might have
4 readily available on the Internet, why 4 shown where the proposed borrow area was going
5 don't you show them to the witness? 5 to be, but -- and it may not have. It may
6 MR. SMITH: 6 have only had a line on the map and said "This
7 Counsel, you opened the door to 7 is where we propose to build a levee."
8 this. You're the one that asked him 8 Unfortunately, those advanced plans have very
9 what were in these plans. 9 little detail.
10 MR. O'DONNELL: 10 Q. But you don't know specifically what
11 Yes. You're the one who didn't 11 were in these advanced plans, do you, sir?
12 attach it. So I think it's very 12 A. Well, since I am not looking at them
13 unfair. It's a cheap shot. You can 13 and haven't seen them, I don't know what all
14 go ahead, but I think the evidentiary 14 they included.
15 value of this is pretty limited since 15 Q. And you may not have seen them at
16 you didn't show the witness this. 16 the time, --
17 MR. SMITH: 17 A. That's correct.
18 Well, the Court will decide. 18 Q. -- but someone in your office would
19 MR. O'DONNELL: 19 have reviewed them. Isn't that correct, sir?
20 Yes, we sure will. 20 A. That's correct.
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 21 Q. Or you would not have signed this
22 Q. Let me rephrase the question. 22 letter, would you?
23 A. Please. 23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Would the review performed by your 24 Q. And someone in your office
25 office of the adequacy of the advanced plans 25 determined that those plans and specifications
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 82 Page 84
1 were adequate for the work to be performed. 1 MR. O'DONNELL:
2 Isn't that true, sir? 2 What is it, Joe, '83?
3 A. Within the -- Within the context of 3 MR. BRUNO:
4 the information available. 4 The print is very small. It
5 Q. And you were satisfied that that was 5 looks like "'83" but I have --
6 the case or you would not have signed these 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL:
7 letters, would you, sir? 7 Q. All right. And it's one, two,
8 A. That's correct. 8 three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine --
9 MR. SMITH: 9 It says March, M A R, 1983.
10 I have no further questions. 10 (Counsel hands documents to
11 MR. O'DONNELL: 11 Counsel).
12 All right. Just a minute. 12 MR. BAEZA:
13 VIDEO OPERATOR: 13 Is this for 945 through 1113?
14 Go off the record to change 14 MR. SMITH:
15 tape. 15 No. No, it's 945 -- it's 708.
16 (Whereupon a discussion was held 16 MR. BRUNO:
17 off the record.) 17 By the way, Robin, that's the
18 VIDEO OPERATOR: 18 only thing I CAN find on that site, so
19 We're on the record. 19 I may be inept.
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL: 20 MR. SMITH:
21 Q. I have one I want to follow-up. I 21 All right. Thank you.
22 want to mark this as Theis Number 4. Do you 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL:
23 have a little sticker there? 23 Q. Sir, on the website they're
24 Sir, I'm going to show you what we 24 described as as-builts. Okay? Can you tell
25 have marked as Theis Number 4. It came off 25 me what this is, Exhibit 4? In Corps -- I am
Page 83 Page 85
1 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website. 1 not going to ask you to go through the whole
2 Correct. 2 thing, but is this what you understand to be
3 MR. BRUNO: 3 advanced plans and specifications, or
4 Yes, I just pulled it off. 4 something else? And why don't you just look
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. O'DONNELL: 5 through every page.
6 Q. Okay. It is a -- 6 A. The drawings don't show that these
7 MR. SMITH: 7 were final plans or as-built. I don't see the
8 Do you have a copy for me, 8 word "as-built" in there.
9 Counsel? 9 Q. (Indicating).
10 MR. O'DONNELL: 10 A. Oh, I see it. Very -- Pretty faint.
11 I don't. 11 Q. Now, let me ask you this. What are
12 MR. BRUNO: 12 as-built drawings from the Corps in flood
13 I'll show it to you. 13 works projects?
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 A. As-built drawings should be drawings
15 Let me just describe it and I 15 that were made after the completion of all the
16 will show it to you. 16 works or all the levees constructed, all the
17 MR. SMITH: 17 structures are built, everything has been
18 That's fine. 18 completed, supposedly in accordance with the
19 EXAMINATION BY MR. SMITH: 19 plans and specifications, and the as-built
20 Q. It's an Army Corps document. It's 20 would show the areas and what they were --
21 described variously as Lake Pontchartrain 21 what the final conditions were, whether they
22 Louisiana and Vicinity Chalmette area plan 22 actually met all of the project plan's
23 Chalmette extension, which is what we have 23 requirements and specifications and whether or
24 been talking about, hurricane protection 24 not there were any unusual conditions, those
25 levee, second enlargement, 198- -- 25 kind of things.
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 86 Page 88
1 Q. Do as-builts come later in the 1 certify that it is a true and correct
2 process than advanced plans and 2 transcription of my testimony, with the
3 specifications? 3 exception of any attached corrections or
4 changes.
4 A. The as-builts should be the final 5
5 drawings for a project before it is rendered 6
6 complete and made part of the record. _____________________
7 Q. Okay. The last page -- So if you 7 (Witness' Signature)
8 wanted to know what the soil classification 8 ____________
9 was for the section that was built -- Would DATE SIGNED
9
10 you look at page 9? Is that indicated here on 10 DEPONENT PLEASE INITIAL ONE:
11 Exhibit 4, the as-built? The last page. Does 11
12 it show the soil compositions, for example? _____ Read with no corrections
13 A. Well, the unified soil 12
14 classification is only a chart showing what 13 _____ Read and correction sheet attached
15 the standard nomenclature is for the various 14
15
16 type soils. The actual information with DATE TAKEN: NOVEMBER 8, 2007
17 regard to the site is shown on the previous 16
18 page, where they have the soil borings at the 17
19 various -- indicates at the various locations 18
20 or various stations. 19
21 Q. Okay. 20
21
22 A. And those soils would show then the 22
23 type soils in accordance with that unified 23
24 soil classifications and the various strengths 24
25 associated that they assigned to those soils 25
Page 87 Page 89
1 at the various levels. 1
2 Q. Okay. In the five letters that we 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
3 showed you, did any of them indicate that they 3
4 were as-built drawings or plans? 4 I, ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, RDR, CRR,
5 A. No. They were -- They -- The 5 Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify
6 letters refer to advanced plans and 6 that the above-named witness, after having
7 specifications, which, as I indicated, were 7 been first duly sworn by me to testify to the
8 strictly preliminary information, not anything 8 truth, did testify as hereinabove set forth;
9 associated with this data. 9 that the testimony was reported by me in
10 Q. The as-built, Exhibit 4? 10 shorthand and transcribed under my personal
11 A. The as-builts are the final 11 direction and supervision, and is a true and
12 product. The advanced plans are the initial 12 correct transcript, to the best of my ability
13 product. 13 and understanding; that I am not of counsel,
14 MR. O'DONNELL: 14 not related to counsel or the parties hereto,
15 Okay. Thank you. Nothing 15 and not in any way interested in the outcome
16 further. 16 of this matter.
17 MR. SMITH: 17
18 Nothing further. 18
19 VIDEO OPERATOR: 19
20 End of the deposition. 20 ROGER D. JOHNS
21 * * * 21 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER
22 WITNESS'S CERTIFICATE 22 STATE OF LOUISIANA
23 23
24 I, ARTHUR R. THEIS, read or have had the 24
25 preceding testimony read to me, and hereby 25
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 90
A advanced 57:4 58:9 apparently 59:23 asked 9:15 11:25 authority 34:5
ability 7:12 35:23 58:17 59:11 60:9 appear 59:17 72:2 38:1 54:5 79:8 64:11
89:12 63:14 64:10 66:7 72:4 80:8 authorized 26:14
able 7:4 54:7 75:19 66:11,12,14 68:19 appearance 34:2 asking 19:11,12,24 availability 35:14
above-named 89:6 69:13 70:2 71:25 APPEARANCES 19:25 21:1,3 available 41:22
accepted 36:21 74:12,18,21 75:2 2:1 aspect 24:13 43:6 54:6,12 79:4
37:14 75:8 77:18 78:2 appeared 59:25 aspects 16:20 19:2 82:4
access 67:24 79:2,25 80:16,18 appearing 19:4 35:19 Avenue 2:9
accomplish 16:6 80:22 81:8,11 appears 9:23 55:10 assigned 86:25 aware 25:7,13
accomplished 52:4 85:3 86:2 87:6,12 appreciate 40:20 assignment 9:11 40:10
accomplishing affect 7:10 approach 17:16 assist 15:15 22:12
affirmatively 8:23 24:25 34:7 B
35:14
accurate 28:25 aforementioned appropriate 63:17 assistance 45:8 B 67:1
acquainted 37:22 3:3 64:19 78:12 Assistant 21:21 back 30:5 45:12
action 1:5,10 66:16 age 7:16 approximately 22:10 23:5 24:3 48:8,17,24 49:1,8
activities 12:21 agencies 26:4 28:18 22:5 32:16 24:17 25:4 30:6 49:8,12,23 55:1
15:18,23 27:3 agency 33:13,13 April 63:8 66:5 31:24 64:15 77:15
28:21 31:16 34:3 ago 9:17 73:8 assisting 22:15,22 background 9:8
36:14 44:2 53:16 agree 7:23 9:10 architect 69:22 38:24 36:19
76:16 10:21 17:13 area 9:9 11:12,13 associated 8:12 Baeza 2:8 5:16,17
activity 43:7 agreeable 80:7,7 15:20 24:24 33:22 44:15 86:25 87:9 84:12
actual 42:14 86:16 agreed 3:2 36:16 37:21 41:15 Associates 2:2 5:10 bank 52:15 76:15
addition 46:1 48:14 agricultural 45:15 41:20 43:6 45:22 assumed 36:17 Baronne 2:13
55:22 ahead 23:15 25:11 47:16 48:25 50:1 as-built 85:7,8,12 barrier 24:25
additional 61:20 28:5 30:3 79:14 50:2 51:6 52:14 85:14,19 86:11 based 9:4 13:21
62:25 aid 31:4 57:1,7 59:14 87:4,10 36:24 53:21 55:12
adequacy 12:14,17 Alexandria 45:25 60:11 66:25 69:23 as-builts 84:24 64:16 74:19
37:10 59:21 72:11 alignment 60:22,22 71:5 74:2 81:4 86:1,4 87:11 baseline 60:12
75:9 78:6 79:25 70:12,13 76:9 83:22 Atchafalaya 44:23 basic 74:23
adequate 12:15 aloud 59:7 areas 8:13 24:24 46:5,15 Basin 31:17 32:7
34:10 35:17 36:9 Alzheimer's 7:15 33:14 46:1 48:14 attach 79:12 44:23 45:13 46:5
37:7 58:23 59:3 ambiguous 58:14 50:3,9 53:18 attached 9:24 50:21 68:11
59:18 60:14 72:4 58:15 60:23 69:14 85:20 27:13 88:3,13 basins 44:10
75:16,20,20,22 amount 12:18 16:5 Arkansas 22:21 attachment 10:5 basis 55:17,21
76:3,22 78:16 34:15 40:7 43:22 45:25 attachments 10:1 Baton 1:20 6:3
82:1 45:14 47:7 armoring 67:18,20 attempt 26:13 Bayou 43:10,10
adjacent 8:13 analysis 12:21 36:1 Army 17:19 23:2 attempting 62:18 57:2,3,8,8,13,17
11:12 47:16 48:7 41:7 75:11,13 26:10,16,19 66:6 ATTENDANCE 58:3,5 59:15,16
57:21 76:11 Angeles 2:4 68:4,6 69:24 2:16 71:6,6,9,14,19,20
adjustments 77:24 Angola 45:9 70:20 71:4 73:10 attention 13:18 71:22
administering 3:12 answer 3:8 13:11 83:1,20 27:5 31:3,5 32:13 beach 41:24
administration 17:6 35:6 40:19 Arnold 27:5,6 56:23 63:7 before-mentioned
22:13 62:12 77:6 Arpent 49:2,13 ATTORNEYS 2:4 6:5
adopt 53:1 anticipated 60:3 arrows 10:17 2:10,19 began 19:19
advance 64:16 67:21 70:12 Arthur 1:19 5:3 6:2 August 40:23 begun 36:1
apart 37:2 87:24 auspices 41:1 53:13 believe 29:6 31:22

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 91
48:1 57:9 65:20 built 36:7 85:17 Chantrey 56:12 21:16 construction 11:24
benefit 71:15 86:9 60:8 63:13 compact 22:20 12:24 14:7,14,20
Bernard 31:18 characteristic 32:24 67:12 19:14 20:10 25:6
48:9 59:17 60:14 C 72:21 compacts 22:19 33:16 34:1,16
63:25 64:6,7 Caernarvon 48:12 chart 86:14 company 37:21 35:12 37:12,13,15
best 89:12 49:8 51:8,10 cheap 79:13 complete 18:23 37:24 39:22 52:22
Betsy 47:4,10,13 Cairo 30:2 check 45:21 35:4 86:6 53:12 55:23 58:4
50:2,9,10,14,15 California 2:4 Chief 21:21 22:10 completed 85:18 60:2 66:18 67:4
50:23 52:1,5,8,20 call 20:5 32:10 22:15,25 23:5 completely 36:11 68:3 77:23 78:1,3
52:23 65:22 called 45:7 65:20 24:3,17 25:4 26:5 completion 85:15 78:9,12 80:3,21
beyond 37:4 Calls 17:4 26:7,11,17,20 compositions 86:12 80:22
Bienvenue 43:10 Canal 1:5 21:10 30:4,6 31:24 compound 78:20 consult 19:1 22:2
57:3,8,13,24 49:2,13 58:2 32:14,20 56:6 concept 58:20 Consultants 39:6
59:15 71:6,10 60:25 civil 1:5,10 2:7 3:4 69:23 39:12,16
biographical 9:25 canals 24:22,23 11:17 conceptual 72:12 consultation 27:1
bit 30:3 cap 67:16 classification 86:8 75:13 consulted 23:2
blue 49:17 50:12 capabilities 36:12 86:14 conceptualization contact 26:16,22
Board 25:22 30:19 36:18 classifications 66:22 29:7 30:18 31:20
31:1,7,9,17 32:9,9 capability 36:5 86:24 concern 52:14 32:2,5
34:7 68:12 carry 28:9,13 clay 67:15 concerning 15:25 contained 74:17
Boards 32:3,6 34:8 case 6:11 8:3,8,15 clear 19:10 48:22 16:9 17:20,22 75:1
34:11,21 38:23 34:8 35:25 53:20 54:4 18:12,16 19:2 contents 74:12
boat 41:22 42:21 82:6 closure 58:10 60:3 23:3 26:18 32:3 context 82:3
43:4,10 Cases 1:6 closures 59:16 71:7 39:22 53:11 continuous 26:16
Borgne 31:17 32:6 caused 45:13 coastal 15:21 conditions 36:22 26:21 29:6
50:21 57:22 68:11 caveat 77:6 collection 66:1 43:24 72:20 85:21 contract 16:6 41:5
71:17 Center 41:7,23 69:15 85:24 42:10
borings 86:18 Certainly 55:25 combination 72:19 conduct 38:13 control 15:21 16:1
borrow 66:19 81:4 CERTIFICATE combined 33:13 conducted 55:14 28:19 29:25 34:3
bottom 51:4 87:22 89:2 combining 33:5 conferred 23:2 44:15 45:10 46:3
BRANCH 2:7 certification 3:6 come 6:12 71:11 Congress 65:22 58:6 71:22
breach 41:20 42:16 Certified 2:24 3:11 86:1 72:15 73:3 cooperation 12:5
42:24 44:7 89:5,21 commented 16:15 Congressional 19:5 cooperative 28:16
breaches 1:5 46:22 certify 88:1 89:5 20:24 76:12 77:20 considerable 38:20 coordinate 23:15
break 65:1 cetera 19:6 34:1,13 78:10 80:6 45:13 47:7 coordinated 23:13
brief 65:1 45:15 commenting 72:11 consideration 25:1 coordination 26:12
broad 15:20 28:22 Chalmette 49:23 73:6 36:17 copy 9:21 83:8
brought 13:18 71:6 51:11 57:1 59:14 comments 12:6,8 considered 72:20 Corps 16:14 17:19
BRUNO 2:11,12 60:11 63:22 66:8 16:18 24:9 36:22 Consolidated 1:5,6 18:12,16 19:18
54:24 69:6 83:3 68:5,9 69:23 38:24 55:22 56:21 consolidation 33:3 20:21 22:17 23:3
83:12 84:3,16 83:22,23 56:21 64:15 70:21 constructed 11:11 23:19 24:13 25:25
Buchler 2:12 5:21 chance 56:2 committees 19:5 12:11 24:16,18 26:10,14,16,19
5:22 change 82:14 22:24 25:3 30:8 38:6 27:3 29:10 30:18
build 81:7 changes 17:14 88:4 communicate 39:18 40:25 50:8 30:22 31:20 32:3
building 19:19 channel 9:7 37:25 17:18 51:1 52:10,12,20 35:20 37:21 38:21
61:19,20 61:1 communicating 85:16 40:8 41:1 46:4

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 92
51:13 53:13 56:12 curriculum 15:7 described 46:7 27:4 32:13 38:11 58:20 67:5 76:18
58:21 64:14,15 C.V 22:2,6 26:2 83:21 84:24 63:6 85:6,12,14,14
66:6,15 68:4,6 27:11,12,12,18,22 description 28:25 directed 22:24 26:3 86:5 87:4
69:24 70:20 71:4 44:25 35:3 71:5 73:20 directing 28:15,16 drive 1:20 6:3 43:8
72:9 73:4,10 design 37:2 62:20 28:18 56:23 duly 6:4 89:7
74:20 77:3 80:18 D designed 12:5 direction 37:6 Dupre 43:11 57:3,8
80:20 83:1,20 D 2:7,23 3:11 4:1 designs 37:9 89:11 57:17,25 58:3,5
84:25 85:12 89:4,20 desired 35:5 directly 26:1 59:16 71:6,14,19
correct 10:6,7 15:9 daily 30:17,21 destroyed 44:8 disasters 28:20 71:20,22
15:10 22:5 24:4 31:20 destruction 43:22 discuss 9:1 24:13 duties 15:11,13
26:5 29:11 39:7 damage 8:13 44:15 43:23 80:9 22:9 30:4 32:19
43:2 49:24 54:2 45:14 47:7 detail 53:17 80:9 discussed 9:3 24:11 DUVAL 1:7
61:6,9 63:2,5,9 damages 48:14,16 81:9 32:24 36:25 D.C 2:9
66:23 67:3 68:5 Dan 2:8 5:17 detailed 40:16 67:4 discusses 66:6
68:20,21 69:16 data 18:13 87:9 68:2,3 discussion 82:16 E
71:11 72:1 74:1 date 8:20 45:6 88:8 details 34:1,16 37:8 distance 70:15 E 4:1
78:17 81:17,19,20 88:15 37:12 58:18 66:18 distance-wise earlier 18:3 32:24
81:23 82:8 83:2 dated 63:8 66:5 67:7,20 71:1 57:20 early 8:21
88:1 89:12 71:3 80:19,22,25 81:1 district 1:1,2 14:25 earthen 11:11
correction 88:13 dates 22:5 42:4 81:2 15:2,3,4,12,13 East 24:24 41:16
corrections 88:3,11 44:21 determine 12:14 16:11 17:20 18:7 EASTERN 1:2
correspondence day-to-day 27:2,3 16:5,19 34:1 18:8 19:16,20 effort 36:24
27:2 dealt 34:14 35:16 36:6,15,20 20:12 21:17 23:16 efforts 28:16
cost 35:13 Dear 60:8 63:13 37:6 58:22 75:9 23:22,25 24:2,6 eight 84:8
counsel 2:14 3:2 December 70:19 75:19 26:23 29:15,16 either 30:13 34:19
5:11 54:18 79:7 decide 79:18 determined 59:2 31:17,21,23,25 36:21 51:25
83:9 84:10,11 decided 33:2 72:7 76:21 78:15 32:1 33:21,22 elaborate 35:6
89:13,14 declaration 9:4,16 81:25 34:19 36:2 38:19 elevation 36:15,20
couple 43:8 73:15 9:21,24 10:5 determining 36:13 47:5 50:5,21 37:2,7
course 13:20 34:11 27:14 53:20 55:9 develop 16:3 26:13 68:11 69:2 elevations 34:16
50:16 55:22 62:14 defective 34:23 62:18 districts 22:14 embankment 11:11
62:17 70:24 35:1 developed 18:6,10 31:23 emergency 28:18
courses 57:24 deficiency 17:2 24:12 35:19 41:5 division 2:7 29:10 employed 11:16,18
court 1:1 2:24 3:11 deficient 16:24 42:10 45:10 50:20 29:13,14 31:15 37:19 38:9,12
5:9,25 6:5,15,21 department 2:6 60:24 Dock 25:22 30:19 39:5 45:17 68:15
10:9 40:22 49:17 15:5,14 21:21 developer 17:11 31:1,6 68:12 employee 14:11,18
79:18 89:5,21 25:18 28:14 29:3 developing 19:7 document 83:20 employment 11:20
cover 30:21 77:3 32:1,7,11,21 33:4 26:25 33:13 42:12 documents 84:10 12:23 13:20 14:5
covers 15:19,20 33:6,7 34:6,21 development 12:3 doing 14:2 27:6 14:25 39:13
28:23 48:6 38:17 41:5 50:20 15:16,21 18:4,25 55:4 emptied 58:3
criteria 12:12 56:17,19,20 63:13 19:7,11 22:19,23 door 79:7 enacted 72:15
cross 33:25 34:17 64:12 68:14,18 24:25 28:21 33:8 DOTD 33:7 41:5 engaged 43:18,19
74:2 DEPONENT 88:10 33:9 38:21,22 doubt 75:18 43:21
CRR 2:23 3:11 deposition 1:18 3:3 40:4 41:6 44:1 dozen 42:17 55:14 engineer 11:17
89:4 3:8 5:3 87:20 68:14 75:23 drainage 15:20 14:11,25 15:2,3
CSR 2:23 describe 83:15 direct 11:22 21:9 drawings 12:13 15:12,13 16:12

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 93
17:20 18:7,8 ESQ 2:2,7,8,12,12 explain 25:15 89:7 74:6 82:10 87:16
19:16,20 20:12 2:17,18 29:22 five 22:14 31:23 87:18
21:17,21 22:11,16 essentially 57:24 extension 63:23 66:1 69:13 84:8 future 62:19 76:16
22:25 23:6,25 et 19:5 34:1,13 83:23 87:2
24:3,17 25:4 26:5 45:15 extent 72:10 75:22 flood 13:2 14:21 G
26:7,11,17,20 event 73:13 76:8 15:20,25 17:22 general 34:2 37:14
30:4 31:21,25 eventually 52:12 exterior 11:15 19:14 25:2 26:18 40:9,9,11 58:20
32:20 34:19 37:22 evidence 3:9 28:19 29:25 34:3 66:17 67:20 74:20
38:20 45:22 47:5 evidentiary 79:14 F 36:6,9,13 37:7,17 80:23
50:5 56:7 exact 8:20 51:12 fact 71:18 38:5,5,14 39:17 generally 22:23
engineering 12:9 exactly 60:16 61:2 failed 50:1 39:23 44:15 45:10 29:2 42:20 49:1
12:12 14:3 15:15 61:17 failure 47:1 46:2 53:12 72:11 49:12 65:24 66:15
15:17,24 16:9,20 examination 4:11 failures 41:8,13,14 85:12 72:22 76:10
16:21 17:15 25:20 4:12,13,14 6:7 47:12,14 48:13 flooding 8:11 45:15 generic 53:3
25:23,24 26:3 7:20 13:16 17:17 50:4 46:23 give 7:4,24 10:9
28:15,16 32:10,12 19:9 25:16 27:10 faint 85:10 floods 11:14 44:12 54:9
33:24 34:3 37:8 27:21 28:2,6 fair 31:10 69:9 45:1,12 53:7 given 1:21
37:15 45:8 56:13 29:21 46:21 47:21 75:25 Florian 2:12 5:22 gives 63:24
70:7 73:20 75:11 48:20 49:10 53:10 fairly 28:24 focus 31:2,5 giving 6:24
75:12,15,24 76:3 55:8 62:21 65:16 familiar 60:17 follows 6:6 GIWW 10:20
78:7 69:11,21 74:7 65:18 72:22,24 follow-up 74:8 71:13
engineers 11:22 77:5,10,25 79:21 far 24:25 44:5 82:21 glad 8:1
16:15 17:19 18:16 82:20 83:5,19 features 35:17 forensic 41:7 go 12:2 23:15 25:11
19:19 22:18 23:3 84:6,22 Federal 3:4 22:18 forgotten 30:15 28:5 30:5 41:23
25:25 26:10,17,19 examining 66:7 26:4 28:17 36:18 form 3:7 33:6 42:19 54:22 65:25
29:11 30:18 32:15 example 66:24 49:25 50:6,8,11 formalities 3:5,6 70:1,14 71:2
37:21 39:6,11,12 86:12 50:14,25 51:3,15 formalize 54:25 79:14 82:14 85:1
39:16 40:3,5,8 exception 88:3 68:4,6 forth 55:2 89:8 goes 7:16 49:7 58:3
41:1 53:13 64:15 excuse 61:13 feet 70:17 fortunate 41:21 going 6:15,17,21
66:6 69:24 72:9 exhibit 4:3,4,5 9:19 field 40:11 found 13:22 16:22 9:18 10:12 13:3
76:20 78:5 83:1 10:13 47:25 48:5 file 63:14 27:25 34:23 80:10 19:4 33:12 40:10
enlarg 62:11 50:24 56:1,24 filing 3:6 four 22:20 32:24 52:25 54:9 60:25
enlarged 61:12,13 57:11 58:8 65:25 fill 78:4,11 84:8 61:22 62:6 69:4
enlargement 60:12 68:20 69:15 71:9 final 18:5,20 19:8 frame 33:1,11 70:13 71:9 78:19
61:11,15,16,18,23 71:18,21 75:4 19:11 85:7,21 42:18 81:4 82:24 85:1
62:16 63:2,24 84:25 86:11 87:10 86:4 87:11 front 66:3 good 6:8,9 7:19
66:9 73:16,16 exist 77:2 find 54:7,8 60:14 full 12:20 41:22
83:25 existed 50:19 61:3 63:17 64:18 84:18 function 13:2 gotten 30:3
enlargements existing 43:24 fine 11:7 20:6,9 funding 16:5 government 36:18
62:19 61:21 62:23 22:3 53:7,9 62:9 furnished 33:16 38:23 39:1
entities 15:25 20:23 expect 21:2,5 56:11 83:18 59:12 63:15 64:14 grab 80:25
39:14 experience 36:19 finger 48:21 furnishes 74:21 grade 62:17
entity 31:11 55:24 first 27:22 39:8 furnishing 56:13 Great 65:4
entrance 57:22 expert 62:7 69:7 43:15 59:5 60:6 64:16 greater 72:18
71:16 expertise 15:17,25 60:12 61:11,16,18 further 26:25 guess 7:15 9:17
erected 37:17 16:9 36:5 37:5 63:11 66:5 73:15 59:19 70:9,10 10:19 27:16,17

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 94
35:25 I 37:3 47:24 48:19 investigations 74:20,25

Gulf 8:10 9:5 10:18 identification 9:20 48:21 49:9 51:3 42:11 44:18 known 30:23
14:8,15 19:15 identified 61:7 85:9 involved 21:12
30:9 39:5,9,12,14 indication 61:10 32:22 41:14 L
identify 44:16
39:15,19 40:2,5 identifying 61:5 inept 84:19 itinerary 30:21 L 3:1
41:2,19 IHNC 47:18 48:6 inform 34:21 lake 16:9 17:25
information 9:8 J 18:16 19:25 20:21
52:17
H 16:13 18:12,15 Jefferson 21:10 23:3,9,24 24:19
illustrate 11:1
half 42:17 55:13 immediately 47:16 21:9 23:18 33:24 41:17 31:5,17 32:6 40:4
hand 9:18 50:17,18 52:4,7 33:25 34:8 40:9 Joe 84:2 44:5 50:21 51:13
hands 84:10 import 8:6 53:21 55:13,21 John 2:21 5:7 57:22 58:4 59:13
Harbor 60:25 improved 51:15,19 56:14 67:19,20,25 Johns 2:23 3:11 5:9 60:10 65:18 68:10
hard 20:18 51:22 52:1 68:2 69:18 74:23 5:10 89:4,20 71:17 72:15 83:21
Hart 2:21 5:8 improvement 76:5 80:6,12,21 82:4 Johnson 65:23 Lakeview 1:20 6:3
head 7:1 40:17,19 improvements 35:9 86:16 87:8 JOSEPH 2:11,12 Lambert 1:22 2:17
hear 63:4 inadequate 13:1,22 informed 14:1 17:1 JUDGE 1:7 2:17 5:4,19
heart 7:9 14:1 16:24 17:10 17:9,11 July 59:13 lands 45:15
height 62:25 73:24 34:24 35:2 75:14 initial 18:4 87:12 junction 71:12 latitude 38:20
held 82:16 80:11 88:10 jurisdiction 45:23 law 2:11 3:4
help 6:24 12:10 inappropriate ink 49:18 JUSTICE 2:6 layer 73:23
40:21 76:25 Inner 60:25 leading 69:5
hereinabove 89:8 insomuch 58:16 K leave 39:1
include 80:19,21 K 1:7
hereto 3:2 89:14 included 22:14 inspect 41:25 left 39:3
high 11:14 44:20 inspection 38:14 Katrina 1:5 8:12 legislature 22:24
41:15 76:10 80:2 50:16,23 51:16,19
44:21 80:5 81:14 inspections 38:17 33:2
highway 33:5,9 42:13 52:2 54:13 length 10:17
incomplete 58:16 keep 10:8
Hope 2:3 incorporated 39:6 instance 43:7 45:9 letter 56:22,24 59:4
Hugh 2:17 5:19 Institute 39:10,15 kept 40:10 59:5,12 60:7 63:7
51:10 kind 34:17 36:14
hurricane 8:12 increase 62:22,24 interest 20:20 63:8,12,16,19,20
16:10 18:1,17 25:19 35:11,15,20 43:11 67:22,24 64:9 66:5 70:2,18
increasing 73:24 80:19 85:25
20:1 41:7,22 42:8 74:2 37:1 38:22 70:19 71:3 73:6,7
43:16 44:2 47:4,9 indicate 47:18 interested 31:13 kinds 15:18 73:8 77:4 78:14
47:13 50:2,9,10 40:3 89:15 knew 30:13,14 81:22
50:24 56:18,25 know 7:6 8:5 18:9
50:22,23 52:1,8 58:8 59:20,25 interests 15:15 letters 56:5,9 66:1
52:23 54:13 57:2 17:1,10 22:16 19:18 20:7,10 73:15 75:4,17
60:19 61:11 63:20 23:8 25:2 30:7,12
59:15 60:11 61:23 64:5 87:3 34:12 82:7 87:2,6
62:2 63:23 65:19 indicated 11:3 13:4 interior 24:22 38:16,19 46:13 let's 14:24 54:22
65:22 72:16 83:24 Internet 54:12,23 51:20,21,25 52:3 57:10 65:25 70:1
26:24 35:25 60:23 52:9,21 57:20
hurricanes 36:14 69:14 75:16 77:19 79:4 71:2
hurricane-induced intersection 10:20 60:16 61:1,2 64:3 levee 11:9,10,10
78:14,15 86:10 64:22 70:15 80:15
47:1 87:7 introduce 5:11 21:11 31:9,16,17
hydraulic 78:4,11 inundation 11:15 81:10,13 86:8 32:3,6,9,9 34:7,7
indicates 10:14 knowledge 9:5,9
hypothetical 13:8 15:7 64:7,13 investigated 44:9 34:21 37:15,25
62:5 46:25 48:15 50:4 14:16 19:21 36:20 38:2,23 41:8,13
70:19 86:19 39:22 40:9,11,16
H8-29808 63:15 indicating 10:17 investigation 41:10 44:8,13 47:1,8,12
44:4 53:11,14 68:16 47:14 48:9,25

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 95
49:2,9,13,13,22 looked 44:25 47:12 66:19 67:8,10,13 MRGO 10:12,15 normal 16:21 27:1
50:4,14,19,21,25 looking 43:21 76:19 10:23,24 11:2,5 34:2 78:9
51:3,15 52:10 81:12 matter 7:5 12:4 12:25 14:22 19:19 normally 24:10
53:2 55:23 57:2 looks 46:12 71:22 89:16 25:3,21 30:19 25:19 57:6 58:2
58:10 59:15,16 84:5 mean 13:15 24:18 31:1,3 37:18 61:19 73:22
60:3,12,13,22,22 Los 2:4 35:24 40:18 50:13 39:24 41:16 42:16 northwestern
61:12,14,24 62:3 loss 44:14 45:14 50:15,17 52:6 42:24 51:6 52:16 57:14
63:23 66:8 68:11 Louisiana 1:2,21 70:6 58:4 60:12 70:13 note 77:5
70:12 71:7 76:17 1:23 2:13,19,21 means 61:17 71:12 76:12,14 November 1:23 5:6
77:22 81:7 83:25 2:24 3:11 5:6,8 measurement MR&T 29:14,19 88:15
levees 11:24 12:25 6:4 8:11 11:17,21 70:11 number 4:3,4,5
13:4 14:7,14 12:24 13:21 14:6 medication 7:7,8 N 9:19 10:13 37:23
19:19 30:8 33:16 14:19 15:1,4 meet 24:12 26:22 N 3:1 4:1 44:12 46:4 48:1,6
34:11 35:8 44:14 21:22 22:11,15,18 35:13,20 name 5:7,14 6:10 48:13,15 50:24
45:14 48:17,17 22:21 25:18 26:14 meeting 22:16 natural 28:19 56:2,24 57:15,19
49:23 50:1,6,7,8 32:15,23 37:19 meetings 22:17 nature 33:18 70:25 58:8 63:14 71:18
50:11 52:16,22 38:13 41:4 43:1 80:8 74:22 80:24,24 75:4 82:22,25
85:16 44:11,12 45:18 members 42:22,25 navigation 15:21 numbers 60:18,20
levels 36:13 87:1 47:3 55:15 56:7 memory 44:24 19:23,24 31:4,4 63:24 64:1 70:5
liaison 2:14 26:9 59:14,17 60:10 Memphis 29:16 60:25 NW 2:9
lift 73:23 68:13 83:22 89:22 mention 45:19 near 52:17 71:12
lifts 73:21 Louisiana's 53:16 mentioning 46:2 71:16 O
limited 79:15 Lower 29:9,12 met 16:20 85:22 necessarily 17:13 O 3:1
LINDA 2:18 LPV 20:5,7,11 meteorological 24:9 25:14 34:14 oath 3:12 6:13
line 45:25 48:10 65:20 72:20 73:13 58:15 object 13:7 52:25
49:6 50:24 63:19 LSU 41:6,22 42:11 methods 78:1,4 need 10:10 22:3 62:1 69:4 76:24
81:6 42:20 80:3 27:8 54:25 78:19
linear 70:11 metropolitan 41:15 needed 25:21 26:25 objection 17:4
LITIGATION 1:5 M mid 15:5 45:21 77:23 25:10 69:20 81:1
little 30:3 33:3 M 2:11,12 84:9 mind 59:8 69:5 needs 16:3 35:21 objections 3:7
58:18 81:9 82:23 MAG 1:8 minute 82:12 negatively 40:17 obligation 12:2
local 15:15,25 17:1 Magazine 1:22 Mississippi 8:10 Nelson 1:22 2:17 obtained 53:22
17:9 20:20 22:16 2:18 5:5 9:5 10:18 14:8,15 2:18 5:5 55:13
23:17 25:19 28:17 major 45:1 19:15 29:9,12,23 never 80:19 obviously 77:2
34:11 35:11,11,15 making 6:17,22 29:25 30:9 39:19 new 1:22 2:13,19 occasion 40:24
35:20 37:1 38:22 mandated 73:3 41:2,19 44:11,19 5:5 23:16,22 24:6 occasionally 24:12
50:7 68:8 map 10:14 11:1 45:8 46:8 48:16 24:23 25:22 26:23 26:22
located 5:5 47:18 49:18 81:6 modifications 29:15 31:25 33:14 occasions 32:12
location 35:17 March 63:16 84:9 17:14 33:22 36:1 41:8 37:24 42:15 44:17
66:17,19,21 76:10 mark 48:24 82:22 month 9:17 42:5,9 41:14,16 47:5,8 45:3 46:7
locations 35:7 marked 9:19 10:13 months 42:6,8,14 59:24 69:1 72:18 occurred 31:16
41:25 43:8 86:19 50:12 56:1 69:15 54:18 nine 84:8 42:2 43:23 45:2
long 62:9 82:25 morning 6:8,9 7:22 Ninth 47:15 48:8 occurrence 42:14
longer 69:10 matches 57:21 mouthful 20:5 nodding 7:1 oceanography
look 27:12 28:7 material 77:19 move 54:22 nomenclature 70:6 36:12
33:23 85:4 86:10 materials 43:25 MRG 30:18 86:15 October 73:7

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 96
offer 59:19 33:22 36:2 41:9 29:5 45:1 55:10 79:24 80:2 82:1 81:8,11,25 85:3,7
offered 37:23 41:15,16,16 47:5 59:5,9 60:7 63:11 period 14:24 15:1 85:19 86:2 87:4,6
office 5:4 23:17,17 47:8,15 48:7,10 parallel 70:13 24:16 30:5 32:14 87:12
23:22 24:6,7 26:1 59:16,24 69:1 Pardon 59:1 72:23 32:16 33:17 39:13 plan's 85:22
26:4,24 29:16 72:18 Paris 43:7 48:11 42:18 Plaquemines 47:9
33:17,19,21,22,23 Ouach 46:9 parish 21:10 31:18 peripheral 40:1 48:18
35:22,23 36:2,6 Ouachita 44:22 38:23 41:17 47:9 personal 74:25 please 5:11,25
56:19,25 58:8,22 46:10,11,11 47:15 48:7,9,10 89:10 25:17 29:20,22
59:22,24 60:8 outcome 89:15 48:18 60:14 63:25 personally 41:11 59:4,5 60:6,7
64:18 69:2 74:14 Outlet 8:10 9:6 64:6,7 68:18 69:12 77:14 79:23 88:10
75:3,7 76:3,7 10:18 14:8,15 Parishes 59:17 personnel 12:20 plus 64:2,3 70:6,7
79:25 81:18,24 19:15 30:10 39:19 part 3:8 19:22 perspective 76:4 point 9:13 62:3
offices 1:21 2:11 41:2,19 29:10 31:18 33:9 78:7 73:20
29:15 35:24 outlines 75:25 41:3 47:6 48:7 pertain 63:21 pointing 51:4
officiated 3:12 overall 8:5 19:3 50:12,13 51:2,10 Pierce 2:2 5:19 policies 28:14
Oh 62:14 85:10 22:12 40:3 61:18 51:13,15 55:14 PLAINTIFF 2:14 Pontchartrain
Oh-chita 46:12 overmarked 49:15 86:6 Plaintiffs 2:4,19 16:10 17:25 18:17
Okay 11:8 22:8 oversee 32:21 participants 12:19 5:20,23 8:15,19 20:1,21 23:4,10
29:5 53:19 54:11 overseer 29:13 participate 12:3 Plaintiff's 54:18 23:24 24:19 31:6
55:7 65:25 66:11 O'Donnell 2:2,2 27:2 plan 25:1 57:2 40:4 44:6 51:14
67:23 68:1,17,22 4:12,14 5:18,19 participated 19:3 59:14 60:11 83:22 59:13 60:10 65:18
70:1,18 71:2,14 7:17 8:25 9:13,22 25:14 planned 60:1,2 72:16 83:21
72:3,10 73:14,24 10:4 13:6 17:3 particular 9:6 planning 19:2 porosity 67:10
83:6 84:24 86:7 18:19 25:9 27:7 56:22 60:18 61:5 28:15 35:19 36:24 portion 10:23
86:21 87:2,15 27:19,23,24 28:4 63:20 66:25 40:4,6 68:5 45:24
Oklahoma 22:21 29:18 46:14 47:19 particularly 26:23 plans 11:23 12:2,22 position 21:24
once 54:23 48:2 49:3 52:24 parties 3:2 89:14 13:19,25 14:6,13 possibly 25:13
ones 31:19 53:6 54:3,21 passed 24:6,10 14:19 16:4,23 38:24
ongoing 39:23 61:25 62:8,13 65:21 17:12 18:5,20,24 practically 33:4
opened 79:7 65:3,16 69:8,11 pen 48:23 49:18 19:8,12,13 23:9 41:12
operations 28:19 69:21 74:5 76:23 Pendleton 5:10 23:11,23 33:15 practice 39:4
42:10 78:18,24 79:10,19 Pennsylvania 2:9 34:13,22 36:7,23 preceding 87:25
operator 5:1,24 82:11,20 83:5,10 people 12:1,5 13:3 39:17 53:17,25 preliminary 57:6
42:21 65:5,8 83:14 84:1,6,22 14:2,3 37:5 40:2 55:20 56:15 57:1 59:24 66:16,21,21
82:13,18 87:19 87:14 percent 35:12 57:4,6 58:9,17,23 70:25 74:22 77:17
opinion 13:1,22,24 O'Donnell's 74:16 perform 37:16 59:11,17,25 60:9 80:24 87:8
55:9,12 61:22 61:8 63:14,21 prepare 9:14,15
opinions 8:16 P performed 12:16 64:10,17,18 66:7 prepared 9:22 12:1
55:18 P 3:1 13:23 16:25 24:5 66:12,14 68:19 16:14 19:13 56:10
opportunity 7:25 page 4:2 27:16,18 26:19 28:23 32:4 69:13 70:2,21 56:11 66:15
original 19:22 27:20,25 29:6 33:19,21 34:25 71:25 72:4,13 PRESENT 2:16
Orleans 1:23 2:13 49:21 55:10 56:23 38:17 50:15 58:24 74:12,18,21 75:2 presented 12:23
2:19 5:6 21:10 58:7 60:6,6 63:7 59:18,21 60:15 75:7,8,14,20 76:1 President 65:23
23:16,22 24:6,23 85:5 86:7,10,11 61:14 63:18 64:11 77:1,18,18 78:2,2 pretty 7:19 28:22
25:22 26:23 29:16 86:18 64:20 72:5,8 73:9 78:13 79:2,9,25 79:15 85:10
31:16,25 32:8,9 paragraph 28:1,7 75:10 76:22 78:17 80:4,16,18,22 previous 86:17

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 97
previously 36:25 40:5 41:3 44:6 provides 74:21 61:5 62:19 63:20 region 72:21
primarily 29:13 45:11 51:15 62:20 providing 34:12 71:10,10 72:1 regular 32:2
32:6,21 47:15 63:17 65:19 70:12 35:4 36:9 42:21 read 28:11 59:4,7 related 8:9,11 9:7
53:14 55:19,21 70:16,16 72:17,18 62:25 60:6 63:11 73:11 15:15 89:14
66:16 69:1 74:24 75:13,23 proximity 76:14 77:15 87:24,25 relates 53:15
primary 29:24 76:1,11 85:22 public 15:5,14 88:11,13 relation 68:12
print 84:4 86:5 20:23 21:22 22:13 readily 79:4 73:12
prior 18:10,18 24:7 projects 12:6 17:23 25:18 29:3 32:2,7 reading 3:5 relationship 26:13
44:4 47:1,2,2 20:19,24,25 22:17 32:11,22 33:5,10 really 71:1 32:8 76:13
50:23 51:16,19 22:18 24:21 26:14 36:11 38:18 50:20 reason 7:3 70:24 relative 43:25
52:1 58:4 38:21 85:13 pulled 83:4 reasonable 35:9 released 24:8
prison 45:10,11 proper 17:15 35:2 purpose 11:11 12:7 77:22 relocations 34:13
private 39:4 properly 55:5 12:10 16:17 36:9 reasonably 72:21 remain 21:24
probably 17:8 propose 81:7 61:24 62:11,16 recall 7:12 15:1 remained 24:2
23:12 24:23 28:22 proposed 16:3 68:17 21:6,8 24:15 42:1 remains 44:1
33:20 42:7,9,17 18:25 35:8 36:7 purposes 3:4 39:23 43:15 73:17 remember 6:23
45:19 54:8,25 37:13 57:7 58:21 purview 37:4 received 64:13 8:20 18:15 23:1
58:18 70:10 76:12 60:22 63:16 66:17 put 35:11 receiving 18:15 24:21 42:3 44:21
77:20 80:6,8 81:3 73:9 74:23 75:13 putting 66:25 Recess 65:7 45:5 69:17 74:12
problem 17:16 75:21,23 76:5 recommendations rendered 86:5
26:24 77:21 78:8 81:4 Q 59:19 repeat 77:13
problems 7:9 44:13 protect 36:16 45:11 question 3:7 7:23 record 5:2 6:22 rephrase 7:25
45:7 72:18 7:25 13:11 21:14 65:6,9 82:14,17 78:23 79:22
procedure 3:4 protected 13:3 22:7 62:6 77:9,13 82:19 86:6 report 9:14,21
80:20 protecting 11:12 77:15 78:23 79:22 recording 6:18 27:13 49:14,20
procedures 66:18 11:13,14 questions 6:12,25 red 22:20 32:25 53:19
68:3 78:10 protection 9:7 65:12 69:5 74:8 44:22 45:13,24 reported 2:23 89:9
process 55:1 86:2 12:18 13:2 14:21 74:17 82:10 46:8 50:13,24 reporter 2:24 3:11
product 87:12,13 15:22 16:11 17:22 quote 66:7 refer 10:22 11:5 5:9,25 6:5,15,21
professional 8:16 18:1,18 20:2 35:5 45:1 49:1,20 57:6 10:9 40:22 49:17
13:1,22 36:10 39:23 57:2 R 57:10 61:19 73:22 89:5,21
profiles 33:25 59:15 60:11 61:23 R 1:19 6:2 84:9 76:13 87:6 REPORTER'S
program 22:13 62:2,23,25 63:23 87:24 reference 73:14 89:2
29:2 32:22 33:14 65:19 72:11,17 raise 62:17 referenced 61:4 represent 5:15 6:11
35:18,18 75:21 76:15,17 rare 32:12 references 63:22 60:20 64:9
programs 28:13,17 83:24 RDR 3:11 89:4 referred 10:11 31:1 representing 28:20
project 8:10 12:11 provide 8:15 13:2 reach 9:6 10:11,15 49:12 58:2,5 represents 51:2
14:4 16:2,3,7,11 15:16,24 16:8 10:16,23 11:2,3,5 61:14,15 68:20 request 12:2 56:12
16:20 18:1,18 20:20 34:9 45:7 11:6 14:21 20:14 referring 10:24 requested 38:25
19:1,3,23,25 20:2 76:25 25:3 30:9 37:18 47:22,25 48:24 77:15
20:7,11,22 22:22 provided 9:16 39:24 41:1 43:6 49:22 50:3 requests 25:20
23:4,10,25 24:11 12:18 20:22 26:3 43:13 47:17 48:6 refers 29:6 57:4 require 15:18
24:20 25:21 29:14 33:24 34:10 36:8 51:11,18,21,25,25 61:16 70:2 required 16:5,6
29:24,25 30:19,20 41:23 42:21 53:20 52:4,10,11,13,13 refresh 44:24 34:15 35:10 36:21
30:22 31:2,3,4,6,7 54:17 62:23 63:1 52:15,16,22 53:12 regard 86:17 66:19
31:9 34:10 35:21 72:12 76:16 57:9,14,19 58:10 regards 15:18 requirement 73:10

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 98
requirements 19:12 23:8,11 roughly 70:17 shoreline 15:22 19:9 25:16 27:10
16:21 20:20 35:15 34:23 36:23 37:10 routine 12:4 short 65:21 27:21 28:2,6
62:20 67:21 73:1 37:11 53:17 56:16 rule 27:1 shorthand 89:10 29:21 46:19,21
85:23 56:19,25 58:9,19 Rules 3:4 shortly 54:13 65:21 47:21 48:20 49:10
Research 39:10,14 59:11 60:9 63:14 shot 79:13 53:4,8,10 54:10
reserved 3:8 66:2 74:13 75:3,7 S show 10:12 47:17 54:16 55:6,8 62:4
resource 28:21 76:2,21 78:6 S 3:1 55:3 56:1 79:5,16 62:21 64:25 65:10
resources 15:16,19 81:19 safe 26:15 82:24 83:13,16 69:3,19 71:5 74:7
22:22 32:23 reviewing 16:2 satisfied 73:10 82:5 85:6,20 86:12,22 77:10,12,25 78:22
respect 24:19 75:3 23:18,23 69:17 save 3:7 showed 87:3 79:6,17,21 82:9
respond 25:19 reviews 12:8,9 24:5 saw 20:23 21:1,4 showing 86:14 83:7,17,19 84:14
response 6:25 25:24 saying 6:24 46:15 shown 37:8 57:13 84:20 87:17
56:13 right 10:8 21:19 says 59:6 71:18 60:1 81:4 86:17 soil 86:8,12,13,18
responses 74:16 28:24 30:25 31:8 72:3 84:9 shows 71:20 86:24
responsibilities 38:10 40:13 43:14 scour 44:14 Shreveport 45:23 soils 33:25 68:2
22:10 26:6 29:1,3 46:24 48:5 49:11 second 63:23 70:1 side 13:4 77:21 81:2 86:16
32:20 45:24 49:14,19,25 51:6 72:3 73:16 83:25 Signature 88:7 86:22,23,25
responsibility 52:18 57:16,21,23 section 40:6 47:23 signed 56:6 63:9 sole 55:17
11:21 14:18 23:23 58:7 63:3 67:2 49:21,21 57:9 65:23 66:1 70:20 somebody 68:22
24:2 33:14 34:19 68:23 71:2,24 86:9 81:21 82:6 88:8 somewhat 33:1
responsible 28:14 73:2,5 74:1,3,4 sectional 74:2 signing 3:5 sorry 23:15 27:5
responsiveness 3:7 82:12 84:7,21 sections 33:25 simplicity 20:4 29:23 40:18 42:3
restate 77:8 rights-of-way 34:17 sir 6:19 7:6 10:8,21 43:17 45:18 52:6
restricting 21:14 34:12 sector 33:10 22:3 23:15 27:11 53:5 63:4 77:8
result 25:23 41:4 right-of-way 34:15 see 38:4 66:9 70:3 28:8 55:10 58:14 sort 20:11
44:2,20 47:9 35:10 67:21 70:22 71:7 72:5 63:9 64:23 65:13 sought 3:9
53:16 Rita 43:16 85:7,10 75:1,5,11,17,25 source 11:15
resulted 44:13 river 8:10 9:5 seen 21:3,7 81:13 80:15 81:11,19 south 1:20 6:3 39:9
46:23 10:18 14:8,15 81:15 82:2,7,24 84:23 39:14 52:15
resume 9:24 19:15 22:20 29:23 sent 10:4 sit 30:8 51:24 74:11 southeast 15:4
retained 8:14,18,24 30:9 32:25 39:19 sentence 28:12 site 37:16,20,23 31:22 32:1 33:21
retired 11:19 39:9 41:2,19 44:10,11 72:3 38:13 41:25 43:20 61:1
reveal 56:15 44:20,22,23 45:9 separate 33:12 43:24,25 44:8 Southeastern 39:11
revealed 76:1,18 45:13,25 46:8,8 September 8:21,22 45:5,9 46:4 53:21 39:15 57:19
78:3 46:11 48:16 71:3 73:7 53:22 55:14 67:24 speak 40:12
review 11:22,23 riverine 46:23 serious 7:9 84:18 86:17 speaking 20:13
12:13 14:6,13,19 RMR 2:23 89:4 seriously 75:18 sites 41:13,20 42:16 specific 40:14,15
16:8 24:7,10 road 43:7,7 48:11 service 39:2,3 42:24 53:15 47:11
33:17,18,23 34:5 Robin 2:7 5:14 services 25:20 26:3 six 84:8 specifically 3:6
39:16 53:25 54:5 6:10 65:20 84:17 set 89:8 size 35:16 35:25 38:1 81:10
55:19 56:3 58:19 ROBINSON 1:10 sets 69:13 sketch 9:25 specifications
59:20,23 64:10 2:4 seven 84:8 slip 66:8 68:9 11:23 12:14,22
68:18 69:12 76:7 Roger 2:23 3:11 severe 72:19 small 84:4 13:19,25 14:7,14
78:15 79:24 80:2 5:9 89:4,20 shakes 40:17 Smith 2:7 4:11,13 14:20 16:4,23
reviewed 12:6 room 2:8 55:3 shaking 40:19 5:13,14 6:7,10 17:12 18:5,21,24
13:19 16:13,23 Rouge 1:20 6:3 sheet 88:13 7:20 13:16 17:17 19:13 23:9,12,24

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 99
33:15 34:14,22 5:15,17 6:11 31:15 35:1 55:7 Thank 8:2 10:21 30:7 51:24 58:14
36:8,23 37:9 22:20 32:25 60:23 61:17 62:14 11:8 40:20 65:12 60:19 65:12 74:11
39:17 53:18 54:1 statewide 28:18 65:4 68:10 77:11 65:15 74:6 84:21 top 28:8 61:20
55:20 56:16 57:1 station 60:13,18,20 79:20 80:14 87:15 TORTS 2:7
57:5 58:9,17 63:24 64:1,2 67:1 suspect 8:21 60:24 Theis 1:19 4:3,4,5 touch 20:19
59:12 60:9 63:15 67:1 70:5,14 swear 6:1 5:3 6:2,8 9:19 transcribed 89:10
66:8,13,14 68:19 stationing 60:21,24 sworn 6:4 89:7 10:13 11:9 47:25 transcribing 6:16
69:14 70:3,22 70:8,10 system 37:25 38:2 56:1,5,24 58:7 transcript 89:12
71:25 74:13,18 stations 60:13 61:2 41:8 48:9 50:14 65:11,17 74:9 transcription 88:2
75:2,8,9 76:2 77:1 61:4 64:2,4 86:20 50:19,25 51:3 75:4 82:22,25 transition 33:12
78:2,3,13 79:3 sticker 82:23 60:4 87:24 transportation
80:1,23 81:25 sticky 54:20 systems 21:11 47:8 thereabouts 35:12 33:7,8 41:6,23
85:3,19,23 86:3 stipulated 3:2 thereof 3:8 68:14
87:7 Street 1:22 2:3,13 T thing 84:18 85:2 travel 41:19 42:15
specified 72:17 2:18 21:10 T 3:1,1 things 7:12 32:23 traveled 41:18 43:3
speculation 17:5 strengths 86:24 take 7:8 8:3 30:12 34:17 43:11 44:14 tremendous 40:7
25:10 78:20 stretch 72:1 37:23 48:23 56:2 85:25 45:12
speculative 13:10 strictly 66:20 70:25 65:1 think 8:5 13:9 Tributaries 29:24
sponsor 25:21 68:5 87:8 taken 3:3 66:16 18:20 22:4 27:22 trick 22:7
68:6,8 structural 41:13 88:15 43:5 44:25 47:17 trouble 76:9,9
St 31:18 48:9 59:16 structure 43:10,11 talked 46:2 80:13 49:21 51:12 53:1 true 9:20 22:8 76:4
60:13 63:25 64:6 58:6 61:18 62:23 talking 13:13 20:8 59:2 76:24 77:4 82:2 88:1 89:11
64:7 66:25 71:23 73:25 30:4 81:2 83:24 78:8,25 79:12,14 truth 89:8
staff 23:13 25:23 structures 14:21 tantamount 42:12 thinking 66:24 try 16:19 46:15
32:10 68:22 85:17 tape 82:15 third 27:17 28:7 trying 22:4 43:5
stages 18:3 studies 12:19 team 41:4 42:10,13 56:24 71:3 turn 14:24 27:16
standard 86:15 study 40:24 42:22,25,25 47:3 thought 17:15 32:14 60:5
standards 37:15 submitted 72:4 53:16 55:15 three 46:15 84:8 turned 28:3
standpoint 33:2 subordinate 14:11 technical 53:2 three-fourths two 39:14 42:6,8
35:4 37:12 40:1 subordinates 38:12 tell 7:23 29:19 57:18 57:23 78:19 84:7
75:15,24 subsequent 24:1 66:11 84:24 Thursday 1:23 type 78:12 86:16,23
started 39:8 subsequently 50:22 ten 32:16 ties 52:16
starts 28:9 subsidiary 35:24 tenuous 33:1 time 3:8 7:21,22 U
state 2:24 3:11 sufficient 36:16 tenure 18:6 9:2 15:2 16:24 U 3:1
11:17,21,24 12:24 suggest 26:2 termed 33:7 17:23 21:7,16 Uh-huh 8:23
13:21 14:5,19,25 suggested 17:13 terminology 51:12 23:5 24:1 25:7,8 underneath 29:14
21:22 22:11 26:18 suggesting 21:13 terms 12:17 18:4 30:7,15,24,24 understand 6:13
28:17,20 31:10 suitable 60:3 18:23 19:6 31:10 33:1,11 38:8 39:2 6:19 7:1,14,22,24
32:1,15 33:12 Suite 2:3 34:2 35:9,10 39:21 42:18,19,23 8:2 10:14 12:10
36:17,25 37:19 superiors 34:20 36:12,19 61:17 43:3 44:4 47:2,2,6 20:3 21:15 23:20
38:9,13 39:3 supervision 14:10 testify 6:6 89:7,8 52:7 56:17 64:12 37:3 85:2
45:17 56:7 58:12 14:18 31:24 37:6 testimony 6:16,18 70:22 81:16 understanding 8:7
64:21 89:22 89:11 6:23 7:4 8:3 times 37:20 46:4,16 11:4 89:13
statement 26:6 support 32:12 18:14 23:21 87:25 today 6:12 7:4 8:4 understood 35:18
28:22 supposedly 85:18 88:2 89:9 10:22 11:6 18:14 35:21
states 1:1,12 2:6,10 sure 21:11,15 23:7 Texas 22:21 21:6 23:21 27:6 undertake 9:10

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 100
40:24 41:11 40:21 whatnot 38:23 X 198 83:25

undertaken 34:4 VIDEOTAPED wicket 54:20 X 4:1 1982 59:13 71:4
44:3 45:4 1:18 2:21 width 74:3 73:7,8
undertook 41:4 view 41:20 73:21 WILKINSON 1:8 Y 1983 84:9
44:17 Violet 48:11,11 witness 3:3,12 6:1 Yeah 46:18 1985 63:8,16 66:2
underway 17:23 58:2 13:12 17:7 18:22 year 8:22 32:16 66:12 73:8
20:12 visit 43:16 25:12 40:17 46:17 39:8,10 1986 11:19 32:17
unfair 77:4 78:25 visited 37:20 41:12
48:4 49:5 53:1 years 11:16 40:7 39:1
79:13 42:23 53:15 54:14,19 62:10,15 55:23 79:1,2
Unfortunately 81:8 visiting 38:20 65:14 77:2,7,16 year's 42:18 2
unified 86:13,23 42:24 46:3 79:1,5,16 88:7 yellow 49:4,6 2 1:7 4:4 9:6 10:12
United 1:1,12 2:6 visits 37:16 43:9 89:6 Yscloskey 10:19 10:13,15,23 14:21
2:10 5:15,17 6:11 45:6 53:21,23 WITNESS'S 87:22 20:14 25:3 30:9
unquote 66:9 55:14 word 85:8 Z 37:18 39:24 41:2
unusual 85:24 vitae 15:7 words 30:14 40:1 zero 70:9 43:13 48:1,6
upper 57:9,14 71:19 50:24 51:18,25
use 16:4 77:21 78:4 W work 12:15 13:23 0 52:4,10,13,15
78:16 Wadsworth 2:21 16:6,25 26:12 05-4182 1:6 53:12 57:9,15,19
U.S 17:18 23:2 26:9 5:7 29:7 31:13 32:4 06-2286 1:11 71:9,10,18,21
65:22 68:6 83:1 waived 3:5,6 33:3 34:24 40:7 72:1
want 32:13 55:25 1 20 79:1
43:18 47:3 52:3
V 65:1 77:5 82:21 58:23 59:18,21 1 4:3 9:19 11:2,3,6 2005 40:23
Valley 29:9,12 30:1 82:22 60:1,2,15 61:13 43:6 47:17 51:21 2007 1:24 5:7 88:15
32:25 wanted 9:2 86:8 63:18 64:19 66:17 51:25 52:4,11,13 20530 2:9
value 76:6 79:15 Ward 47:15 48:8 72:5,7 73:9 75:10 52:16,22 71:10 26 66:5
various 29:15 Washington 2:9 76:22 78:16 80:1 10 4:4 70:19 29th 40:23
41:24 69:14 86:15 19:4 82:1 1000 2:3
86:19,19,20,24 wasn't 20:18 worked 25:25 39:9 11 49:21 3
87:1 water 11:15 15:16 working 22:23 1113 60:13 84:13 3 4:5 56:2,24,24
variously 83:21 15:19 22:22 28:21 23:17 30:21,23 12 59:13 58:7,8 65:25
vary 70:16 32:22 57:23 46:3 13 71:3 68:20 69:15 75:4
Venice 48:19 waters 44:20,21 works 15:5,14 1331 2:9 3,000 70:17
verbal 6:25 waterway 41:24 19:14 20:11 21:22 14 55:10 63:16 30 35:11 55:10 64:3
Verret 48:12,12 way 34:23 43:22 22:13 24:15,18 17th 21:9 79:1,1
51:9 48:18 49:7 57:18 25:2,19 26:18 1953 11:18 360 70:5,7,8,14
VERSUS 1:11 61:5 84:17 89:15 29:4 32:2,7,11,22 1960 47:6 361 70:15
vicinity 10:19 website 83:1 84:23 33:5,10 36:6,11 1965 15:8 21:17 380 64:2
16:10 18:1,17 went 39:3,11 42:22 37:17 38:5,14,18 65:23
20:1,22 23:4 40:5 45:6 1970 15:6,8 18:10 4
39:17 40:25 50:20
44:6 51:14 59:14 west 70:10 18:18 21:18,20 4 49:21 60:6 82:22
53:7,12,22 61:20
60:10 65:19 72:16 We'll 27:8 54:22 24:16 30:6 47:6 82:25 84:25 86:11
61:21 76:15 85:13
83:22 we're 8:3 10:24 1976 21:25 24:16 87:10
85:16
video 2:21 5:1,8,24 21:15 27:5 55:4 30:7 32:17 40 49:2,13 79:1
wouldn't 21:2
6:17 65:5,8 82:13 65:9 66:24 82:19 30:12,22 59:8 1977 66:2,6,12
1978 33:2 5
82:18 87:19 We've 44:12 writing 49:2
1979 70:19 50 64:2
videographer 6:17 whatever's 56:21 written 6:22

THEIS, ARTHUR
11/8/2007
Page 101
50s 45:12,18
50-odd 55:23
550 2:3
56 4:5
57 45:22
6
6 4:11
60s 15:5
65 4:12
688 1:20 6:3
692 64:2
7
70 70:6,7
701 1:22 2:18 5:5
70113 2:13
70130 1:23 2:19
708 84:15
70810 1:21 6:4
73 45:2
74 4:13
78 33:11
79 45:2
8
8 1:24 88:15
8th 5:7
8095N 2:8
82 4:14
83 45:2 84:2,5
855 2:13
86 33:11
9
9 4:3 73:8 86:10
9th 63:8
90071-2627 2:4
945 60:13 84:13,15

KTR00061

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KTR00061

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THEIS, ARTHUR

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION

THE UNITED STATES

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

35:25 I 37:3 47:24 48:19 investigations 74:20,25

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

40:24 41:11 40:21 whatnot 38:23 X 198 83:25

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

You might also like