John M. Barry

For my Testimony before the Oil Spill Commission on restoring the Gulf Coast, click here
 
On July 24, 2013, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East, the levee board responsible for protecting most of greater New Orleans, filed suit against Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and 93 other oil, gas, and pipeline companies for the coastal land loss they caused, which in turn threatens the state's flood protection. I served on the board and was chief architect of the lawsuit. The attorneys' website, http://jonesswanson.com/practice-areas/southeast-louisiana-flood-protection-authority-east-case/ , contains links to the lawsuit and to a complete listing of news stories.

 

The suit was a significant event in Louisiana, the governor demanded we withdraw it, and the legislature passed a law trying to retroactively kill it. None of that worked, but a federal district court ruled that the board did not have standing to bring suit, and the U.S. Supreme Court on October 30, 2017, declined to hear the board's appeal.

But all was not lost.

As one member of our board said, "We were a heat shield." After the levee board broke the ice, parishes, which do have standing, filed more than forty lawsuits in 2013 and 2014. Oil companies managed to delay even a trial for more than 10 years, but in March 2025, the first of those suits to come to trial resulted in a verdict finding Chevron liable for $745 million. One suit was settled for an as-yet undisclosed amount, although it may exceed $1 billion. The other 40-plus suits have nearly identical facts. 

Separately, there is a class action lawsuit that's been filed that could result in a multi-billion dollar verdict.

If the suits are successful, there should be enough money to go a long way toward funding the state's master plan to create a sustainable coast.

Below are four op eds which summarize the substance of the issue. The first two I wrote in July and August 2013, shortly after we filed the lawsuit, explaining the basis of it and what we hope to accomplish. The third was written in February 2015 after the federal court decision. The last was written in 2024, a last hope to spur the political leadership to act. 

Meanwhile, if you skipped the bio page, here's my relevant personal background: After Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana congressional delegation asked me to chair a bipartisan working group on flood control. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences invited me to give the 2006 Abel Wolman Distinguished Lecture, an honor given for contribution to water-related science. (I'm the only non-scientist ever to give that lecture. In 2007 I was appointed to the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East, which oversees several levee districts in the metropolitan New Orleans area, and the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, which is responsible both for the state's hurricane protection and for rebuilding the 2100 square miles of land the state has lost in recent decades. I've talked about these issues in such venues as Meet the Press, NPR, and the BBC, and written about them for The New York Times, Time Magazine, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Smithsonian, and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, if you skipped the bio page, here's my relevant personal background: After Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana congressional delegation asked me to chair a bipartisan working group on flood control. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences invited me to give the 2006 Abel Wolman Distinguished Lecture, an honor given for contribution to water-related science. (I'm the only non-scientist ever to give that lecture. In 2007 I was appointed to the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East, which oversees several levee districts in the metropolitan New Orleans area, and the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, which is responsible both for the state's hurricane protection and for rebuilding the 2100 square miles of land the state has lost in recent decades. I've talked about these issues in such venues as Meet the Press, NPR, and the BBC, and written about them for The New York Times, Time Magazine, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Smithsonian, and elsewhere.

Here are the four op eds about the lawsuit: the first was published in The Advocate (the main Baton Rouge paper, and which also appears in New Orleans, and Lafayette) July 24, 2013, the day the suit was filed; the second ran in the Times-Picayune (New Orleans) August 11, 2013, after the governor demanded we withdraw the suit, etc., with a proposal. The third ran in The Advocate February 24, 2015, and finally The Advocate in June 2023.



From The Advocate, July 24, 2013

Why We're Doing It


After Katrina, Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to allow the creation of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East, the board which oversees levee districts protecting the east bank of the greater New Orleans area. This board is composed of professionals with expertise in engineering, storm surge modeling, coastal science, river hydrology, and meteorology.

The authority takes its mission to protect the public seriously. Because of that, with reluctance but with a unanimous vote, today we are filing a law suit against 97 oil & gas and pipeline companies over the industry’s contribution to coastal land loss.

The issue is simple. Levees and floodwalls are the last line of defense against a hurricane storm surge. The first line of defense is the buffer of barrier islands, marsh, and land between the ocean and the levee system, all of which lessens the surge which attacks the levee system.

The industry is certainly not responsible for all of the land loss. There are multiple causes for that. But the industry is responsible for a significant part of the land loss. Numerous scientific studies attest to that, and the industry itself acknowledges it. Throughout the state the industry dredged 10,000 miles for canals and pipelines through coastal lands, every inch of which allowed saltwater intrusion that weakened or destroyed the landscape. We ask that the industry fix the part of the problem they caused.

We believe they are obligated to do so for three reasons. First, in most cases permits issued allowing the activity required the company to repair whatever environmental damage the activity caused. Company officials, voluntarily and of their own free will, promised to comply fully with these requirements and obligations. They haven’t.

Second, federal law prohibits any activity which “impairs the effectiveness of a levee.” Without doubt, any increase in storm surge makes a levee less effective.
Third, a well-established principle of civil law, going back to the 1400s, is “servitude of drainage.” The applicable part of that principle here prohibits one person from increasing the flow of water on someone else. Again, loss of coastal land sends more water against the levees.

We recognize the controversial nature of this law suit and regret its necessity. But the industry has had years to do what it should do, and what in most instances agreed to do. Areas the industry has dredged and abandoned must be backfilled and re-vegetated, as the law requires and as the companies agreed to do as a condition of their activities. And the industry must pick up its fair share of the increased costs of the more robust flood protections required to offset the loss of coastal wetlands and the vital storm protection they provide.

If nothing is done, the state Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority estimates that statewide flood damages will rise to an average of a staggering $23.4 billion a year. For the wealthiest industry in the world to shift the burden of preventing these costs to the citizens of Louisiana is unfair to say the least . The way forward is to make partners of the responsible parties, precisely as the law requires, and to ensure that those who have contributed to the problem now contribute to the solution.




The op ed below ran in the Times-Picayune August 11, 2013

What the levee authority really wants for Louisiana's coast: John M. Barry




The Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority East -- the levee board responsible for protecting metropolitan New Orleans east of the Mississippi River -- filed suit July 24 against Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and 94 other oil, gas and pipeline companies for destroying the land and marsh buffer that once provided natural protection to New Orleans from hurricanes.

Destruction of buffering coastal lands by the industry is even greater west of the river, and we hope and expect that any final resolution of the issue will help not just greater New Orleans but also those areas damaged even more than ours. For this lawsuit is not about money. It's about survival. And I would like to propose a solution outside the courtroom.

As most readers know, approximately 1,900 square miles of Louisiana's coastal lands have disappeared in the past 80 years. This land loss is continuing and, coupled with sea level rise, if nothing is done most of Louisiana's coast will simply disappear. This would be disastrous for the country and the state -- and particularly the defendants in the suit. Chris John, head of Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, wrote in The Times-Picayune and NOLA.com last week that coastal lands "protect critical oil and gas infrastructure from storm surge," adding that "our viability depends on" the coastal buffer.

Several factors have contributed to land loss, and the oil and gas industry is by no means responsible for all of it. But even the industry recognizes it is responsible for much of it. The industry has dredged 10,000 miles of canals and pipelines through the marsh, allowing saltwater intrusion, killing plants. Without their root structure holding the land together, it melted into the ocean. In addition, the extraction of an immense volume of oil and gas from beneath the surface has caused the surface of the land to sink. Scientific studies, which included industry representatives, concluded that the industry caused an estimated 36 percent of the land loss statewide. And Chris John conceded, "Industry recognizes its role" in the loss.

By destroying the land buffer that once protected populated areas, the industry has made the levee board's task far more difficult and far more expensive. Don't take our word for it. In 2006, when the state of Louisiana sued the federal government for revenue from off-shore production, Bob Bea, one of the most respected flood experts in the world and formerly Shell's chief off-shore engineer, stated that the industry "contributed significantly to the loss of natural defenses such as barrier beaches, wetlands, and marshes. In several important cases, it was the loss of these natural defenses that contributed to the unanticipated breaches of flood protection facilities that protected the greater New Orleans area during Hurricane Katrina and led to the repeated flooding during Hurricane Rita."

Our suit asks the industry to fix only the part of the problem it created -- a problem which continues to worsen. It is obligated to do so under the law. In most cases, industry operations were conducted under permits requiring companies to limit damage and restore the area when operations end. We ask them to abide by these contractual requirements, which they voluntarily agreed to. Louisiana also has a civil law tradition, and civil law doctrine since Roman times and Louisiana statutes include "servitude of drain," which prohibits one party from sending more water onto another party. By destroying the buffering land, the industry has sent more storm surge against our levees.

We want the industry to backfill and replant where possible; for areas where restoration is impossible, we ask compensation so we can improve the flood protection system.

The industry strongly supports coastal restoration and participated in the state's development of a Master Plan -- widely praised by scientists and environmentalists -- to address the problem. Despite admitting its responsibility for much of the problem and despite the fact that its "viability" depends on a healthy coastal buffer, however, it has made minimal contribution to fixing it. The wealthiest industry in the world instead wants taxpayers -- readers of this article -- to repair what it destroyed, and what it promised in writing to repair itself.

No one has attacked the substance of our claims. Gov. Jindal charges only that we lack authority to sue. We do have authority. We are an independent body created by a constitutional amendment, which passed with 81 percent of the vote. No lawyer "hijacked" us. The suit was our idea, and I personally engaged in a long search for the best lawyer I could find. The industry forced us to sue by refusing to take corrective action itself.

The governor called for legislation next year to interfere with the suit. I ask the governor this: Why not solve the problem? Our suit addresses only New Orleans. The entire Louisiana coast needs help. The governor has been good for the coast. I ask the governor to be great for the coast. I ask the governor to negotiate a solution acceptable to everyone. I would support this. I hope the governor and the Legislature would, too.

Not long ago I talked to someone who suggested to an industry leader that it make a voluntary contribution to fixing the coast. I asked him what the response was. He shook his head unhappily and said, "They're not there yet."

Perhaps now, facing this litigation, they'll get there.




The Advocate, February 24, 2015


In 1989, the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association — the trade association for Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Shell and the other majors — conducted a study of areas most damaged by coastal land loss. By then, the threat presented by land loss was well-known, state laws required that areas damaged by the energy industry be “restored to the pre-existing conditions” and Governor David Treen had tried and failed to pay for fixing the problem with a new Coastal Wetlands Environmental Levy on the oil and gas industry.

Perhaps Mid-Continent launched its study hoping for scientific support to allow the industry to escape liability. If so, it was disappointed. The study concluded that “canal development tend[s] to be the overwhelming cause of wetlands losses.”

What has the oil and gas industry done since 1989 to address the problem that was “the overwhelming cause” of land loss in the hardest-hit areas? Can’t think of anything? Exactly.

In 2006, looking at the severe land loss in the Barataria and Terrebonne basins, a study by the state’s Department of Natural Resources attributed an astonishing 76 percent of land loss to “oil and gas exploration and drilling.”

What has the industry done since 2006, when the state blamed it for 76 percent of the problem in those basins? Can’t think of anything? Exactly.

Meanwhile, at least another 500 square miles of Louisiana melted into the sea.

The industry’s responsibility for land loss varies dramatically from region to region, and certainly other causes, including the levees themselves, also have destroyed land. But pretending oil and gas played no role is like pretending Drew Brees doesn’t matter to the Saints offense. For years, the state has declined to enforce existing laws and regulations that since 1980 have required areas be “restored to the pre-existing condition.” To force the industry to obey the law, the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority filed its lawsuit against oil, gas and pipeline companies, basing its claim largely on federal law that prohibits doing anything to “impair the usefulness” of a levee and asking only that industry fix the part of the problem it created.

Ever since that lawsuit was filed, the industry has said the suit threatened industry’s cooperation with those trying to preserve the coast. What cooperation? Well, Chevron, which (through Texaco, which it now owns) probably caused more damage than anyone else, brags about supporting a project that will create 293 acres in South Lafourche. But there are 640 acres in a square mile, and the state has lost nearly 2,000 square miles.

And SLFPAE filed only after — eight months after — SLFPAE president Tim Doody and I told Garret Graves, then the governor’s coastal adviser, what our board was considering and suggested we all go to Mid-Continent head Chris John and try to work out a voluntary agreement. Graves replied, “I already tried that. They’re not there yet.” He also made it clear that for political reasons the state would not sue the industry.

Now Judge Nannette Jolivette-Brown has dismissed the flood authority’s case, not because the industry successfully argued it didn’t destroy land but because Brown — using rather bizarre logic — ruled that the right to call the industry to account for impairing a levee’s usefulness belonged only to the federal government and does not “extend to the protection of a levee owner or operator.” The dismissal will be appealed but it will take months before a decision comes down. Stewart Simonson, an attorney uninvolved in the case who was a senior member of the Bush administration, said, “The Fifth Circuit is conservative and pro-business, and they expect a certain level of legal craftsmanship. This isn’t it. The board has a good chance of winning the appeal.”

For the moment, the lawsuit is in abeyance, but it already has a legacy, changing politics and public awareness of the industry’s role. National realities also are settling in. The state’s elected officials have always said they’d get money for the coast from Washington, i.e., from taxpayers. That was always a fantasy. The most pro-environmental president since Teddy Roosevelt just proved it: far from calling for more federal dollars for Louisiana’s coast, Obama called for cutting those dollars to zero.

All this opens the door to three questions.

First, the industry said it was ready to work collaboratively to solve the problem, if only that nasty lawsuit wasn’t in the way. So, industry, when are you going to collaborate — not building 300 acres, but on a scale commensurate with the many billions of dollars of damage your own studies concede you’ve done?

Second, will some politician have the guts to demand that the industry step up? Will the attorney general protect the future of Louisiana? Will someone else? Or will our anti-tax governor stick Louisiana taxpayers with all the costs? In fact, last year, state Rep. Stuart Bishop, another anti-tax conservative and the manager of the bill to kill the lawsuit, conceded that taxpayers would pick up the tab for industry-caused damage.

Or, third, will the coast and so much that makes Louisiana Louisiana simply disappear?

The lawsuit was never the problem; it was filed to solve the problem. Let’s solve the problem. The land loss is the problem.

 

 

 

 

https://www.nola.com/opinions/john-barry-not-too-late-to-get-oil-and-gas-to-fix-coast/article_d0ee40ca-03ba-11ee-b4f8-f774a07c291a.html
John M. Barry: It's not too late to get oil and gas industry to fix what it broke -- but it soon
will be
BY JOHN M. BARRY
Jun 5, 2023
Ten years ago the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East-- the levee board responsible for
protecting the east bank of metro New Orleans-- authorized a law firm to sue oil, gas and pipeline companies
for their role in coastal land loss. While the lawsuit was my idea, my colleagues on the board — most of whom
were Republican — unanimously embraced it for two reasons.

 

Although land loss has multiple causes, we knew — and scientific studies by oil companies agreed — that
industry operations accounted for massive damage, often because companies violated regulations, permits
and laws.

 

We also knew that the state's $50 billion coastal master plan — whose real cost exceeds $100 billion— had
insufficient funding. Once the billions of dollars from the BP settlement ran out, only a trickle of money would
be available. So why not expect companies that caused the damage to pay?

 

U.S. Rep. Garret Graves, then chairman of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, told us that our
suit "has merit." His deputy Kyle Graham said industry leaders "very well understand the liability that's out
there on the coast. There will come a day when there is some sort of settlement. It's very difficult to see a
future in which that isn't there." Jerome Zeringue, Graves' successor as CPRA head and now chair of the House
Appropriations Committee, said that "no one denies there is a responsibility and obligation on the part of oil
and gas in regard to the effects of oil and gas activity."

 

Yet the suit ignited a political firestorm and they all opposed it. I was removed from the CPRA and SLFPAE.
Gov. Bobby Jindal demanded SLFPAE withdraw the suit. Legislators introduced 17 bills to kill it and one became
law. A judge ruled it unconstitutional, but another judge ruled SLFPAE lacked standing. Our lawsuit failed.

 

A decade has passed. Considerable progress on coastal restoration has been made, most of it paid for by
settlement dollars from BP's spill. That money ends soon. Outgoing CPRA chief Chip Kline warns that without
another funding source, "the progress is going to halt."

 

Where's another source? How about companies that caused so much land loss? The coastal damage the spill
did is trivial compared to damage done by decades of industry operations.
After SLFPAE sued, seven coastal parishes also filed. The industry has delayed all trials for a decade, but the
first trial will finally start in November. Money awarded to the parishes will go to restoration, but even if all
those lawsuits succeed, they won't provide enough resources.

 

That's because most coastal parishes have not filed. Terrebone and Lafourche, the two parishes suffering the
most land loss, haven't, even though the state's Department of Natural Resources attributed 76% of land loss
there to industry activities.

 

Another problem: No statewide action has been taken to make those who own pipelines, which caused a huge
part of the damage, contribute to the solution.

 

Instead, tax-hating politicians expect taxpayers to bear the entire cost of coastal repair, rather than asking the
wealthiest industry in the history of the world to fix what it broke. Besides, coastal restoration protects
industry infrastructure; should taxpayers pay for that? The Legislature hasn't even created the vehicle

necessary to implement a $100 million settlement — supported by Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry

and Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards — between Freeport McMoran and several parishes.

 

Our politicians say the solution lies in increasing the state's share of offshore oil and gas revenue. This would
cost oil companies nothing; it would only redirect money from the federal treasury to Louisiana. I support that
effort and even played a role in passing the 2006 law which first gave Louisiana a share of that revenue, but
given current fights over federal spending, no effort to redirect money from the rest of the country to
Louisiana will likely succeed. Even if it did, that's no reason to excuse the oil industry from its liability.

 

Isn't it time now to do what everyone knew was right 10 years ago?

 

The politics shouldn't be so tough. Polls have found overwhelming support for the idea that industry should
repair the damage it did.

 

It may not be too late for Edwards to act. Or it may be up to the next governor.

 

Or possibly Graves can get something done. He opposed the lawsuit when he was working for Jindal. Now he's
his own man. Before SLFPAE sued he asked industry representatives to sit down and work out a voluntary
agreement. They refused. Five years ago he arranged a congressional hearing on the coast and asked the
witnesses, all of whom had opposed the suit except myself, if they would support federal legislation requiring
the industry to contribute to the coast. We unanimously said we would.
John Barry: Not too late to get oil and gas to fix coast | Opinions and Editorials | nola.com

 

Someone has to do it, or Louisiana as we know it will disappear. Anyone?

 

John M. Barry is a former vice president of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East, a former
member of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority and author of "Rising Tide: The Great
Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America.