Danziger v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 August 1950 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2730. |
| Citation | 93 F. Supp. 70 |
| Parties | DANZIGER et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Thomas E. Furlow, Arthur L. Ballin, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.
Norton L. Wisdom, Special Attorney, Department of Justice, New Orleans, La., for defendant.
1. On August 19, 1947, the Board of Commissioners of the Pontchartrain Levee District passed a resolution appropriating the necessary rights of way for the Diamond Levee Setback, Item M 127-O-L in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana, on the main stem of the Mississippi River.
2. On October 8, 1947, the Board of Commissioners of the Pontchartrain Levee District revoked the former resolution of August 9, 1947, and substituted a similar resolution of only slightly different wording, appropriating the necessary rights of way for Diamond Levee Setback, Item M 127-O-L.
3. The resolution of October 8, 1947 was passed pursuant to a letter from the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Works, dated August 25, 1947, reciting that the Department of Public Works had approved the plans and construction of Diamond Levee Setback, Item M 127-O-L in St. Charles Parish.
4. After the passage of the resolution of August 19, 1947, the Pontchartrain Levee District sent out notices by registered mail to all property owners of the fact that their land in question had been appropriated for levee purposes.
5. The Pontchartrain Levee District then set about the physical removal of improvements within the levee right of way through a contracting concern, namely, LeBlanc Bros. & Leo Cafiero, Inc., of Donald-sonville, Louisiana.
6. The United States of America, acting pursuant to the resolution of October 8, 1947, called for sealed bids on the project and awarded the construction of the levee setback to Walter P. Villere Company.
7. The successful bidder on the Diamond Levee Setback, M 127-O-L, commenced construction in the month of December, 1947, after the removal of improvements from the levee right of way by the Pontchartrain Levee District.
1. The Diamond Levee Setback construction was authorized under the Flood Control Act, approved May 15, 1928, as amended.
2. In order to avail themselves of the benefits obtainable under the Flood Control Act, approved May 15, 1928, as amended, the levee districts concerned must agree to:
a. Maintain all flood control works after their completion except controlling and regulating spillway structures, including special relief levees. 33 U.S.C.A. § 702c (a).
b. Provide without cost to the United States, all rights of way for levee foundations and levees on the main stem of the Mississippi River between Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and the Head of the Passes. 33 U.S.C.A. § 702c (c).
3. Under the Act of Congress of June 15, 1936, as amended by the Act of August 18, 1941, the Levee District is entitled to reimbursement by the United States for actual expenditures for the project found by the Chief of Engineers to be reasonable in accordance with local legal procedure or custom. 33 U.S.C.A. § 702a — 12(d).
4. There is imposed upon land along navigable streams in Louisiana a servitude in favor of the public for the purpose of constructing and repairing levees. Louisiana Civil Code, Art. 665; Dickson v. Board of Commissioners of Caddo Levee District, 210 La. 122, 26 So.2d 474.
5. Article 16, Section 6 of the Louisiana Constitution states that levee districts have the right to appropriate property along navigable streams for levee purposes and that the sum paid in compensation for such appropriation shall not exceed the assessed value of the property for the year preceding the appropriation.
6. There is no formal procedure which levee districts must follow in appropriating property. Pruyn v. Nelson Bros., 180 La. 760, 157 So. 585.
7. The taking of property by a levee district is an exercise of the police power of the state. Egan v. Hart, 45 La....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. GENERAL BOX COMPANY
...an expropriation of private property was therefore not necessary to the exercise of the servitude already existing.5 In Danziger v. United States, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 70, 72, the court said, "There is no formal procedure which levee districts must follow in appropriating property", while in Di......
-
Holzenthal v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of N.O.
...projects to be "state projects", Griggs v. Allegheny County, Pa., 369 U.S. 84, 82 S.Ct. 531, 7 L.Ed.2d 585 (1962) and Danziger v. U.S., 93 F.Supp. 70 (E.D.La. 1950). In both of those cases, as in the case at bar, at the completion of the project, the public improvement would be operated and......
-
Board of Com'rs for Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dist. v. St. Landry Parish School Bd.
...servitude, since annually subject to surplus waters even in the absence of the national flood control program. Danziger v. United States, D.C.W.D.La., 93 F.Supp. 70, is not applicable to the present facts because, among other reasons, it concerned the right of a property owner to sue the Un......
-
Borgnemouth Realty Co. v. Parish of St. Bernard, Lake Borgne Levee Dist., & St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...Responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and repair of the MR–GO levees remained with the Levee District. See, e.g., Danziger v. U.S., 93 F.Supp. 70, 72 (E.D.La.1950) (rejecting a claim that the federal government instead of the levee district owed compensation, the court noted that it wa......