Avenal v. State
2004 WL 2365216, 886 So. 2d 1085 (2004)
Rule of Law:
The State of Louisiana is not liable for compensation under Article I, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution for alleged damage to private oyster leases caused by coastal restoration projects, either when the leases contain valid hold harmless clauses indemnifying the State, or when the claims for those leases lacking such clauses are time-barred by the two-year prescriptive period for property damaged for public purposes under La. R.S. 9:5624.
Facts:
- Following the 1927 flood, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expanded the Mississippi River levee system, which prevented natural sediment deposition in marshlands, causing wetland loss and unintentionally raising salinity in some coastal waters, ruining some productive oyster grounds but fostering new growth elsewhere in the Breton Sound basin.
- Recognizing these effects, state and federal governments began planning freshwater diversion projects in the 1950s to combat wetland loss and restore natural salinity patterns, identifying Caernarvon as a key diversion site.
- Through public hearings and environmental impact statements from the 1960s to the 1980s, the Caernarvon project was developed to abate saltwater intrusion, promote coastal restoration, and enhance fisheries, acknowledging its potential impact on existing oyster growth zones.
- On October 30, 1986, Congress authorized funds for the construction of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion Structure.
- In anticipation of the Caernarvon project's operation, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (DWF) began inserting hold harmless clauses into oyster lease forms issued after 1989, indemnifying the state from claims for loss or damage related to coastal restoration activities.
- The DWF also implemented an oyster 'relay' program in 1990, allowing oyster lessees in the potential Caernarvon impact area to move their oysters to other designated lease sites.
- Construction of Caernarvon commenced in June 1988, was completed in February 1991, and the structure became fully operational in September 1991.
- Increased flows from Caernarvon in 1993 significantly freshened Breton Sound, leading to improved oyster production on the State's public seed grounds but reducing salinity to detrimental levels on private oyster leases held by the plaintiffs.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in state trial court on March 29, 1994, asserting that the State's operation of Caernarvon constituted a taking or damage to their property rights under the Louisiana Constitution.
- Plaintiffs also filed a separate suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims on April 24, 1994, against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, alleging Fifth Amendment takings, which was subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Corps in August 1995 and affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996.
- In the state court suit, plaintiffs moved to strike all evidence regarding hold harmless clauses in their leases; the trial court granted this motion.
- The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims based on the hold harmless clauses, but the trial court deferred ruling on it until after the jury's findings.
- The court of appeal denied DNR's writ application regarding the motion in limine but instructed the trial court to rule on the motion for summary judgment at least ten days before trial, a ruling that did not occur.
- The trial court also granted plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude evidence and testimony regarding biological assessments and side-scan sonar surveys, and refused DNR's motion to compel production of oyster lessees' income and production records.
- After an eight-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for the five class representatives, finding that the State had 'taken or damaged' their property rights and awarded substantial damages (over $1 billion for the entire class), attorneys' fees, and court costs.
- The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict and denied all post-trial motions.
- A divided five-judge panel of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, also increasing the award for one of the lead plaintiffs, Avenal.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the DNR's writ application to review the lower courts' judgments.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the State of Louisiana's operation of a freshwater diversion structure, which altered salinity levels and affected private oyster leases, constitute a compensable taking or damaging of property under Article I, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution, when the majority of leases contain hold harmless clauses and the claims for remaining leases are filed after the statutory prescriptive period for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Victory, J.
No, the oyster fishermen are not entitled to compensation under La. Const. Art. I, § 4 as a result of the State's operation of Caernarvon because the vast majority of their leases contain valid hold harmless clauses, and the claims for the remaining leases without such clauses are prescribed. The court found that the hold harmless clauses, inserted into most leases from 1989 onward, are legally valid and enforceable under La. R.S. 56:425(C), which grants the DWF authority to make 'necessary and proper' stipulations for the development of the oyster industry. These clauses were deemed necessary because they allowed leases to continue (rather than being denied renewal due to anticipated unproductivity), enabled the critical Caernarvon coastal restoration project to proceed without fear of financially crippling lawsuits, and ultimately benefited the overall oyster industry by improving public seed grounds and preserving Louisiana's coastline, consistent with the public trust doctrine (La. Const. art. IX, § 1). The court distinguished its prior ruling in Jurisich v. Jenkins, noting that case concerned a clause unrelated to coastal restoration and that abrogated rights against third parties, unlike the present indemnity clauses that only affect the lessor-lessee relationship and are tied to vital public purpose projects. For the small number of leases (12) that predated 1989 and lacked these clauses, the court determined that the State's actions constituted 'damage' to property, not a 'taking.' Property is 'taken' when the public authority acquires ownership or a dismemberment thereof; 'damaged' when the public action diminishes the property's value. Since the State already owns the water bottoms, waters, and oysters, and the lessees retained exclusive use rights and the ability to seek damages from third parties, their property was not 'taken.' Furthermore, oyster leases do not guarantee profits or optimal salinity. Therefore, the two-year prescriptive period for property 'damaged for public purposes' under La. R.S. 9:5624 applies. As Caernarvon was completed and operational by late 1991, and the plaintiffs' suit was not filed until March 29, 1994, their claims are prescribed.
Concurring - Weimer, J.
Justice Weimer concurred, emphasizing the difficult balance between individual rights and governmental actions serving the public good, particularly the economic importance of the oyster industry and the critical need for coastal restoration. He agreed with the majority's conclusion that the hold harmless clauses in the leases were valid and that the two-year prescriptive period applied to the remaining claims. He reiterated the distinction between 'taken' and 'damaged' under the Louisiana Constitution, noting that 'taken' is a narrower concept in Louisiana law than in federal jurisprudence (Fifth Amendment). He pointed out that the federal courts had already rejected the oyster fishermen's 'takings' claims due to a lack of 'distinct investment-backed expectations.' Justice Weimer underscored that the State cannot 'take' property it already owns (the water, water bottoms, and oysters) and that the lessees still maintained their leasehold interests, even if one aspect of that interest (profitability from oysters) was damaged. He also raised the point that if the state acts under its police power to prevent a public calamity, such as catastrophic coastal erosion, it may not owe compensation, a principle consistent with the public trust doctrine.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens the State of Louisiana's position in pursuing large-scale coastal restoration projects. By upholding the validity of hold harmless clauses in state-issued leases, it ensures that lessees cannot claim compensation from the State for foreseeable impacts of such projects, shifting the risk to the lessees. The clear distinction between 'taking' and 'damaging' for purposes of applying different prescriptive periods establishes a stricter temporal limit for claims against the State arising from public works. This ruling could influence future litigation regarding property rights in coastal areas, particularly concerning resource-dependent industries, by prioritizing broader public welfare over individual economic expectations in the face of environmental crises, provided the State acts within its constitutional and statutory authority and includes appropriate contractual provisions.
