Louisiana House Bill HB619

Louisiana 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/10/17
• Refer: 4/10/17

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of judgment against the State of Louisiana, DOTD in "Jean Boudreaux and the Victims of the Flood of April 6, 1983, on the Tangipahoa River v. State of La."

Impact

The passage of HB 619 will provide a resolution for the affected class, ensuring that the judgment is paid and interest ceases to accrue. This appropriation reflects the state's commitment to honoring its financial obligations resulting from significant adverse events, such as natural disasters, and may set a precedent for future appropriations related to similar judgments involving state agencies. The bill is aimed at finalizing the lawsuit and alleviating any further legal financial burden from the state concerning this case.

Summary

House Bill 619, introduced by Representative Pugh, addresses the appropriation of funds from the state's general fund to settle a longstanding judgment against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD). Specifically, the bill allocates a total of $91,824,720.79 to cover the judgment in the class action suit, 'Jean Boudreaux and the Victims of the Flood on April 6, 1983', which has been pending since the flood event that affected residents along the Tangipahoa River.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 619 appears to be generally supportive, as it addresses the need for accountability and resolution for victims of the 1983 flood. Lawmakers involved in discussions surrounding the bill emphasized the importance of supporting those who have suffered due to the state's actions or inactions in this matter. There was likely a recognition that timely financial reparations can help restore public trust in governmental processes, especially concerning disaster management.

Contention

While not heavily contested, some concerns may arise regarding the implications of spending such a substantial amount from the general fund, particularly in a state that may have other pressing financial needs. Critics could question whether the state is prioritizing this judgment over other essential expenditures, such as education or infrastructure improvements. However, since the bill focuses on fulfilling a legal obligation, outright opposition may have been limited.