Louisiana House Bill HB80

Louisiana 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/16/18
• Refer: 2/16/18
• Refer: 3/12/18

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of the 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 bill signifies a crucial step in resolving historical grievances related to the flood disaster and signifies the state's commitment to fulfilling its legal obligations. By allocating state resources to settle this judgment, the bill also emphasizes the fiscal responsibility of state lawmakers towards ensuring justice for affected citizens. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of legal settlements in shaping the state’s financial landscape and sets a precedent for how similar past injustices could be addressed in the future.

Summary

House Bill 80 aims to appropriate $91,824,720.79 from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2018-2019 to pay a judgment tied to a class action lawsuit concerning the flood of April 6, 1983, on the Tangipahoa River. The funds are designated to be handled by Hancock Bank as an escrow agent, which highlights the bill's financial management aspect in addressing long-standing legal obligations. The judgment is to be settled only after a signed agreement is reached between the plaintiffs and the state of Louisiana, ensuring that the funds will be used accordingly once the legal framework has been established.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 80 appears to be largely supportive, as it addresses the need for accountability and restitution for the victims of a significant disaster. Lawmakers and constituents that back the bill generally view it as a necessary measure to restore justice and provide closure to those impacted by the flood. However, some concerns may arise regarding the approach to funding such settlements and the potential implications for future appropriations, which could provoke discussions around budgetary constraints and prioritization of state spending.

Contention

While the bill is directed toward a specific historical incident, the discussions may reflect broader debates regarding state responsibility and fiscal priorities. Some legislators may express concerns about the implications of such appropriations on future state budgets, particularly in light of pressing needs in other areas such as education and infrastructure. There may be tension regarding how such a significant payout might set a precedent for other claims, potentially affecting the state's ability to manage similar cases in the future effectively.