Louisiana House Bill HB836

Louisiana 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/17/22
• Refer: 3/21/22

Caption

Appropriates funds for partial payment of the judgment against the state in the suit entitled Jean Boudreaux and the Victims of the Flood of April 6, 1983, on the Tangipahoa River v. State of La. et al.

Impact

The bill proposes a significant amendment to the existing legal framework by introducing an exception to the law that prohibits the state from making payments on claims or debts that exceed a ten-year duration since the event in question. This exception ensures that the state can fulfill its financial responsibilities despite the elapsed time since the flood incident. Such legislation may set a precedent for future claims against the state, particularly those arising from natural disasters or similar events, thereby influencing how long-term liabilities are handled within state governance.

Summary

House Bill 836 pertains to the appropriation of funds for a partial payment of a longstanding judgment against the state of Louisiana concerning a flood that occurred on April 6, 1983, on the Tangipahoa River. The bill specifically allocates $45 million from the state general fund for the fiscal year 2021-2022 to provide compensation to the plaintiffs in the case titled 'Jean Boudreaux and the Victims of the Flood on April 6, 1983, on the Tangipahoa River v. State of Louisiana, et al.' This allocation aims to address the state's financial obligation resulting from a court ruling dated June 10, 2005, thereby providing a resolution for a claim that has remained unaddressed for several years.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 836 appears to be generally supportive among those who recognize the necessity of honoring judicial decisions and compensating victims of natural disasters. Advocates for the bill assert that it reflects a commitment to justice and accountability from the state's side. However, there may also be concerns regarding the implications of such a financial appropriation on the state budget and potential future claims, which could invoke apprehension among budget-conscious lawmakers and stakeholders who might prioritize fiscal restraint.

Contention

While the bill seems straightforward in addressing a specific judgment, there is potential contention regarding the implications of creating exceptions to the existing statutes surrounding state payments. Opponents may argue that allowing for outdated claims to be paid could unlock a floodgate of similar claims, leading to unforeseen financial burdens on the state. Furthermore, discussions may arise concerning the prioritization of such appropriations amidst other pressing state funding needs, such as education and infrastructure.