Did the South Lafourche Levee District retain legal status after the court's ruling on overlapping levee districts?

Plain-English summary

State Representative Loulan Pitre asked whether the South Lafourche Levee District still had legal status after a Louisiana Supreme Court decision invalidated another levee district. The Attorney General concluded that South Lafourche would retain its status provided it did not replace an existing district and did not overlap the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District in jurisdiction, functions, and powers. The opinion did not determine whether those factual conditions were satisfied.

The court decision discussed in the opinion involved two districts with overlapping authority. The AG said the overlap could subject taxpayers to both districts' taxes and explained that the court had found the act creating the North Lafourche district unconstitutional. The opinion then applied that decision to the status question presented for South Lafourche.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the AG say South Lafourche Levee District still existed?
Yes, provided the district met the no-replacement and no-overlap conditions stated in the opinion.

What overlap concerned the AG?
The opinion identified overlapping jurisdiction, functions, and powers with the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District as the concern under the cited court decision.

Why did the earlier court case matter to taxpayers?
The opinion said overlapping districts could subject taxpayers to both districts' levee taxes, which was part of the court's reason for rejecting the North Lafourche district's creation.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion discussed Article 6, Sections 38 and 39 of the Louisiana Constitution and the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision concerning North Lafourche and Atchafalaya Basin. It described the North Lafourche district as created by a 1992 amendment to Louisiana Revised Statute 38:291 and said the court found that district's creation unconstitutional because its jurisdiction and powers overlapped an existing district. The AG's answer for South Lafourche was conditional on the facts stated in the opinion.

Citations and references

• Louisiana Revised Statute 38:291 (levee district legislation discussed)
• Louisiana Constitution Article 6, Sections 38 and 39 (levee district powers and tax provisions)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/02-0171

Original opinion text

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
One American Place
301 Mare Street, Suite 600
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O Box 94005
BATON ROUGE
TEL.: (225) 342-7013
FAX: (225) 342-2090
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

MAY 2 8 200Z
Opinion Number 02-0171

63 Levees, Dra=nage District & Flood Control

La. R. S. 38:291
Article 6, Section 38 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974
Honorable Loulan Pitre, Jr.
Article 6, Section 39 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974
Louisiana State Representative
South Lafourche Levee District is constitutionally sound and retains
104 West 65th Street
its legal status and existence provided that it does not replace a
previously existing district, i.e., the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District,
Cut Off, LA 70345
and further provided that it does not have overlapping jurisdiction,
functions, and powers with the Atchafalaya Basin Levee D=strict.
Dear Representative Pitre:

We received your request for our opinion on behalf of the South Lafourche Levee District (hereafter, "District"). Based upon the information in the request and numerous conversations with representatives of the District, it is our understanding that the District’s existence has been called into question in light of a Louisiana Supreme Court decision, Board of Commissioners of the North Lafourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District v. Board of Commissioners of the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District, 666 So.2d 636 (La. 1996)o You therefore seek our opinion on the District’s legal status.

In Board of Commissioners of the North Lafourche Conservation Levee and Drainage District, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in sum, ruled that although the Louisiana Legislature has the power under Article 6, Section 38 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 to create new levee districts, such power must be exercised so that a new levee district replaces a previously existing district or is located in an area where there is no previously existing district. Article 6, Section 38 provides as follows:

Retention; Reorganization; Consolidation. Levee districts as organized and constituted on January 1, 1974 shall continue to exist, except that
(1) The legislature may provide by law for the consolidation, division, or reorganization of existing levee districts or may create new levee districts. However, the members of the board of commissioners of a district heretofore or hereafter created shall be appointed or elected from among residents of the district, as provided by law.
A levee district whose flood control responsibilities are limited to and which is situated entirely within one parish may be consolidated and merged into such parish under the terms and conditions and in the manner provided in Section 16 of the Article.

Page 2

Opinion Number 02-0171
Honorable Loulan Pitre, Jr.
Louisiana State Representative
Page -2-

Obligation of Contract Affirmed. No action taken under this Section shall impair the obligation of outstanding bonded indebtedness or of any other contract of a levee district.

In so ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that North Lafourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District, created by an 1992 amendment to Louisiana Revised Statute 38:291, was not a "new" levee district nor did it consolidate, divide or reorganize an existing levee district. Rather, the two districts before the court, Atchafalaya Basin Levee District and North Lafourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District, in fact, had overlapping jurisdiction, functions, and powers. The Supreme Court premised its decision on the fact that to hold otherwise would create the absurd result that a taxpayer in any overlapping district would be subject to double taxation under Article 6, Section 39 (A) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 which allows Levee Districts to levy an annual tax not to exceed five mills. Taxpayers in these two overlapping districts would be subject to a ten mills tax which is contrary to the constitution. Therefore, the act creating North Lafourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District was unconstitutional and as a result, North Lafourche Conservation, Levee and Drainage District had no legal status. It did not exist.

This case remains in effect and thus dictates that South Lafourche Levee District is constitutionally sound and retains its legal status and existence provided that it does not replace a previously existing district, i.e., the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District, and further provided that it does not have overlapping jurisdiction, functions, and powers with the Atchafalaya Basin Levee District.

We trust that this adequately responds to your request. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

With kindest regards,

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

BY:
TINA VICARI GRANT
Assistant Attorney General

RPI/TVG/dam