Postcard — October 16, 2013, 8:00 am

The Most Cajun Place on Earth

A trip to one of the properties at issue in Louisiana’s oil-pollution lawsuits 

Land leased from the rancher Aristide Broussard by Chevron in 1942 for the manufacture of airplane fuel. Now the focus of a sixteen-year-old suit brought by Broussard’s heirs, the land is immediately adjacent to the Henry Hub, a major artery of the nation’s natural-gas supply. Chevron denies having polluted Broussard’s land, which it has sued to expropriate under eminent-domain law, citing the hub’s importance to national security. © Samuel James

Land leased from the rancher Aristide Broussard by Chevron in 1942 for the manufacture of airplane fuel. Now the focus of a sixteen-year-old suit brought by Broussard’s heirs, the land is immediately adjacent to the Henry Hub, a major artery of the nation’s natural-gas supply. Chevron denies having polluted Broussard’s land, which it has sued to expropriate under eminent-domain law, citing the hub’s importance to national security. © Samuel James

Since oil was struck near the town of Jennings in 1901, the energy industry has transformed and defined Louisiana environmentally, geographically, and politically. It has drilled some 220,000 wells, built 600 producing oil fields, and constructed 8,000 miles of access canals and pipelines, most of which run through wetlands.

Hundreds of Louisiana landowners have sued oil companies they leased their land to for vast damages, alleging that their properties were badly polluted. As I write in this month’s issue of Harper’s Magazine, these “legacy lawsuits” are a hot political issue, and in recent years the energy industry has been furiously lobbying the state legislature — with a good deal of success — to pass legislation restricting the ability of landowners to go to court.

One of the biggest and bitterest cases involved the Broussard family, which in the late 1990s filed lawsuits against Chevron and other energy-industry defendants. The Broussards’ experts estimated that the cost of fully cleaning up an eighty-acre property the family owned would be $300 million.

To learn more about the case I traveled one morning last March to Abbeville — eighty miles from Baton Rouge and THE MOST CAJUN PLACE ON EARTH, according to a billboard I saw en route. At 11:15 A.M., I found myself waiting impatiently beneath a live oak in front of the white brick courthouse to meet a man named Ron Miguez.

An employee of Warren Perrin, an attorney and the lead plaintiff in the case, Miguez was taking me to see the property the company had allegedly polluted. He was fifteen minutes late, so I called him and asked what the delay was. “I’m supposed to get you at eleven,” he said in a thick drawl. “By my watch, it’s a little after ten.” Daylight saving time had taken place two days earlier, and he’d forgotten to spring forward.

It was the perfect introduction to Miguez, a delightfully loopy character, who soon drove up in a pickup truck. Six feet tall and white-mustachioed, he was wearing a cowboy hat, a leather jacket, and a checkered shirt. I’d attended a court hearing that morning for the case, which pitted Chevron against nearly a hundred heirs of Aristide Broussard, who was Perrin’s great-grandfather. Broussard first leased his land to Chevron (then Texaco) in 1942, to build a gas-processing plant that would make airplane fuel for the war effort. Chevron also produced oil at the site and eventually piped in gas from offshore. The plaintiffs alleged that Chevron and its subtenants had systematically damaged the property.

“Aristide started out with a horse and a saddle. He was a cattleman and raised pigs,” Miguez remarked as I filled him in on the hearing. “But he owned the land that Texaco needed. He only got a small share of the royalties but it was a lot of money back then. The checks he got, it was hard to find a bank to cash them.”

The Broussard heirs also had a second case going against Chevron, this one with national implications. Though Chevron’s processing plant and other operations shut down long ago, it still uses the property and maintains equipment there for moving gas to and from the so-called Henry Hub, which sits on neighboring land.

The Hub, which is operated by a Chevron subsidiary, sits at the intersection of various oil and natural gas pipeline systems. So much natural gas moves through the area that the Hub plays a key role in setting spot and future prices. Chevron has sued to expropriate it under eminent domain, citing the Hub’s importance to national energy and security concerns. That case has gone to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which was expected to issue a ruling later this year.

A 2011 New York Times story about the lawsuit noted that disputes between pipeline operators and property owners are common, but added that the eminent-domain lawyers it spoke with had never heard of a comparable situation. Gideon Kanner, a professor emeritus at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles described Chevron’s efforts to seize the land on national-security grounds as “a sui generis case.”

Smith Stag, a New Orleans firm, represents the Broussard heirs. Attorney Mike Stag hadn’t appeared in court on the day I was in Abbeville because he was recovering from pneumonia, but he provided me with a stack of documents about the Broussard case. They included a deposition from a former Texaco employee, Randall Landry, who said it was company policy to dump oil waste in pits on the property; reports of a 1985 fire and explosion that forced the evacuation of the plant; and allegations that cooling-tower water contaminated with chromium had leached into the Boston Canal, a drainage bayou that runs through plant land and empties into Vermilion Bay.

Miguez, the son of cotton sharecroppers, gave me a rapid-fire tour of Abbeville. We passed Depuy’s Oyster Shop (“The same family’s owned it since 1869; it’s the best restaurant in town.”); Planters Mill (“They make the best rice you’ll ever eat and ship it all over the world.”), Steen’s Syrup Mill (“They make A-1 molasses. It’s the main ingredient in Bullseye Masterpiece barbeque sauce, which is the best there is.”), then drove out of town, past farms and rice fields that were covered in a foot of water for raising crawfish, it being off-season for rice.

Miguez chatted all along the way, about hunting muskrat and alligator, about his preferred method of cooking gumbo, about long-hauling whiskey. “I’d pick it up in Bowling Green, Kentucky, in bulk, uncut,” he said. “It was 190 proof and hotter than gasoline. You could light wet logs with it. Then I’d take it to Los Angeles, California, to be distilled to 80 percent. I picked it up from Jack Daniels in Kentucky and when it came out in a bottle in California it was Old Grand-Dad.”

He drove me around the perimeter of the Broussard family property, a perfect square in the neighboring town of Erath. On it were rusty abandoned buildings, including the old gas plant, storage tanks, and a thin pipeline that brought natural gas from the Henry Hub to a rail rack three miles away, where it shipped out by train. “There used to be wells all over here,” Miguez said as he pointed out the window. “I found some of the waste pits that contaminated the property, but they’re all buried now.”

At first glance, and some might say a second, it was hard to understand how the Broussards could have been asking for so much money from Chevron. Save for the rusted-out buildings, the setting looked bucolic, with cows lazing in a pasture and ducks swimming on ponds next door to the property. But unlike the damage done by spills — with oil washing ashore, blackening beaches and killing fish and seabirds — harm caused by drilling byproducts was largely below ground and invisible, and became apparent only years later with “exhaustive scientific inquiry,” as a state report put it.

Furthermore, the Louisiana Supreme Court had established in a key case called Corbello v. Shell that punitive damages in legacy lawsuits could exceed the fair market value of a polluted property, which meant there was essentially no cap on how much plaintiffs could win. The court said that this was necessary because limiting damage to market value “would give license to oil companies to perform [their] operations in any manner, with indifference as to the aftermath of its operations because of the assurance that it would not be responsible for the full cost of restoration.”

From the family property, we drove to Erath’s three-room Acadian Museum, which Perrin founded, runs, and uses as his office when he’s not working in Lafayette. The museum’s eclectic collection includes a Sears, Roebuck catalog from 1900, a painting of the Marquis de Lafayette, a few stuffed animals, and an old wall-mounted hand-crank telephone. Perrin, age sixty-six, led me to a framed facsimile of an apology issued in 2003 by Queen Elizabeth II for the British expulsion of Acadians from present-day eastern Canada during the French and Indian War. Some of them settled in Louisiana, where they became known as Cajuns. “In 1990 I heard about the U.S. government offering an apology to Japanese-Americans interned during World War II,” he said. “That led me to sue the Queen. Thirteen years later we worked out a deal and she issued this apology.”

We sat down in his small, cluttered office, where campaign posters for Huey Long and Jimmy Carter shared wall space with the flags of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Aristide Broussard, he explained, had originally leased the eighty acres to Texaco for seventy-five years at $1,600 a year, far less than the prevailing rate at the time. The middlemen who acquired the lease for Texaco also fleeced Aristide on royalty payments for oil and gas production. Typically landowners received a rate of one-eighth the value of the energy produced, but the middlemen convinced him to sell them seven-eighths of his share, leaving him with only a sixty-fourth of the total. They paid him $30,000 up front, which was a lot of money in 1942, but the deal cost Aristide and his heirs millions in future royalties. Perrin renegotiated the lease after he graduated from law school; it still expires in 2018, but now, he told me, it pays his family about $100,000 annually, in line with typical rates.

[*] Hilcorp settled with the Broussards last November.

Perrin learned of the damages to his family’s property when he read in a legal publication that Texaco and Hilcorp,[*] which ran the gas plant, were accusing each other in a lawsuit of misdeeds on his family’s property. “I got a copy of the lawsuit, and they were destroying the place,” he told me.

Sabine, the Chevron subsidiary that operates Henry Hub, offered to buy the property for $1 million. When Aristide’s heirs rejected the offer, the company shifted to try eminent domain. “Aristide wanted that land maintained as a unit because he and his wife struggled so hard to get it, and he wanted his family to stay together,” said Perrin. “How many people know their fifth cousins?”

“Seizing private land is a serious matter,” he added. “It’s not supposed to be done to put an end to a $300 million lawsuit against you.”

Chevron has always denied having polluted Perrin’s land, but in late May, just as the legacy-lawsuit trial was about to begin, it made a settlement offer. Perrin told me that the Broussard family had tentatively accepted, but that negotiations, which are confidential, were ongoing. The two sides are also seeking to negotiate an end to the eminent-domain case. “We’re not anti-oil,” he said. “We’re against companies that don’t clean up their shit.”

Share
Single Page

More from Ken Silverstein:

Commentary November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

Shaky Foundations

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

From the November 2013 issue

Dirty South

The foul legacy of Louisiana oil

Perspective October 23, 2013, 8:00 am

On Brining and Dining

How pro-oil Louisiana politicians have shaped American environmental policy

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2018

Checkpoint Nation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Checkpoint Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Laura Sandoval threaded her way through idling taxis and men selling bottles of water toward the entrance of the Cordova International Bridge, which links Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Earlier that day, a bright Saturday in December 2012, Sandoval had crossed over to Juárez to console a friend whose wife had recently died. She had brought him a few items he had requested—eye drops, the chimichangas from Allsup’s he liked—and now that her care package had been delivered, she was in a hurry to get back to the Texas side, where she’d left her car. She had a three-hour drive to reach home, in the mountains in New Mexico, and she hated driving in the dark.

Sandoval took her place in the long line of people waiting to have their passports checked by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). When it was her turn, she handed her American passport to a customs officer and smiled amicably, waiting for him to wave her through. But the officer said she had been randomly selected for additional screening. Sandoval was led to a secondary inspection area nearby, where two more officers patted her down. Another walked toward her with a drug-sniffing dog, which grew agitated as it came closer, barking and then circling her legs. Because the dog had “alerted,” the officer said, Sandoval would now have to undergo another inspection.

Checkpoint on I-35 near Encinal, Texas (detail) © Gabriella Demczuk
Article
The Printed Word in Peril·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February, at an event at the 92nd Street Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center in New York, while sharing the stage with my fellow British writer Martin Amis and discussing the impact of screen-based reading and bidirectional digital media on the Republic of Letters, I threw this query out to an audience that I estimate was about three hundred strong: “Have any of you been reading anything by Norman Mailer in the past year?” After a while, one hand went up, then another tentatively semi-elevated. Frankly I was surprised it was that many. Of course, there are good reasons why Mailer in particular should suffer posthumous obscurity with such alacrity: his brand of male essentialist braggadocio is arguably extraneous in the age of Trump, Weinstein, and fourth-wave feminism. Moreover, Mailer’s brilliance, such as it was, seemed, even at the time he wrote, to be sparks struck by a steely intellect against the tortuous rocks of a particular age, even though he labored tirelessly to the very end, principally as the booster of his own reputation.

It’s also true that, as J. G. Ballard sagely remarked, for a writer, death is always a career move, and for most of us the move is a demotion, as we’re simultaneously lowered into the grave and our works into the dustbin. But having noted all of the above, it remains the case that Mailer’s death coincided with another far greater extinction: that of the literary milieu in which he’d come to prominence and been sustained for decades. It’s a milieu that I hesitate to identify entirely with what’s understood by the ringing phrase “the Republic of Letters,” even though the overlap between the two was once great indeed; and I cannot be alone in wondering what will remain of the latter once the former, which not long ago seemed so very solid, has melted into air.

What I do feel isolated in—if not entirely alone in—is my determination, as a novelist, essayist, and journalist, not to rage against the dying of literature’s light, although it’s surprising how little of this there is, but merely to examine the great technological discontinuity of our era, as we pivot from the wave to the particle, the fractal to the fungible, and the mechanical to the computable. I first began consciously responding, as a literary practitioner, to the manifold impacts of ­BDDM in the early 2000s—although, being the age I am, I have been feeling its effects throughout my working life—and I first started to write and speak publicly about it around a decade ago. Initially I had the impression I was being heard out, if reluctantly, but as the years have passed, my attempts to limn the shape of this epochal transformation have been met increasingly with outrage, and even abuse, in particular from my fellow writers.

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.

Photograph (detail) by Ellen Cantor from her Prior Pleasures series © The artist. Courtesy dnj Gallery, Santa Monica, California
Article
Nothing but Gifts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

If necessity is the stern but respectable mother of invention, then perhaps desperation is the derelict father of subterfuge. That was certainly the case when I moved to Seattle in 1979.

Though I’d lived there twice during the previous five years, I wasn’t prepared for the economic boom I found upon this latest arrival. Not only had rent increased sharply in all but the most destitute neighborhoods, landlords now routinely demanded first, last, and a hefty security deposit, which meant I was short by about fifty percent. Over the first week or so, I watched with mounting anxiety as food, gas, and lodging expenses reduced the meager half I did have to a severely deficient third. To make matters even more nerve-racking, I was relocating with my nine-year-old son, Ezra. More than my well-being was at stake.

A veteran of cold, solitary starts in strange cities, I knew our best hope wasn’t the classifieds, and certainly not an agency, but the serendipity of the streets—handmade for rent signs, crowded bulletin boards in laundromats and corner grocery stores, passersby on the sidewalk; I had to exploit every opportunity that might present itself, no matter how oblique or improbable. In Eastlake, at the edge of Lake Union between downtown Seattle and the University District, I spied a shabby but vacant one-story house on the corner of a block that was obviously undergoing transition—overgrown lots and foundation remnants where other houses once stood—and that had at least one permanent feature most right-minded people would find forbidding: an elevated section of Interstate 5 just across the street, attended by the incessant roar of cars and trucks. The house needed a new roof, a couple of coats of paint, and, judging by what Ezra and I could detect during a furtive inspection, major repair work inside, including replacing damaged plaster-and-lath walls with sheetrock. All of this, from my standpoint, meant that I might have found a solution to my dilemma.

The next step was locating the owner, a roundabout process that eventually required a trip to the tax assessor’s office. I called the person listed on the rolls and made an appointment. Then came the moment of truth, or, more precisely, untruth, when dire circumstance begot strategic deception. I’d never renovated so much as a closet, but that didn’t stop me from declaring confidently that I possessed both the skills and the willingness to restore the entire place to a presentable—and, therefore, rentable—state in exchange for being able to live there for free, with the length of stay to be determined as work progressed. To my immense relief, the pretense was well received. Indeed, the owner also seemed relieved, if a bit surprised, that he’d have seemingly trustworthy tenants; homeless people who camped beneath the freeway, he explained, had repeatedly broken into the house and used it for all manner of depravity. Telling myself that inspired charlatanry is superior to mundane trespassing—especially this instance of charlatanry, which would yield some actual good—I accepted the keys from my new landlord.

Photograph (detail) © Larry Towell/Magnum Photos
Article
Among Britain’s Anti-Semites·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

This is the story of how the institutions of British Jewry went to war with Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn is another feather in the wind of populism and a fragmentation of the old consensus and politesse. He was elected to the leadership by the party membership in 2015, and no one was more surprised than he. Between 1997 and 2010, Corbyn voted against his own party 428 times. He existed as an ideal, a rebuke to the Blairite leadership, and the only wise man on a ship of fools. His schtick is that of a weary, kindly, socialist Father Christmas, dragged from his vegetable patch to create a utopia almost against his will. But in 2015 the ideal became, reluctantly, flesh. Satirists mock him as Jesus Christ, and this is apt. But only just. He courts sainthood, and if you are very cynical you might say that, like Christ, he shows Jews what they should be. He once sat on the floor of a crowded train, though he was offered a first-class seat, possibly as a private act of penance to those who had, at one time or another, had no seat on a train.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the British media, who are used to punching socialists, crawled over his record and found much to alarm the tiny Jewish community of 260,000. Corbyn called Hez­bollah “friends” and said Hamas, also his “friends,” were devoted “to long-term peace and social justice.” (He later said he regretted using that language.) He invited the Islamist leader Raed Salah, who has accused Jews of killing Christian children to drink their blood, to Parliament, and opposed his extradition. Corbyn is also a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a former chair of Stop the War, at whose rallies they chant, “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.” (There is no rhyme for what will happen to the Jewish population in this paradise.) He was an early supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its global campaign to delegitimize Israel and, through the right of return for Palestinians, end its existence as a Jewish state. (His office now maintains that he does not support BDS. The official Labour Party position is for a two-state solution.) In the most recent general election, only 13 percent of British Jews intended to vote Labour.

Corbyn freed something. The scandals bloomed, swiftly. In 2016 Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, was suspended from the party for sharing a Facebook post that suggested Israel be relocated to the United States. She apologized publicly, was reinstated, and is now a shadow women and equalities minister. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a political supporter of Corbyn, appeared on the radio to defend Shah and said, “When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” For this comment, Livingstone was suspended from the party.

A protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Parliament Square, London, March 26, 2018 (detail) © Yui Mok/PA Images/Getty Images

Chance that a country to which the U.S. sells arms is cited by Amnesty International for torturing its citizens:

1 in 2

A newly discovered lemur (Avahi cleesei) was named after the comedian John Cleese.

Kavanaugh is confirmed; Earth’s governments are given 12 years to get climate change under control; Bansky trolls Sotheby’s

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today