One would think that Republicans would know better. One would think that Republicans from an important oil- and gas-producing state would know better. One would think, or hope, that they would prioritize the economic wellbeing of their states and the livelihoods of their constituents over their narrow political ambitions.

And one would be wrong. Illustrating the perverse incentives shaping the behavior of prosecutors running for higher office, then-Louisiana Attorney General (now Governor) Jeff Landry intervened and joined as a plaintiff in lawsuits, forty-three cases now in total dating back to 2013 by several parishes against the fossil energy producers. They purportedly are the cause of the long-term land erosion problem in Louisiana. The current Attorney General, Liz Murrill, formerly the Solicitor General under Landry, has continued this office’s deeply dubious support for the plaintiffs.

Let us begin with the actual science on the land erosion afflicting the Mississippi River delta in Louisiana, as summarized by the U.S. Geological Survey:

USGS and other studies indicate that major shifts in the course of the Mississippi River have contributed significantly to the demise of the wetlands. The 300 kilometer-wide Mississippi River delta plain and its associated wetlands and barrier shorelines are the product of the continuous accumulation of sediments deposited by the river and its distributaries during the past 7,000 years. [As a result of] regular shifts in the river’s course … the deltas experienced erosion and degradation due to compaction of loose sediment, rise in relative sea level, and catastrophic storms.

Human activities during the past century have drastically affected the wetlands. Natural processes alone are not responsible for the degradation and loss of wetlands in the Mississippi River delta plain. The seasonal flooding that previously provided sediments critical to the healthy growth of wetlands has been virtually eliminated by construction of massive levees that channel the river for nearly 2000 kilometers; sediment carried by the river is now discharged far from the coast, thereby depriving wetlands of vital sediment. In addition, throughout the wetlands, an extensive system of dredged canals and flood-control structures, constructed to facilitate hydrocarbon exploration and production as well as commercial and recreational boat traffic, has enabled salt water from the Gulf of Mexico to intrude brackish and freshwater wetlands. Moreover, forced drainage of the wetlands to accommodate development and agriculture also contribute to wetlands deterioration and loss. (emphasis added)

Consider now the verbiage in the original lawsuit filed by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority:

Coastal lands are a natural protective buffer, without which the levees that protect the cities and towns of south Louisiana are left exposed to unabated destructive forces. This natural protective buffer took 6,000 years to form. Yet, as described below, it has been brought to the brink of destruction over the course of a single human lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of acres of the coastal lands that once protected south Louisiana are now gone as a result of oil and gas industry activities — all as specifically noted by the United States Geological Survey. (emphasis added)

Got that? The lawsuit, to which then-AG and now Governor Landry  and current AG Murrill affixed their names and offices, found itself unable, or inconvenient, even to reference the USGS accurately. It is the levees that have “virtually eliminated” the seasonal flooding providing the “sediments critical to the healthy growth of wetlands.” An additional factor is the “extensive system of dredged canals and flood-control structures” facilitating hydrocarbon exploration and production as well as commercial and recreational boat traffic.

And about those hydrocarbon activities: The lawsuit fails to mention that to the extent that the canals have contributed to erosion of the delta, and to the extent that the canals facilitate hydrocarbon operations among others, the erosion is the direct result of “permits issued by the state and federal agencies.”

And why were those permits originally issued? With respect to the energy producers, they were serving as federal contractors in the 1940s working at the direction of the federal government to produce crude oil from the Louisiana coastal zone to be refined into high-octane aviation gasoline for the war effort.

Governor Landry’s central argument should disqualify him from any further public office: The energy producers now should be punished for doing what the federal government asked them to do and for which the feds and the state government issued permits.

It is not only the energy producers who are being punished. The Pelican Institute for Public Policy reports its findings that this litigation, by increasing the cost and risk of fossil energy production in the state, has important adverse effects, including a reduction in offshore drilling of 53-74 wells, with attendant economic losses of $125.7-$320.3 million over 34 months, or $44.4-$113.0 million annually. Because the average royalty rate in the coastal zone is about 20%, state and local royalty revenue has declined by $8.9-$22.6 million annually, due to the increased costs and risks caused by the litigation.

Governor Landry and AG Murrill can misrepresent the land erosion problem as much as their political interests demand, but the real erosion inherent in the ubiquitous lawsuits against the fossil energy producers — they are alleged to be responsible for climate change, shortcomings in the recycling of plastics, erosion of Louisiana wetlands, and on and on — is to our constitutional institutions. The central purpose of the constitution is the protection of unpopular political groups and firms and industries against the whims and passions of the political majority of the moment, and against the protection-racket and money-grabbing machinations of such politicians as Jeff Landry and Liz Murrill. For Republicans to descend to such depths while applauding themselves for “fighting for common sense values and bringing people together to deliver solutions” is shameful.