Posted on August 14, 2024
The state is closing in on a settlement over the future of Louisiana’s biggest ever coastal restoration project, the controversial Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, a state official said Monday, but the secret negotiations have raised questions over the scope of the work and the nearly $3 billion in funding approved for it.
The unprecedented project has been in a state of limbo since shortly after Gov. Jeff Landry’s administration took office in January despite having broken ground a year ago. It is opposed by some commercial fishers in the area, but seen as vital by a broad range of scientists and coastal advocates who describe it as a way of helping address Louisiana’s severe land loss crisis through a solution that works with nature.
Several sources who said they were familiar with details of the talks and who spoke on condition of anonymity say it could include building the diversion in stages over a much longer period of time than the originally proposed five-year construction schedule. But Gordon Dove, chair of the state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, denied those details.
Dove announced that a settlement agreement was nearly complete between the state and Plaquemines Parish as he spoke during a joint meeting of the Louisiana House and Senate Transportation, Highways, and Public Works committees at the state Capitol. He said that he, other state officials and Plaquemines Parish representatives signed a confidentiality agreement as part of the negotiations, and that Landry has been informed of the details.
Dove said the state would outline the settlement’s terms to the federal-state Trustee Implementation Group that oversees BP oil spill funds being used to build the diversion during a meeting expected to occur in 30 to 45 days. The Louisiana TIG, as that group is called, includes representatives of five state agencies, including the CPRA, and four federal agencies: the Commerce, Interior and Agriculture departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Any decision made by that group will likely have to be affirmed by the parent trustee group for BP spill natural resource restoration money, which also includes other Gulf Coast states.
The diversion was approved as a restoration project after the Louisiana TIG completed a study showing it would meet goals set by a damage assessment and restoration plan for the massive 2010 spill. Separately, the diversion plan underwent an environmental impact statement overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers as part of its permitting process.
It’s unclear whether a significant change in the project would also require approval by U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who oversaw the BP spill settlement and natural resource damage assessment process.
In an interview after the meeting, Dove said he was unable to give any details of the agreement being negotiated.
“We are trying to figure this thing out and then we’re going to release it to the press,” he said.
Plaquemines officials went to court in late 2023 to block state construction of the diversion near Ironton, on the parish’s west bank, and only agreed to allow some initial construction to resume after the state’s construction contractor applied for a parish construction permit. A settlement would end that suit.
It is unclear what will happen to as many as 15 existing construction contracts, and a number of future ones, if the project were halted or underwent material changes.
The parish opposes the diversion both because of potential flooding issues that might occur in some areas as a result of higher water levels in the Barataria Basin when the diversion is operating, and because the freshwater will disrupt commercial fisheries in the basin, including for brown shrimp, oysters and some finfish species.
During the committee hearing, Dove outlined parts of the environmental impact statement written to support Corps permits that outlined those concerns, including the potential for major permanent adverse impacts to present oyster beds, and brown shrimp abundance. He also cited part of the report saying there would be an increase in tidal flooding in areas outside levee protection 10 miles to the north and 20 miles to the south of the diversion when it was operating.
The project includes more than $360 million in “mitigation” to address those impacts, including money to elevate or relocate homes subject to flooding and funds to create new oyster beds farther south where the correct levels of freshwater and saltwater will be available after the diversion is completed. The mitigation plans also include installing refrigeration equipment on shrimp boats to help them go farther out into the Gulf of Mexico.
Not mentioned during Dove’s presentation were parts of the impact statement describing the potentially beneficial effects of building new land in the basin and an expected increase in freshwater species in the area that might benefit recreational fishers and tourism.
Ryan Lambert, a charter fishing boat captain and diversion proponent, said he thinks several of Dove’s concerns are out of place.
“The brown shrimp will move out of the way from the fresh water,” he said. “Every year there are 50 boats at the mouth of Batiste Colette (on the east bank of the Mississippi) while it’s flowing 200,000 cfs (cubic feet per second), catching brown shrimp.”
He also disagreed with Dove’s comments about the potential for the nutrients carried by the diversion’s freshwater expanding the size of the low-oxygen “dead zone” along Louisiana’s coastline.
“If you take water out of the river and put it through Mother Nature’s filter, which is the marsh and aquatic vegetation, it will filter the nitrate out of the water and the plants will use it as fertilizer,” Lambert said.
Several people who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation said the settlement could include building the diversion in stages, with the first possibly including only one gate at the Mississippi River, instead of three or four, and might also include a smaller outflow area for water and sediment. Dove said he would “categorically deny” the veracity of those details.
“If you hear it from me, you print it,” he said. “If not, you print whatever you want.”
A spokesperson for the Army Corps of Engineers said any major changes in the project would require review by the agency.
