Landry to feds: diversion unacceptable ‘in its present form’ | Environment

Gov. Jeff Landry told federal officials this week that the state has serious concerns about a massive coastal restoration project  underway in Plaquemines Parish, pointing to rising construction costs and arguing that the project was hastily approved.

Landry’s latest criticism of the $3.1 billion Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion echoed issues he raised last month before a state Senate committee, when he said the project would “break our culture” by harming shrimping and oyster growing in the area.

In a Dec. 10 letter to federal officials overseeing the project, Landry also said construction began before analyses were completed about the cost to mitigate the diversion’s effects on fisheries and other wildlife, along with other potential impacts. 

“Considering the unknowns and exposure for both the state and federal trustees, we simply ask for your utmost cooperation in arriving at a consensus that best represents the citizens of the State of Louisiana, and all concerned,” Landry said in the letter to officials from four federal agencies.

The officials are members of a trustee group that controls a portion of the fines and settlements linked to the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which are being used to finance the project. Those agencies are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency.

Landry offered to meet with the federal trustees to further discuss the state’s concerns. His letter objected to the project “in its present form,” but did not recommend changes or other restoration projects that could replace it.

Legal battle over a controversial project

Under construction since August 2023, the diversion project would direct a massive amount of Mississippi River freshwater and sediment through a 2-mile-long concrete structure on the west bank of Plaquemines Parish into the Barataria basin. The goal is to rebuild up to 21 square miles of land that have been lost to coastal erosion.

Opponents of the project argue it could cause increased flooding of homes and businesses in the parish, and that its freshwater will disrupt oyster farming and some shrimp and other fisheries in the basin. 

In October, the federal trustees warned the state that it could be required to repay as much as $500 million already spent on the project if it is scrapped. In his letter, Landry said the state does not agree it violated the trustees’ spending rules.

Landry also said the state believes the project should be modified due to the concerns it raised.  However, it is unclear if the state could force a change to the already-approved funding for the project as federal rules require state and federal trustees to come to a consensus.

Landry repeated claims that former Gov. John Bel Edwards started construction of the diversion before its design was complete and before receiving permits from the parish.

“It became clear that a last minute out the door approval to proceed in construction was prematurely made by the prior administration ,” he wrote.

Landry also said work began before maps used to set flood-insurance rates were approved.

But in March, a FEMA official said that the agency did not have concerns about the project because it was determined that the project would not impact Plaquemines Parish’s flood maps.

The Edwards administration had contended it did not need parish permits for what was a state-only project.

In November 2023, the parish sued the state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority  over the lack of parish permits. The state filed its own suit , arguing it was building the diversion under its “police power.” . The state also argued that the Legislature tasked CPRA with sole authority over coastal protection projects.

But a ruling in the state’s favor in the Baton Rouge court was overturned by two state appeals courts, which ordered the case returned to the Plaquemines court.

The court did not act on the case before Edwards left office, and the Landry administration has said it is now in settlement talks with the parish that likely would include changes in the scope of the project. State officials have refused to outline the settlement terms, which Landry’s letter does not provide.

Landry’s letter also cites a demand by plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit that a rewrite of a federal Endangered Species Act biological opinion, requested by scientists with NOAA and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, be completed before any additional work on the project be completed.

However, in its requests , those two scientists indicated any effects on endangered species would be minimal.

Landry also raised concerns about construction cost increases

of between 15% to 27% per year. He pointed out that the primary contractor has requested $70 million more because work began before its design was complete, and last week asked for $1 million to cover Hurricane Francine damage.

James Miller, a spokesperson for NOAA, recently said  the project includes a spending limit on construction, and that the trustees included contingency funding for cost increases in the budget. But he said any project delays caused by the state weren’t covered. 

Landry also said t

here was no analysis of the cost of addressing diversion sediment filling canals and ponds in the basin, and warned it would silt in docking areas at the under-construction Venture Global Plaquemines Liquefied Natural Gas export facility .

A former Edwards administration official, who requested anonymity, disagreed with Landry’s contention that the project’s approvals and the start of construction came during the last minutes of the administration.

“All required permits were obtained,” said the former official, adding that construction started eight months after permits were granted. That “is not last minute.”

The former official also said the project’s mitigation efforts met the requirements set by both federal law and the Louisiana trustees.

“The law is clear that coastal restoration is a statewide priority and that local governments cannot interfere with the state’s coastal restoration priorities,” the former official said. “It is baffling why the state is now placing local special interests over these statewide interests.”

Edwards, now an attorney in private practice, did not respond to a request for comment.

Also raising questions about Landry’s letter was the Restore the Mississippi River Delta Coalition, whose members include the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society and Pontchartrain Conservancy. The group has supported a major diversion rebuilding land in the Barataria Basin since its founding in 2008.

“Governor Landry is doubling down on misinformation with this letter, repeating falsehoods that threaten the future of Louisiana’s most vital coastal restoration project,” said the coalition’s statement.

“Failing to build the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion as designed, permitted and funded will leave our citizens and businesses even more vulnerable to future storms and floods,” the statement added. “The stakes couldn’t be clearer: prioritizing political plays over sound science today puts lives, land and livelihoods at risk tomorrow.”