by Rebecca Triche, LWF Executive Director

It is deeply disappointing that the state of Louisiana actively participated in the cancellation of the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion (MBSD) project. More recently the state has cancelled the Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion project with little public input. How will this impact the coastal master plan that has included these major lynch-pin projects in planning and modeling for restoration of southeast Louisiana? Removing both projects from consideration in the Master Plan for 2029 is a great loss for the region’s future in both habitat and project funding.

The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project was paid for. It meets the requirements for repairing the injuries from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. To not use the disaster funding dedicated to large sediment diversions is a tragedy for our coastal restoration efforts. It’s a lost opportunity to show how Louisiana can plan and build a large-scale project that is desperately needed. It’s lost economic impact for the area. What has happened to MBSD looks like the kind of politics that people expect from Louisiana. It’s a step backwards toward what observers feared about political meddling that dismisses science and ignores evidence-based project planning. This is a second tragedy after the horrible disaster of the oil spill.

Coastal restoration is losing sight of sustaining Louisiana’s famed fisheries.

Sediment diversions are not a science experiment. A river delivering freshwater, nutrients, and sediments is what creates and sustains an estuary. Redfish, speckled trout, tarpon, shrimp and many other species spend some part of their life cycle in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. This is crucial to understand when planning for coastal restoration and this knowledge has been a part of our collective dialogue for decades. Are the goals of sustaining our fisheries and wildlife being reduced with this pivot away from support for diversions?

Barataria Basin is sinking, saltwater is intruding further into the basin, and fisheries production is declining. This area deserves bold action that provides estuarine sustainability. It may get expensive rocks instead.

Rocks and ridges can protect existing wetlands and that’s important for areas where there isn’t a river to rebuild and restore wetlands. But rocks do not create wetlands that provide for fisheries production. Even marsh creation projects do not provide benefits to fisheries immediately. A river diversion can.

Simply using a river diversion to maintain salinity levels to benefit one species and a few special interests withholds all other opportunities. What about the benefits for other stakeholders and the rest of south Louisiana?

LWF is not giving up on the fisheries and abundant wildlife that earned our reputation as Sportsman’s Paradise. Healthy rivers and river diversions are crucial tools in maintaining the habitat that wildlife needs. What’s good for wildlife is good for people.

The uncertainty around shifting priorities and sliding into parochial focus again.

There are choices being made right now that disregard input and participation in a well-regarded planning process over many years in support of the coastal master plan. What are the current priorities for project selection? Is science being dismissed and planning being derailed?

Many of us remember the inadequacies of the parochial focus for levee protection and coastal restoration when dealing with the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. CPRA was created to meet the obvious problems associated with sustaining several coastal estuaries, each crossing multiple parish lines and involving multiple local entities. From what has been touted in the past few months, are we returning to decentralized project development without conformance to a plan that now has major holes in it with the removal of sediment diversions? Also what is the state’s disposition for the other river diversions identified in the master plan? There is strong support for freshwater diversions, too.

Where is the transparency in today’s coastal planning? What about the funding?

We have not heard of real assurances that the state of Louisiana will not have to pay back the expenses for MBSD. The project was to be funded with money from the Deepwater Horizon’s natural resource damages and Clean Water Act penalties to mitigate for the damage that was caused to the wetlands and habitat. Not every coastal project proposal is qualified to meet the standards required to restore the injuries from the oil spill. But MBSD does. Despite assertions from a few people, it is not assured that the Deepwater Horizon funds for MBSD can be spread around to the types of projects CPRA has proposed. The Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group has to undertake restoration planning and ensure proposed projects meet the requirements of the Deepwater Horizon Consent Decree.

There has not been a full public accounting of the state being allowed to walk away from a thoroughly vetted project under construction. CPRA’s termination of MBSD wasted $612 million in Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement funds and restored no injuries from the oil spill.

We are looking forward to CPRA and the Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group performing the required accounting and reconciliation of NRD funds and reporting that out publicly so that we know how the $612 million was spent. Neither the Deepwater Horizon restoration process or the Coastal Master Plan and CPRA Board procedures authorize closed door decisions.

LWF acted to defend and support MBSD and Louisiana’s coastal restoration planning process.

In July 2024, LWF joined other interested parties in intervening in Jurisich et al vs Corps of Engineers et al to support the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion and its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Due to LWF’s stance since 1988 acknowledging the benefits of a sediment diversion, it was crucial to protect the progress made on this project. Despite the state of Louisiana cancelling the project, the lawsuit has not been withdrawn by the plaintiffs and the Corps’ permit for MBSD continues to be suspended, not cancelled. LWF holds further comment on this while the case is still open.

By the end of 2024, LWF leadership recognized that no action was being taken by either party to resolve the lawsuit Plaquemines Parish Government v. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority and it was being used as a justification to stall the project. A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) related to this litigation was also being used as a justification not to publicly discuss or provide updates about the progress of the project to the public. Intervention in the state court litigation would potentially accomplish the goals of asking the court to decide whether CPRA is required to obtain a local development/floodplain permit for the MBSD project. LWF was concerned that CPRA and Plaquemines Parish Government were mutually coordinating the project’s termination without the public’s continued input.

Ultimately, LWF supported the intervention filed by eight individuals who had strong personal and business interests in Plaquemines Parish. These eight individuals simply sought to allow an open debate in court on the merits of the claims that the parish permit was required by CPRA. Does requiring CPRA to comply with a local ordinance unconstitutionally violate the state’s police powers? The legislature created CPRA to be the single state entity responsible for coastal protection and CPRA cannot cede its authority to local government. Coastal residents’ livelihoods, health, welfare, and personal interests are adversely affected by increasing land loss and species and fish habitat loss.

Once the State cancelled the project, Plaquemines Parish Government withdrew the lawsuit and the intervention became moot. But the assertion that CPRA must comply with a local ordinance when it had not before for its projects was not tested nor decided by the court. It is unclear whether CPRA is currently obtaining local permits for other projects.

What’s next for the Barataria Basin in the aftermath of the State cancelling MBSD?

The termination of MBSD calls into question every planned project in the Barataria Basin.

CPRA has not produced any feasibility or engineering studies for its pivot to a land bridge in Barataria Basin or updated feasibility studies for the smaller Myrtle Grove diversion, a diversion that will build less land while sending enough freshwater to lower the salinity in similar ways as MBSD. Any cost increases to Myrtle Grove likely require additional Congressional authorization. It is highly unlikely that project, if approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Congress, will be constructed in the next ten years.

It is unknown whether CPRA will implement other projects in the Barataria Basin with the remaining NRD funds. There has been no transparent discussion about replacement projects. The Barataria Basin was the most impacted area from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Louisiana Wildlife Federation’s support for sediment diversions has not been cancelled. We urge continued science-based coastal planning and restoration. In the aftermath of the current administration cancelling two planned projects, and particularly one that had begun construction, we risk losing crucial support needed to address this crisis of land loss over the coming decades. The stakes are too high to play politics with our economic future.

Previous statements about the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project can be found on LWF’s website:

Louisiana Wildlife Federation

Message History

Add new keyword