Hard Questions Remain on Stalled Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion

11.04.2024 | In Sediment Diversions

Restore the Mississippi River Delta is concerned about Louisiana’s rapidly disappearing coast, and we know you are, too. We want to keep you informed of the most critical issues currently facing our coast.

This blog marks the fourth in a series expressing our concerns about recent shifts in our state’s successful and popular coastal program, including changes to the structure of our coastal program, the protection of coastal funding, and implementation of cornerstone projects in our science-based Coastal Master Plan. Get caught up on the latest developments and learn how you can support the coastal program below.

Here’s a quick recap of the latest on MBSD

Skip to a section

1. Questions from the Legislature
2. Providing Detail for the Record (MRD’s follow up to Testimony)
3. Commitment from the Federal Agencies Who Approved the Project
4. Important Issues to Watch For

Louisiana’s premier restoration project, the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion (MBSD) continues to face construction delays while the public – and state legislators – wait for answers and transparency.

Last month, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board (CPRA Board) Chairman Gordon Dove spoke on the project at a Louisiana Senate Transportation, Highways and Public Works Committee (Sen. Transportation) hearing – but he only provided the committee with adverse impact findings from the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement, while also failing to offer details on the “settlement” with Plaquemines Parish Government hinted at during a similar August hearing —leaving many senators seemingly frustrated.

Representatives from Restore the Mississippi River Delta (MRD), the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana (CRCL) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) testified on the project’s benefits, financial risks of inaction and the transparent process leading to MBSD’s selection, funding and decision to move forward with construction. At the committee members’ request, MRD also provided follow-up information to the legislative committees, which you can read more about below.

The hearing was followed by a letter to the state from the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resources Damages (NRDA) Federal Trustees, in which the oil spill funding agencies expressed their continued strong support for the approved MBSD project, demanded a commitment from the state and warned of financial repercussions if the state fails to construct the project.

Questions from the Legislature

For months, the Senate Transportation Committee has sought updates on the state’s largest coastal restoration project, expressing concerns over potential project scale-backs to appease Plaquemines Parish Government. Despite requests, the state has provided limited details on construction, negotiations or project changes. In October, CPRA Chairman Gordon Dove revealed $519 million in sunk costs but shared few updates on Plaquemines Parish negotiations or CPRA’s commitment to the original project. Committee members expressed frustration over the slow progress and lack of transparency. Representatives from MRD, CRCL, and TNC testified on project benefits, financial risks, and mitigation measures, with additional support statements from Plaquemines Parish residents submitted.

The Sen. Transportation committee has been asking for progress updates on the state’s largest coastal restoration project for months. In an August joint meeting of House and Senate transportation committees, Dove cast doubt on the state’s commitment to building the project as it was designed, hinting instead at the development of a scaled-back project to meet the requests of Plaquemines Parish Government.

Despite ongoing requests for information on the project’s status, the state has offered minimal details on either the progress of construction, negotiations with Plaquemines Parish or potential project modifications. Then, the Sen. Transportation committee called Chairman Dove back for its October meeting to give more information on the status of the massive coastal restoration project. According to Dove, total sunk costs on MBSD had reached $519 million but few other new details were shared about the negotiations with Plaquemines Parish Government, what changes to the project were being sought or if the CPRA remained committed to constructing the project as approved. “I think it’s up to Plaquemines right now. I don’t think it’s up to CPRA,” offered Chairman Dove. Overall, members of the committee seemed less patient with the lack of progress and the absence of detail provided during his testimony.

Representatives from MRD, CRCL and TNC were also allowed to address the committee during the October hearing. The testimony highlighted the project’s benefits, the risk to communities in the basin if the project is not built, the mitigation measures included with the project to address adverse impacts, and the potential financial repercussions to the state if any of the $519 million already spent on land rights, engineering, design and construction has to be repaid. Additional testimonies from Plaquemines Parish residents in support of the project were submitted and read into the record as well.

Providing Detail for the Record (MRD’s follow up to Testimony)

In response to committee questions, MRD sent Senate Transportation Committee further details related to DWH NRDA funding, CPRA’s authority to execute approved coastal projects, statewide financial risks of project cancellation, and positive findings from the Final Environmental Impact Statement. MRD warned that the state’s stance—that NRDA funds “belong” to Louisiana and Plaquemines Parish controls project decisions—misunderstands complex approval and funding requirements and could expose the state to financial liabilities. MRD emphasized the project’s unique benefits, including $378 million in mitigation funds, which remain on hold due to construction delays.

As a follow up to lines of questioning from committee, MRD provided the Senate Transportation committee with analysis covering DWH NRDA funding and approval processes; CPRA’s existing statutory and constitutional authority to implement approved coastal restoration projects; financial liabilities to the entire state from cancelling or modifying the project; the history of community engagement and the positive findings from the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

MRD communicated to the senators that the state’s current position – that DWH NRDA funding “belongs” to the state of Louisiana and that Plaquemines Parish Government has the authority to determine if and how the project moves forward – severely misunderstands the complex legal and procedural steps required to approve and fund projects to restore injuries from the oil spill, and ignores the responsibilities given to the CPRA Board and its coastal master plan by the Legislature and the State Constitution to take action to restore and protect the coast. This faulty position also exposes the state financially. They may have to repay NRDA funds expended since it acquiesced to the Plaquemines Parish Government lawsuit or, perhaps, dating all the way back to the groundbreaking.

Other key elements from MRD’s testimony and follow up materials reinforced the project’s benefits. Multiple alternative project types were evaluated, and none carried the same number of benefits with as few adverse impacts as the approved design rate of 75,000 cubic feet per second project. MBSD also brings with it $378 million in mitigation and stewardship funding to support communities, fisheries and marine mammals that could experience negative impacts from the addition of freshwater and sediment back into the Barataria Basin. But those mitigation dollars remain on hold in addition to the thwarted construction.

Commitment from the Federal Agencies who approved the project

Following the Senate Transportation hearing, federal agencies including NOAA, USDA, EPA, and DOI that make up the Trustee Implementation Group (TIG) expressed concerns over MBSD’s status, seeking CPRA’s commitment to the project as designed. They underscored the thorough evaluation behind the project, its benefits, and the costly delays that any changes would entail. The agencies cautioned that if Louisiana does not proceed with the project as approved, allocated TIG funds must be halted and returned for future restoration activities.

Also expressing concerns over the status of the MBSD project were the DWH NRDA Federal Trustee agencies. Writing together the week after the Senate Transportation hearing, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of the Interior (DOI), sought reassurances from the CPRA that they remained committed to constructing the MBSD project as evaluated and designed.

The federal agencies declared their “continued commitment to the approved MBSD project,” and requested, “a clear statement” from CPRA affirming the same. The letter referenced the long and comprehensive evaluation process that led to the selection and funding of the project and the important benefits the project and its mitigation and stewardship measures provide to Louisiana’s communities, economy, and environment. It also reminded CPRA of the processes and procedures in place for considering changes or cancelling a project—additional data collection, design, permitting, and evaluation. Steps that, they warned, would delay implementation and lead to increased costs.

The letter also echoed the cautions previously made by MRD and other project advocates, “If Louisiana decides not to pursue the project as evaluated and designed, the Federal Trustees expect that the State will cease spending allocated TIG funds immediately and return those funds for future restoration activities.”

Important Issues to Watch For

The continued attention and questions from the Louisiana Legislature have put more pressure on CPRA to be transparent about its intentions regarding the MBSD project and its planned course of action – both in the courtroom and on the construction site. The subsequent letter from the federal oil spill funding agencies confirmed the warnings made by MRD and others raised the stakes higher for CPRA and requested a direct response and “continued transparent communication” with agencies and the public. This leaves several questions unanswered over topics that are critical not only for the MBSD project but also for future projects and business in Louisiana, these include: