Spotlight

Earned Media


News









CPRA, Kline Believe Mid-Barataria Diversion is the Best Way to Fight Coastal Land Loss

Plaquemines Gazette 5/4/21. Full issue here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-TWADBHTrOSJgMBovuCFL4FNg-CRXhnD/view?usp=sharing

Coastal Protection & Restoration Authority chairman Chip Kline has been the most ardent and vocal supporter of the Mid-Barataria Diversion Project.

Whether it’s presentations at a CPRA board meeting, a Plaquemines Parish council meeting, or writings in an opinion article, Kline has consistently defended and outlined the necessity for the Mid-Barataria Diversion Project. Kline’s steadfast commitment to supporting the diversion has caused him to travel around southeastern Louisiana as if he were on a political campaign.

Every chance Kline gets, he speaks to local governments, business associations, and town halls full of potentially impacted residents, constantly explaining the necessity of the diversion project. As he explains it in an opinion article published in the Advocate, Louisiana experiences “a football field of land lost every 100 minutes.”

“Specifically, the Barataria Basin in Plaquemines Parish has lost more than 30% of its wetlands since the 1930s, and those losses could double over the next 50 years without major action,” Kline states in the article. Kline uses these numbers to highlight the severity of the issue at hand and as a launching point to explain what the main cause of this land loss has been. He states that the Mississippi River used to “flow freely,” but since the creation of the federal levee system—which was the government’s response to the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927—the Mississippi River has been confined to one path. As a result, the river has not been able to deposit sediment into the surrounding marshes, causing them to steadily erode into the Gulf of Mexico. “ is problem was exacerbated over time by the effects of climate change, sea level rise, subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and other man-made interferences,” Kline adds, emphasizing that the main cause—however— remains the Mississippi River being unable to deposit sediment into the marsh.

The Mid-Barataria Diversion is a way to return the sediment starved from the Barataria Bay for nearly 100 years. According to numbers provided by the DEIS, the diversion project is estimated to “build and sustain” 13,000 to 26,000 acres of land over a 50-year period.

The benefits to this land building include a reduction in storm surge of .5 to 1 foot for areas north of the diversion, aiding populations of animals that thrive in freshwater marsh environments, and providing economic development in its construction.  e DEIS and CPRA expect a $1.4 billion increase in sales, $648 million increase in household earnings, $890 million in gross regional product, and the creation of nearly 12,400 jobs for the Southeast Louisiana region.  is has been the basic structure of Kline’s (and those who support the diversion) argument: he emphasizes the land-loss problem, identifies the lack of sediment from the Mississippi River as the main cause, and concludes that the diversion is the best way to handle the issue as it most effectively returns sediment to the Barataria Bay. He then lists how this land building project will have positive impacts in a more than superficial way.

This is a reasonable and easy-to-understand argument. It should be noted that Kline and CPRA have a large base of support for the diversion project as well, which mainly comes from areas north of the diversion. Chairwoman of the board of Greater New Orleans Inc., Gay LeBreton, and chairman for GNO Inc.’s Coalition for Coastal Resilience and Economy, Brandon Nelson, jointly penned an opinion article voicing support for the project. More recently, New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell added her support to the diversion project also writing an opinion article published in the Advocate.

Perhaps most importantly, CPRA’s Coastal Master Plan, a detailed account of the projects CPRA plans to implement (which includes the Mid-Barataria Diversion Project), has been unanimously approved by the Louisiana state legislature whenever it has come up for a vote. But Kline’s perspective is not without its critics, especially since the publishing of the DEIS. Based on USACE’s own numbers in the DEIS, opponents of the project point out that the diversion will ruin the oyster industry, shrimp industry, and marine mammal population in the region. Also noted by the opponents, Plaquemines residents south of the diversion do not get the storm surge protection that would be enjoyed by areas north of it (mainly Orleans parish).

In fact, lower Plaquemines could experience increased water levels, tidal flooding, and greater exposure to hurricane impacts. Kline and CPRA have responded to these criticisms. Mainly, that there is around $305 million set aside to assist the communities negatively impacted by the diversion.

There is also another $33 million set aside for the oyster and shrimp industries. Kline adds that the DEIS should not be used as the final measure of CPRA’s mitigation strategies.

This is another pillar in the current argument supporting the diversion: CPRA’s mitigation plan will change and expand in scope according to residents’ comments on the DEIS (which can be submitted at parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId= 100083).

“The mitigation measures that are included in the [DEIS] are the floor, they are the bare minimum,” Kline stated at the April 8 Plaquemines Parish Council meeting. “ is is a moment in time where we [must have] productive participation.” Even after this comment period is over and the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been published— which is expected sometime in early 2022—there will be another comment period before the USACE makes a final decision on the project. Another point of emphasis for CPRA and Kline is that many of the negative impacts highlighted by opponents of the diversion are going to happen without the diversion as well.  e Barataria Bay is able to support such a wide variety of life due to a delicate balance of saltwater and freshwater. With the continued advent of climate change, sea level rise, and saltwater intrusion, the Barataria Bay would eventually become so inundated with salt water that it would not be able to support the animals currently there. If this happens, the Barataria Bay could, effectively, be considered dead. If the bay dies, then so does the oyster and shrimp population.

“This project will speed up some of the impacts [from climate change, sea level rise, and subsidence],” Kline acknowledged. “But a future without this project is much scarier than one with it.” He added that the CPRA will continue constructing projects that address immediate coastal restoration needs, and the diversion will make those projects more effective.

“There are extensive land building capabilities with this diversion alone, but it also will sustain the land that is in place today, and it will sustain the land built by dredging,” Kline stated. Kline bolsters this position by citing other diversions, some man-made and others natural breaches, (Caernarvon, Mardi Gras Pass, Wax Lake Outlet, West Bay Diversion, etc.) that have built and sustained a noticeable amount of land after their implementation.

“The land loss crisis in this state started when the Mississippi River was leveed, that is a fact,” he emphasized.

“Thee only areas that are growing land that are the areas connected to the Mississippi River.”

As stated, this is the first article in a three-part series exploring the multiple perspectives around the diversion project. Next week will focus on criticisms of the diversion.

Latest Mississippi River Delta News