May 17th 2021

Relationship Between CPRA and Plaquemines Troubled by Distrust, Trade-offs and History

Plaquemines Gazette PDF can be seen here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D-jmpqAlbCDP5Smg1HxT2CgeCjIQP7cC/view?usp=sharing Editor’s note: In the previous editions of the Plaquemines Gazette, we have published two articles exploring the different perspectives on the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion Project in Plaquemines. In the article explored the pro-diversion argument and the second article explored the anti-diversion argument. This is third and final article in the series will examine the points of conflict between the two perspectives as well as any aspects of coastal land loss not addressed by either side.

The clash over the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project planned to be implemented near Ironton in Plaquemines Parish between the Coastal Protection & Restoration Authority and opponents of the diversion—who are primarily residents of Plaquemines— has been heated and ongoing for many years. Neither side has been willing to compromise on their position.

The CPRA, in defense of the project, has long held that Mississippi River diversions and their “land building capabilities” cut right to the heart of the coastal land loss issue and give Louisiana the best chance to save the eroding coast. “We have used several other strategies to combat coastal land loss: water projects, coastal erosion protection projects, marsh creation.

“Diversions are the only strategy that employ the river’s natural power to create and sustain land,” CPRA Mid Barataria Diversion Program Manager Brad Barth, explaining that since the river was locked in place with levees in response to the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927, the surrounding marshes have been starved of the sediment they need to maintain their land. “This has really prevented the marshes from healing and protecting themselves against land loss. Diversions are the only tools that allow us to reinstate the river’s power,” he added.

While the benefits of the resulting land building—around 13,000 acres of land in the Barataria Basin over 50 years which would provide .5 to 1 foot of storm surge protection for areas north of the diversion— CPRA believes speak for themselves, that idea is really the crux of their argument. Diversions are, in their view, the only real chance Louisiana has of saving its coast. CPRA recognizes that this will have negative effects on the oyster industry, shrimping industry, and lower Plaquemines communities such as Ironton, Myrtle Grove, Lake Hermitage, Grand Bayou, and Happy Jack. CPRA claims that there is $305 million set aside for the communities and $33 million for the industries to mitigate those effects.

They have consistently put forth that their mitigation strategies will adjust around the comments made by those in the affected area. “Diversions are how we protect the businesses, people and our way of life; they are how we save coastal Louisiana,” chairman of the CPRA board Chip Kline said. “If this wasn’t backed up by years of research and science, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The fact is, diversions are the best shot we have at making sure there is a coast in the future.”

This is where the opposition to the diversion really conflicts with the CPRA. Those who lead the opposition to the diversion in Plaquemines— chairman of the Louisiana Oyster Task Force and oysterman in Plaquemines Mitch Jurisich, member of OTF and the Plaquemines Oyster Association John Tesvich, president of the Louisiana Shrimpers Association Acy Cooper, district 7 council member Carlton La- France, district 9 council member Mark “Hobbo” Cognevich, and district 4 council member Stuart Guey—express heavy skepticism towards their intentions. It should be noted that both the Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parish councils have unanimously passed resolutions openly stating they are against the diversion.

“River water being free-flowing into the Barataria basin [will have] the positive result of building land and the well stated and well defined negative effects to our economy, area residents, culture, and wildlife,” Guey stated in a comment submitted on the DEIS which he shared with The Plaquemines Gazette. Even officials in the highest levels of Louisiana state government have expressed doubt about CPRA—specifically, former Plaquemines Parish president and current Lt. Governor Billy Nungesser.

“This is the biggest fraud ever pulled on coastal Louisiana. Everyone in support of the diversion is either financially benefiting from it or has only seen [CPRA’s] positive messaging about it,” Nungesser stated. “I’ve told them about alternatives, like building berms and ridges, as a way to protect our coast, and they don’t listen.”

The science of the diversion is not really what’s causing the tension. Both supporters and opponents of the diversion have recognized the negative and positive impacts of the diversion outlined in the DEIS as generally accurate. Rather, diversion opponents decry the harmful impacts that will be immediately felt by their parish. The loss of the oyster and shrimp industry, the increased tidal flooding, and the increased hurricane risk experienced by lower Plaquemines communities have really inflamed the opposition.

“We have told them the effects of this diversion, urged them to consider alternatives, and we’ve been ignored. This isn’t about saving our coast; plenty in the state government are getting paid a lot of money to have this project move forward, it’s in their interest, not ours, that the diversion is built. That’s what this is about,” Tesvich said. Taking a wider view of the situation, Tulane professor and former executive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana for 14 years Mark Davis sees both sides of the issue.

“I’ve been involved in coastal restoration since the 1980s. In that time, I’ve been against diversions I thought were harmful. I support this one because it really is the best option out there, that I see, at saving our dynamic, working coast,” Davis said. “But if my livelihood was at stake, I’d be raising hell too. And this kind of grass roots public participation is necessary. It’s how you make sure the project and mitigation strategies are the best they can be.” “Do I wish there was time to do more research and possibly find better options? Yes. But that’s the problem, our estuary is dying right now, we don’t have time. This gives us some time to find more options,” he added. Another scientist, Dr. Joseph Suhayda, who has 30 years of experience in coastal physical processes and engineering, tends to agree with the anti-diversion arguments.

“This issue is far too complex to be viewed as just a scientific one. There are too many other factors. It’s one of public policy, and there are always trade-offs, and in this instance, Plaquemines is getting all the negatives,” Suhayda said. “And the reaction from [the opposition] isn’t a knee jerk one. There has been a real effort and work done on the part of [the opposition] to contest CPRA’s statements. And they haven’t been considered.” Suhayda explained that diversion opponents have put forth the idea of building “ridges” as a way to protect the coast. This would, in his view, provide more protection and not be nearly as destructive as the diversion.

“One of the pillars of our coastal plan is to ensure sustainable, responsible industries can coexist besides restoration. And, again, the diversion lets us pursue that goal,” Kline said. “We’re doing dredging and ridge creation projects. But those projects immediately begin to decay when they’re established because the river isn’t there to provide the needed sediment. We need this diversion to do that.” One aspect of coastal land loss and restoration that has been largely unaddressed in this discussion is the inherent contradiction between the idea of a “working coast” (which means one that fosters a healthy economic environment for industries like oysters, shrimp, and oil) and building truly resilient land in southeast Louisiana.

One of the many major contributing factors to coastal land loss has been oil exploration, or the dredging of marshes by the oil and gas industry. Some estimates, specifically by Louisiana State University professor in the department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences Eugene Turner, state that oil and gas industry exploration is responsible for close to 90% of land loss in the Barataria Bay. This same issue has caused the Plaquemines Parish Government— along with several other coastal parishes—to file lawsuits against these oil companies, seeking restitution for the damage brought about by oil companies to the marshes.

When one of the industries Kline, CPRA, and the Louisiana state government want to thrive is directly responsible— at least, in part—for the destruction of the coast, it is difficult for them to convince the opposition that they are “dedicated to saving the coast and mitigating the diversion’s effects.” Recently, CPRA has stated that the Plaquemines Liquid Terminal project “is not inconsistent” with their “Coastal Master Plan.” “Every [Coastal Master Plan] has recognized the damage of oil exploration to our coast. This diversion would actually do something to mend some of the damage caused by that exploration,” Kline explained.

“And the state of Louisiana, along with [many] private oil companies have stated they are dedicated to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Also, there are no new permits to allow more oil exploration.” Kline amended CPRA’s statement about the PLT project, saying CPRA would “not allow anything to go forward that will negatively impact our restoration efforts, and we have serious concerns about PLT.” “I don’t think the two can be reconciled at all,” Suhayda said. “Again, it’s about tradeoffs and trying to balance a [working coast] with protecting the environment.”

Another issue complicating the situation is the history of the state’s actions toward Plaquemines and its neighboring parish St. Bernard. This is something that has been mentioned by the opposition but not really addressed by CPRA or spoken about in depth. The most shocking examples of actions that would inspire distrust of CPRA and the state are the following: before the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927 state officials— to protect the profitable industries in New Orleans—blew up the Caernarvon levee so the river would flood Plaquemines and St. Bernard.

Decades later, the dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Canal which was meant to bring more business to the Port of New Orleans ended with drastically worsening impacts of Hurricane Katrina on St. Bernard Parish and the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans. “Back when the levee was blown up in 1927, the state promised restitution for those affected communities, but that never came about,” Cognevich has said in previous interviews. “I think it’s going to be the same thing now.”

There is logic to this distrust of CPRA and the state. Plaquemines (and St. Bernard), historically, have been forced to endure the negative consequences of actions meant to benefit private industry and commerce, typically located in New Orleans. Whether it was blowing up a levee in 1927, dredging MRGO, or allowing oil companies to decimate the coast to fuel the economy, these lower parish communities believe they have been the ones sacrificed. And now, the same basic governmental institution is telling these communities that they’re going to “save the coast.” All the while, the numbers in the DEIS—based on CPRA’s own analysis show Plaquemines will, yet again, suffer the negative aspects of the state’s diversion project.

“It’s human nature to resist change and transition, I understand that. If I was in their shoes, I’d probably do the same thing,” Kline stated. “But look at the work we’ve done, look at our research. If we don’t use diversions, the whole of coastal Louisiana will collapse.” Kline added that he wasn’t sure how to build trust with the Plaquemines communities, but he stated that the CPRA has to find “some way to show the people that we’re on the same side.” “I was around when [the state coastal programs] were created. And it’s important to know they weren’t created out of the state’s good will. They were created because of a large, grass roots movement,” Davis said. “It was because people, fishermen in parishes [like Plaquemines], and citizens saw that our coast was disappearing and demanded the state do something about it. That’s what I think the [Mid-Barataria Diversion] is, it’s the state trying to do something about the problem.” “But, again, the people of Plaquemines have to voice their concerns. Because if they don’t speak up for themselves, who will?” He stated.