The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion had been hailed as the largest eco-restoration project in U.S. history; it was the corner stone to the state's master coastal plan, and was seen by advocates as the best way to address Louisiana's growing coastal crisis.
Earlier this month, however, it was announced by Governor Landry that the state would be abandoning the project.
In a press release issued by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (the governing body in charge of Louisiana's coastal restoration efforts) the state claimed "multiple factors including costs, permitting concerns, and ongoing litigation."
We reached out to both CPRA and the governor's office for comment on the story and to get clarification on the factors they listed but both of those requests went unanswered.
As the state now seeks an alternate method to address Louisiana's rapid land loss, let's take a look at what the Mid-Barataria planned to do, what made it controversial, and what happens next.
Let Nature Do the Work
The idea behind the MBSD (Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion) was to try and mimic the natural processes of the Mississippi River.
Before the levees were put up in the early 20th century the Mississippi River would regularly overflow its banks, depositing huge quantities of sediment along the coast.
That build-up of sediment was what built up Louisiana, and once the levees cut off the state from those sediments we've slowly been sinking.
The more Louisiana has sunk, the more land it has lost, and no where in the state is this happening faster than Barataria Bay.
Engineers planned to cut a diversion from the Mississippi River to allow water to flow into the bay, and more importantly, deposit the river's sediment there.
Overtime that sediment buildup would allow for the creation of new marshland and help try to restore some of Louisiana's coast.
Evidence of these types of sediment diversions creating land can be seen along the Wax Lake Outlet, a diversion off the Atchafalaya River which has created one of the few areas in Louisiana where land is building.
Freshwater Troubles
The controversy that surrounded the MBSD stemmed from the influx of freshwater into Barataria Bay and the impact that could have on the seafood industry, particularly shrimpers and oystermen.
Oysters need a specific salinity in order to survive and, unlike shrimp, are unable to move resulting in the loss of Barataria oysters.
There was also a question about dolphin mortality as a result of the diversion, with some modeling indicating hundreds of dolphin deaths in the first year the diversion would be operational.
Plans had been made to help mitigate the downside to the project with more than $300 million earmarked to help the seafood industry and another $40 million designated to monitor and address dolphin impacts.
Advocates of the plan, however, argued that over time restoring the ecosystem would eventually help bolster both seafood and dolphins by improving the estuaries that are relied on by most of these species.
What Happens Next?
We spoke with Charles Sutcliffe who served as the Chief Resiliency Officer in the Edward's administration when the project broke down who told us that the financial implications to withdrawing from the project could be major.
The first question facing the state has to do with the money already spent and the money promised to the contractor who had signed agreements to do the work.
There was a ground-breaking in August 2023; work had already begun on the project, $700 million already spent and more than $1 billion in signed contracts.
The MBSD was being funded by the BP oil spill settlement; that money is overseen by a board of trustees and can only be used for coastal restoration projects.
It remains unclear if the state will have to reimburse the $700 million spent _ as there's no longer a project _ or how the contracts will be fulfilled.
There's a risk that taxpayers will be on the hook for the state pulling out of the project.
In the press release issued by CPRA it was stated that the state will now look into the once-abandoned Myrtle Grove Diversion plan which is much smaller in size.
Advocates for the MGD say that it will produce a better return on investment, although detractors believe that the MGD is too small to tackle the scope of the problem and that the state is relying on outdated modeling.
In order to help fund the project the state will turn to the federal government to help foot the bill for the MGD, and the money from BP will need to be approved by the board to determine if the results of the project would be worth the spending.
Regardless, the change in direction will require a new round of environmental impact studies, modeling, and federal approval all of which could take years before the state could even break ground on the project.
Years during which Louisiana will continue to lose land as our coastal crisis continues.
------------------------------------------------------------
Stay in touch with us anytime, anywhere.
To reach the newsroom or report a typo/correction, click HERE.
Sign up for newsletters emailed to your inbox. Select from these options: Breaking News, Evening News Headlines, Morning News Headlines, Special Offers
