In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a massive initiative to rehabilitate a disintegrating segment of the state’s coastline, which suffered significant damage from the 2010 Gulf oil spill, is mired in further turmoil. This follows allegations from Governor Jeff Landry that a critical study was intentionally hidden by his predecessor, potentially threatening the $3 billion project.
A confidential memo obtained recently sheds new light on the controversy, illuminating how the previous administration under then-Governor John Bel Edwards grappled with discordant environmental evaluations concerning the project. This nine-page document, crafted by legal experts, reveals pivotal insights into the study that Governor Landry claims was obscured from the public and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the approval process for the permit associated with the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion.
The memo details the attorneys’ internal deliberations, assessing whether state representatives might face federal charges for not presenting the report which indicated the diversion would yield far less land compared to other forecasts considered during a federal review. Although concluding criminal charges were “extremely unlikely,” the document underscores the necessity of acknowledging the “severe consequences and criminalization of the action.”
Concerns further escalated when the Corps suspended its permit for the project last month, citing “deliberately withheld” information. This decision has paused the construction even after over $500 million has already been expended.
Governor Landry criticized the prior administration, stating, “They hid the bad stuff and only showed the (Corps) the version they liked,” while Edwards defended his time in office by denying any withholding of information. Edwards suggested Landry’s administration has distorted facts for political gains, whereas Landry countered, asserting “the facts speak for themselves.” Amidst this tit-for-tat, conservation advocates dismissed the contentious report as a diversion that Landry is leveraging to undermine the project. The diversion—financed largely by settlements from the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon spill—marks the largest such initiative in Louisiana’s history.
The planned Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion involves breaching levees in southeastern Louisiana, redirecting sediment-rich waters from the Mississippi River to revitalize vanishing wetlands. Deliberation on this long overdue venture paused due to state and federal legal proceedings as well as opposition arising from fears about surging costs and potential adverse impacts on regional fishing and oyster industries.
Earlier this year, Landry’s administration brought up various project concerns with the Corps, including issues associated with a 2022 study that it asserted was not sufficiently disclosed. Defenders at the time argued that the study’s focus remained narrowly on maintenance and operational expenditures and wasn’t meant to be part of the federal environmental assessment.
The report, produced collaboratively by AECOM Technical Services and a subcontractor, depicted disparities in projected land generation, predicting significantly less land than the primary model. The report’s deviation was attributed to miscalculations regarding sea-level rise and the river’s flow, further emphasizing substantial dredging needs to maintain the diversion channel—a measure Landry’s team believes would cost millions.
In the memo, attorneys highlighted reputational risks tied to withholding the study, suggesting ensuing difficulty in controlling the narrative if Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority remained on defensive grounds. The attorneys advised engaging informally with federal authorities and subsequently strategizing a formal introduction of these findings into the public domain for agency review.
Findings from the report were communicated verbally to select Corps officials, who regarded them as inconsequential. Nevertheless, the full analysis wasn’t integrated into the public record, nor were the responses by these officials. Now, in a recent communication to Landry’s team, Col. Cullen Jones of the Corps’ New Orleans District suggested the findings wouldn’t alter the permit but confirmed the permit’s suspension due to perceived deliberate information retention by the state.
The Corps also noted additional maneuvers by Landry’s administration, including halting work for 90 days to consider alternate “smaller diversions,” amid assertions from the state about the project’s unaffordability.
With Louisiana’s coastal agency allocating approximately $573 million in the 2025 budget for the project, and federal entities warning of financial consequences should the state abandon or modify the diversion, uncertainty looms about the project’s future. Amid this discourse, conservationists like Lauren Bourg cautioned that terminating or altering the project sends disquieting signals about the state’s infrastructure investment stability.
Nonetheless, some segments within the local fishing industry have supported the stoppage, voicing concerns that the redirected waters could destroy aquatic habitats. This multifaceted clash over Louisiana’s coastal restoration strategy thus persists, unraveling complexities of political, environmental, and economic consequences connected to one of the state’s most audacious environmental projects.