Environment
 

A quip on Twitter lands me a public audience with Louisiana’s coastal chief, but it could have been worse

By 3:15 p.m. on Wednesday, the chairman looked spent. Garret Graves rubbed his face and said, “I just want to adjourn.” Agenda items remained for the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority to consider, but they would be deferred until next meeting.

I couldn’t blame Louisiana’s coastal chief. I was exhausted too. The previous four hours had been thick with intense, sustained debate over the wetlands lawsuit filed by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority — East. The suit seeks to hold oil, gas and pipeline companies responsible for the damage they’ve done to our receding coast.

The highlight of the day was a surprise presentation by flood protection authority  lawyers that underscored the basis and aims of the lawsuit, and strongly countered previous criticisms made by Graves.

Now, it’s one thing to skim through the presentation on a computer monitor. It’s another to see it debut on a big screen before a packed room, with high-powered lawyers going through it point by clinical point. Imagine having your words repeatedly thrown back in your face — by professionals. At one juncture, Graves’ fellow board members came to his aid and tried to halt the presentation. They said it amounted to a sustained personal attack. To Graves’ credit, he let the lawyers finish and endured the lambasting in its totality.

Later, Graves shelved the presentation he had planned to give, and instead launched an extended (and at times emotional) rebuttal to the lawyers’ arguments.

But somehow, in between these two heavyweight confrontations, I was scheduled to speak! (See item twelve on the CPRA agenda, where SLFPA-E commissioner Steve Estiponal’s name is listed above mine. The lawyers spoke in his place. Graves’ name is below mine.) How in the heck did that happen?

Well, in a word: Twitter. This tweet in particular set events in motion:

Graves responded to the twitter thread that developed, and invited me (and two other tweeters) to share our opinions with him by phone, email or in person at the next CPRA meeting.

So after the holiday break, I emailed Graves to ask him if he could back up his claim that the lawsuit factored into Shell’s decision to halt preliminary plans for a $20 billion gas-to-liquids plant in Louisiana… or anywhere else in North America.

Graves would only reveal that “someone” told him that the lawsuit played a role in the decision. Despite that weak answer, Graves re-invited me to discuss the lawsuit at the CPRA meeting. How could I refuse a second request from “the most powerful unelected public official in Louisiana“?

When Graves said he’d “put me on the agenda,” I assumed he’d merely enter my name under the public comment section of the schedule, so I’d be first to speak in that slot. Well, that’s what I get for assuming. On Monday afternoon, I received a copy of the agenda, and it had my name in the middle of what was anticipated to be the most contentious part of the meeting. I suddenly felt dyspeptic.

“They’ll be expecting a presentation,” a colleague chirped.

On Wednesday, as the meeting unfolded and the debate over the lawsuit approached quasar-intensity, I tried to anticipate how the board and audience would receive the upcoming, twitter-initiated, “Moseley interlude.” Uggh. At best, I figured, they would be baffled; at worst, they’d think I was a time-wasting idiot.

Luckily for me, there was a short break while board members went to a back room to grab some lunch. The tension dissipated a bit, and only about half the board was seated when I was called up to the table.

I thanked the CPRA, praised them for their important work, and stressed that I was speaking for myself only. (The Lens does not take editorial positions on issues.) Then I explained that my appearance before them had originated via social media. No one seemed terribly impressed. So then I told Graves that his vague answer to my follow up email query about the Shell project hadn’t disabused me of my earlier skepticism.

What irked me most about Graves’ comment was that it was an example of a powerful public official going out of his way to blame fellow Louisianians for the loss of an industrial mega-project.* Shell’s decision was based on rising development costs and reduced profit projections, which coincided with a recent decrease in the spread between natural gas prices and oil prices. If the company wanted to signal that the lawsuit was a factor, they could’ve easily inserted a phrase like “current legal climate” in their press release. They did not.

Again, Shell didn’t just pull their gas-to-liquids plans out of Louisiana. They pulled out of North America. But “someone” told our coastal czar that Louisiana is partly at fault for losing out on a $20 billion project, even though no one else was blaming us.

This led me to my next point. Previously, Graves said that anyone who thinks the legislature won’t snuff out the lawsuit in the 2014 session “is living in a dream world.” OK, then.

But if the lawsuit is politically doomed, why is Graves wasting time with all the constant debate and huff and puff? Why isn’t he informing executives that the suit’s demise is inevitable, if he’s being told that the lawsuit is factoring into huge business decisions?

Next, I asked about the CPRA’s funding for the $50 billion coastal master plan. The central premise behind the argument for the suit is that the master plan is drastically unfunded. Graves has previously claimed the suit interferes with the CPRA’s meticulously sequenced strategy to procure funding for restoration work in the Master Plan. That’s great — but where, precisely, is this sequenced strategy laid out so the public can evaluate it?

After I made these points, the board mercifully opted not to grill me with brutal rounds of questions. Instead one member suggested a few books about the coast that I should read. And that was it. They thanked me and I returned to my seat.

Star Chamber this wasn’t. For me, anyway.

* Theoretically, that is. Shell’s plan was always much more tentative than local officials portrayed it.

Help us report this story     Report an error    
The Lens' donors and partners may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover.
  • TraveLAr

    Very good first-person reportage, Oyster. Can you imagine the observations the late Greg Peters would have made about this, in his day?

  • Sandy Rosenthal

    I am so very proud of Mark Moseley! He stood up to the most powerful unelected public official in Louisiana! And did more than just live to tell the tale. He was the victor!

  • Chris McLindon

    Mark, it sounds like the most significant question you were able to pose to the CRPA Board was the one about funding for the Master Plan. Your juxtaposition of this question with a link to John Barry’s editorial entitled “Suing oil and gas interests to save the coast” underscores the contention of the suit that money won in a settlement could be employed in a set of restoration projects that would “save the coast”. I would encourage you and your readers to listen to Don Dubuc’s interview of Brigadier General Duke
    Deluca that was aired yesterday on WWL Radio. General Deluca paints a very realistic picture of the limitations of our ability to restore the coast to anything like it was in the past.

    http://audio.wwl.com/a/86256321/1-17-12-10pm-don-dubuc-la-coastal-protection.htm

    The coastal restoration movement is to be admired for its intention, but even CRPA modified its 2012 Master Plan from previous versions. While previous versions had all focused on “restoring the coast” implying that it would be feasible to maintain the shape of the current coastline, the Master Plan included a clear expectation that it is not feasible to recreate the coast of the 20th century. In fact the first of its
    primary land building projects, the West Bay Sediment Diversion has failed to create any new land in 13 years of operation. On Thursday’s Garland Robinette show (available on the same link) John Lopez of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation stated that marsh creation projects that have created modest amounts of land by piping dredged sediment from the Mississippi River, but at a cost of $67,000 per acre. Lopez added that these projects are very close to the river, and those further away would easily reach costs of $100,000 per acre. Given these realities, there is really no amount of money that is going to allow us to “save the coast”. If we want to save our infrastructure, I would suggest that we need to press the reset button on our thinking about how to approach this. Sandy may agree that our emphasis should be much more focused on using whatever resources we are able to get to reinforce or flood protection system, and do whatever land building we are going to do in the immediate vicinity of that infrastructure.

  • ricky ricardo

    Chris, we have had disagreements in comments section previously, but I wholeheartedly agree with your statements above. I systematic rethinking of the engineering of the coast is needed as it is changing with or without our influences. Land creation immediately in front of our protection systems is indeed a key step. We don’t have a lot of money (even 50B is not a lot of money for this problem), so it must be spent strategically.

  • Michael Homan

    What books about the coast did the board member recommend that you read?

  • Patty Sitzes Peterson

    I live in Bay St; Louis Mississippi, 7 miles from the coast off bayou La Croix. We received just under 4ft of water at my home for 2012 Hurricane Isaic.(classified as a tropical storm until an hour before landfall) In 2008 we received 18 and 24 inches of water for Gustov and Ike, both category 3 Hurricanes. What happened? The corp of engineers built a levee protection New Orleans. Displacing water to areas unprotected by levee systems. I personally picked up 50 gallon plastic trash containers on Cat Island off the Mississippi Coast just days after the storm. If this is an example of the Governments Idea of flood protection, I’ll pass. My daughter a geologist looked at the newly constructed wall while visiting and was shocked! She said to me ” mom, this changes everything! You will get more water than ever before. The water has to go somewhere, and it cant go where it did before!” She was right. Many coastal residence got more water that ever, some who had not gotten any water from Katrina had water to the roof tops! It is illegal to run water off your property onto your neighbors property, yet the Corp of Engineers built a levee and diverted billions of gallons of storm surge to the east and west of the “protection wall”. The Next Cat 3,4,5 will surely bring more devastation than ever before.