Louisiana’s coast is vanishing faster than almost anywhere in the world—especially in the Barataria Basin, where wetlands, wildlife, and working communities are collapsing under levees, subsidence, sea level rise, and saltwater intrusion. What we do—or fail to do—right now will determine the future of our coast and communities.
That’s why the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion was developed—to reconnect the Mississippi River to its wetlands and address the root cause of land loss. It’s the cornerstone of Louisiana’s $50 billion Coastal Master Plan. After over a decade of modeling, design, public input, and review, it earned state and federal permits, secured $3 billion in oil spill funding, and began construction nearly two years ago.
Yet now—despite its funding, permits, and support from scientists, sportsmen, business leaders, and 83% of informed voters—Louisiana’s new leadership has shelved the project in favor of a decade-old alternative, “Myrtle Grove,” which was rejected years ago for one reason: it doesn’t come close to solving the problem of the scale of land loss in the Barataria Basin.
A Mirage with No Scientific Foundation
Myrtle Grove was first proposed in the early 1980s at just 2,500 cubic feet per second—tiny compared to Mid-Barataria’s 75,000 cfs. Early modeling showed that the Myrtle Grove project couldn’t deliver the sediment volume or grain size needed to sustain the basin. It simply wasn’t designed to move land-building sediment. Additionally, since the last look at the Myrtle Grove concept in 2013, time has not been kind to the Barataria Basin, which lost nearly 100 square miles during Hurricane Ida alone.
Mid-Barataria, by contrast, is designed to reintroduce river sediment in quantities large enough to restore the basin’s rapidly eroding wetlands. It’s projected to build more than 5,000 acres in the first 10 years and over 20,000 acres within 50 years. This isn’t wishful thinking—it’s based on advanced modeling of sediment transport, better understanding of future conditions, and basin geomorphology. All of it was scrutinized and validated through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), finalized in 2022 after one of the most rigorous environmental review processes ever undertaken on the Gulf Coast.
Myrtle Grove has undergone no such review. It has not been updated or modeled using today’s data or standards. It has not been discussed in the communities impacted in the basin or with leading coastal experts. It has not been vetted through the rigorous NEPA process, earning its permit. It remains what it was a decade ago: an outdated and ineffective concept, incapable of addressing today’s crisis.
Same Concerns—With Far Fewer Benefits
Ironically, Myrtle Grove would still freshen the basin, raising many of the same concerns that critics of Mid-Barataria have raised, especially about salinity impacts. But unlike Mid-Barataria, it offers far fewer offsetting benefits, like less sediment delivery. Less measurable land-building. Less storm surge protection. It’s all impact, with very little reward.
This isn’t compromise. It’s capitulation.
The Public Process Was Extensive—and Effective
Some argue that Myrtle Grove better reflects the will of the people. That argument collapses under even brief scrutiny.
Mid-Barataria was shaped by over a decade of public engagement, including more than 300 meetings and 360 surveys with the fishing industry alone. Tens of thousands of comments from local residents, scientists, engineers, environmental justice advocates, business leaders and fishing industries shaped a final plan that includes adaptive management, operational adjustments for fisheries, and $375 million in community support.
And their input had a direct impact. As a result of public feedback, the project was modified to include an adaptive management plan. Its operations were refined to reduce potential harm to fisheries. Additional monies were included, bringing the total to over $375 million committed to community mitigation, monitoring, and resilience, with $10 million in immediate relief for oysters and brown shrimp.
Participation ensures voices are heard—but it doesn’t mean every viewpoint determines the outcome. Decisions must be made by weighing public input alongside feasibility, environmental benefit, and long-term impact. Mid-Barataria was chosen through that balanced process, not by default, but by design.
To now bypass that process and resurrect a shelved alternative—without current science, without public input, and without transparency—undermines the integrity of Louisiana’s entire restoration program.
Permitted, Vetted, and Ready
Let’s be clear: Mid-Barataria is a project of the State of Louisiana, led by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA). But because of its size and impact, it required federal permits. Those were granted after years of review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in coordination with NOAA, EPA, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and others.
Despite what the current administration claims, the Corps did not pause the project on its own; the pause was requested by state leadership, who submitted a letter this spring to pursue Myrtle Grove instead. The Corps has not reviewed Myrtle Grove in over a decade, and it has certainly not recommended it.
Meanwhile, Mid-Barataria is fully permitted, funded with Deepwater Horizon settlement dollars—not taxpayer money—and under construction. Replacing it with Myrtle Grove wouldn’t fast-track restoration—it would reset everything. A new diversion would require updated modeling, environmental review, public hearings, and a new permit, plus federal taxpayer dollars. That process could take a decade or more, just to get federal authorization.
That’s assuming the state follows the rules. What’s happening instead looks like an attempt to bypass science, sidestep public process, and revive a plan that failed for good reason. It implies public input only counts when it aligns with politics, and treats safeguards as hurdles, not standards.
Every delay means more land lost, more families unprotected, more risk from rising seas and stronger storms. Even under the best-case scenario, Myrtle Grove wouldn’t be federally authorized until 2032—not completed, just authorized to begin planning.
We don’t have that kind of time.
This Is Bigger Than One Project
Abandoning Mid-Barataria isn’t just wrong—it undermines Louisiana’s entire coastal program. It threatens our credibility with agencies, partners, and the communities that trusted the process.
Mid-Barataria represents two decades of coordinated planning, scientific analysis, and public investment. It is the culmination of work by federal and state agencies, academic experts, industry leaders, and everyday citizens who want a sustainable future for our coast.
And the truth is this: no other project can deliver what Mid-Barataria does. Smaller diversions, dredging-only plans, or repackaged versions of Myrtle Grove have all been reviewed. None come close. That’s why Mid-Barataria was chosen. That’s why it was permitted. That’s why it’s under construction.
The Choice Is Clear
Louisiana has a rare alignment of funding, science, permits, and public support. This moment won’t come again. What’s at stake is not just the future of one basin, but the future of Louisiana’s entire coastal restoration program.
The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion is the best chance we’ve ever had to turn the tide on land loss in the Barataria Basin. Walking away now would not only be shortsighted—it would be indefensible.
Any talk about a project other than Mid-Barataria is just a mirage. We deserve—and should demand—more for our future.
Simone Maloz is campaign director of Restore the Mississippi River Delta.