Louisiana is the second-largest seafood producer in the United States, the setting of Disney’s classic The Princess and the Frog, home to unique Cajun cuisine, and the site of the Mississippi River's mouth. It is also sinking at an extremely rapid rate.
Louisiana loses a football field’s worth of land every 83 seconds. Louisiana contains 40 percent of the US’s wetlands, excluding Alaska, but 90 percent of wetlands lost in the US each year are in Louisiana. The state’s largest coastal restoration project, a major sediment diversion that would harness the Mississippi River’s sediment deposition to rebuild Mid-Barataria Bay, was canceled by the recently appointed governor, Jeff Landry, amid a controversial public response. This cancellation was a massive setback for coastal restoration efforts across the state. Moving forward, Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) has pledged multiple smaller projects instead. Given the current threat posed by Louisiana’s land loss rate, the CPRA’s proposed smaller projects would not provide sufficient relief, and Jeff Landry should reintroduce major river sediment diversions into Louisiana’s future coastal plans.
In May, Governor Jeff Landry reaffirmed his commitment to protecting Louisiana’s coast by approving the CPRA’s 2027 Fiscal Year Plan, which pledged $1.54 billion toward active coastal restoration projects across the state, including multiple marsh-creation, flood-protection, and landbridge-building projects. Notably absent is a large sediment diversion project. Some river reintroductions are underway, which are very similar to sediment diversions, except that instead of creating a diversion in the Mississippi and connecting it to an area, the area was previously cut off from the Mississippi due to human activity. Their presence demonstrates that the CPRA remains keenly aware of the benefits and nourishment the Mississippi River provides. So what is holding Landry back?
The answer, according to Landry, involves multiple factors, but he notably claimed that science doesn’t support saving Mid-Barataria Bay when “[it] will likely convert to open water” regardless. His words blatantly ignore the years of research poured into proving the vitality of the massive project. What’s more obvious is the strong backlash the diversion project received from local fishermen. Such a large project doesn’t come without its sacrifices—increased water levels, saltwater fish migrating outward due to the influx of freshwater, and algal blooms. Local fishermen whose livelihoods are on the line would have to incur the downsides. Their fishing costs would increase due to traveling farther out to sea for fish, on top of increased flood risk. But there won’t be a livelihood to protect if this administration keeps holding back. Despite what he tells the public, Landry’s justifications are based in opinion, not science, and his appeasement will greatly cost the state.
Sediment diversions are an expensive investment; the benefits are truly reaped with time. But the long-term costs are certainly worth it. A different type of restoration project, marsh creation, is heavily featured in the CPRA’s 2027 Fiscal Plan and also builds new land but involves dredging large volumes of sediment instead. In comparison, sediment diversions will always remain active and have a longer project life. Furthermore, the cost of sediment diversions quickly becomes low and stable once the diversion is established. This discrepancy is further exacerbated by construction delays, which are an inevitable part of the coastal restoration process. A study conducted by The Water Institute of the Gulf concluded that the cost per acre of marsh creation increases significantly as construction is delayed, because the water becomes progressively deeper.
Repeated studies have demonstrated the benefits of river sediment diversions as a viable land-loss mitigation strategy. A 2021 study in the Journal of Geophysical Research disproved the concern that the rate at which elevation is lost to gravity-driven sediment compaction would outpace the rate at which elevation is gained from the Mississippi’s sediment deposition. Countless studies and organizations had come together to work on the singular goal of the Mid-Barataria sediment diversion. Landry’s apparent resignation to the basin demonstrates a half-hearted commitment to Louisiana's coast.
The CPRA’s chairman, Gordon Dove, who was newly appointed by Landry in 2024, is adamant that smaller restoration projects are the best course of action, and that large sediment diversions are too large and too slow. His leadership indicates a shift in restoration strategy in Louisiana—one of quick fixes and short-term gratification. Dove remains headstrong that
Louisiana will emerge victorious in the land-loss fight and criticizes headlines that urge the opposite. Torbjörn Törnqvist, a professor of geoscience at Tulane, recently came under fire for a viral news headline about his study, which stated that migration out of New Orleans was imminent and that the city should begin preparing for such a future. The reaction was outraged and immediate, if not a little illusory. Government officials, including Dove, adamantly opposed Törnqvist, with Dove calling it “the most ridiculous study [he’s] ever seen.” Looking beyond the highly sensationalized news headlines, Törnqvist clarified to the New Orleans Advocate that his study was by no means an immediate call to pack up and leave—he solely wanted to urge Louisiana to act quickly. Did his harsh conclusions hit a little bit too hard for a lot of people? Perhaps, but it’s time Louisiana residents confront the very real and very threatening future of their home, and respond to disaster headlines with a headstrong call to action instead. Certainly, Dove is not even interested in possibly entertaining a reality he does not want—one that scientists have been waving their arms about for years.
Louisiana is not a commodity. The CPRA is not a delusional organization. Well, why do Landry and Dove’s actions reflect that? It’s time Louisiana began protecting what it wants to be remembered for: beautiful bayous, snaking oak branches, tantalizing cuisine, and a powerhouse of a river. Louisiana is not just a loss that can be cut. With time so heavily threatening the future of Louisiana’s coast, soft commitments are inadequate. Louisiana’s state government needs to try more decisively and act on what’s real instead of what it wants to believe. Otherwise, we risk a real-world Atlantis: a beauty engulfed in water and myth, forever lost to sinking land.
The views expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Saving the Sea Organization. This piece was written as part of the Emergent Fellows Program, our summer fellowship in environmental policy and advocacy.