La Coastal Master Plan

[thomas jefferson]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Is public vs private really an issue? When all the agencies that were behind the plan got together they looked at the entire landscape, not who owns what. They look at the areas that would need some type and then from there they begin to develop a plan. This has nothing to do with private landowners benefiting more than someone who does not own land. This benefits ALL OF US. Just because the project falls in private land, does not mean it is not going to benefit the public. There were multiple public meetings about the plan to let the writers of the plan know what was most important to them and get ideas for the plan. I don't care whose land it is own where marsh creation is performed, that benefits me in the long term. If the landowners kill 1000 ducks in that marsh next year, who cares. The big picture is what is best for Louisiana, and most of the land in Louisiana is privately owned, so it makes sense that these projects are going to fall on some private land.

well said Duck Butter.

when the master plan was formed and published, there was never discussions on projects in regards to public vs private lands. the plan is purely science based, taking into account critical landscape features and projects that maintain or restore the most marsh for the least dollars and reduce the most surge damage for the least dollars. it is the most defensible way to chart a path forward and to communicate the state's needs to those who hold the purse strings. it is a reality that roughly 80% of coastal marshes are owned by private parties and they must be involved in the process, but the plan had to stand up in the scientific arena and therefore, inclusion of speculation regarding private landowners being agreeable to activity on their place was not considered. in reality, landowners can make or break projects and have halted projects in the past, but as land loss continues to be a dire and escalating problem, i cannot imagine too many landowners who wouldn't want their land protected. i think the perception of the landowners driving restoration efforts is incorrect. they have a necessary and valuable seat at the table, but they dont dictate to the state "do project a, not project b." as for who would own and have rights to the newly created lands...i will leave that to the lawyers. i can say that LA's laws regarding public vs private water bottoms and reclaimed lands are murky at best to the laymen.

the master plan includes 50 billion dollars of projects of 50 years. this includes ecosystem restoration projects like marsh creation, risk reduction projects such as levees, and other "nonstructural" projects such as elevating homes to mitigate damages. these dollars will primarily come from BP fines and offshore oil revenues which will begin to be received by the state in 2017. little to no private citizen tax dollars are assumed in that 50 billion value.

glad to see a healthy and lively discussion on the plan.