I want to begin with clarity.
I am not opposed to wetland mitigation.
Done correctly, it can serve both environmental and community interests.
What I am opposed to is approving a project of this scale without clear answers to critical questions that will affect drainage, cost, and long-term responsibility forever.
What We Know
In 2018, a drainage study identified capacity issues within the Rienzi Basin—particularly involving drainage ditch sizing and culvert constraints.
Some of those same laterals appear to be directly involved in the proposed rezoning and mitigation project.
That alone should require careful validation before moving forward.
What We Do Not Know—But Must
Before approval, the following must be clearly established:
- Are the existing laterals already constrained by undersized culverts or pinch points?
- What is the true capacity of the Rienzi Canal system today?
- At key transition points—especially where the canal narrows to approximately 40 feet—is the system adequate?
- What are the current measurements of depth, width, and flow capacity?
- If deficiencies exist, is there sufficient right-of-way to correct them in the future?
These are not theoretical concerns.
Once land enters a federally regulated mitigation system, modifications become extremely difficult.
What is approved today becomes locked in for the long term.
The Right-of-Way Issue
The proposed configuration allows for approximately 85 feet of total right-of-way.
That limitation has real consequences.
With a narrow right-of-way:
- Maintenance requires hauling spoil by truck
- Costs increase significantly over time
- Access becomes constrained
With adequate right-of-way:
- Spoil can be placed and dried along the bank
- Maintenance becomes far more efficient
- Long-term cost is reduced
We have working examples of this approach in other mitigation systems.
This is not speculation. It is known practice.
Why This Matters
This project is not temporary.
It is in perpetuity.
That means the responsibility for maintenance will fall to the city and parish—ultimately, the taxpayer.
A relatively small increase in right-of-way today could prevent decades of unnecessary cost and operational constraint.
Process Concerns
Equally important is how this decision is being made.
At the planning meeting, there was no advance information provided to the public.
Without information, meaningful questions cannot be asked.
Without questions, decisions lack rigor.
Government is not meant to function this way.
Where I Stand
I am not opposing this project because it is a mitigation effort.
I am opposing approval at this time because:
- Key technical questions remain unanswered
- Right-of-way limitations may restrict future solutions
- Long-term public cost has not been clearly evaluated
- The public process has not allowed for informed participation
A Path Forward
This is simple.
Provide the data.
Validate the system.
Ensure adequate right-of-way.
Engage the public before the decision—not after.
Final Thought
We do not need more conflict.
We need better visibility.
And we need a civic system where citizens are informed, engaged, and able to participate before decisions are finalized—not after they are locked in.
That is something I will be working on in the near future.
You can see the Open Letter I sent to the administration here.