Senate committee hears split over CPRA pause of mid‑barrier sediment diversion

Chairman Connick summarized a recent meeting between the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) and members of the advocacy group Women of the Storm, saying CPRA officials had moved to halt the mid‑barrier sediment diversion project because costs escalated “from roughly 750,000,000 to 1,500,000,000 to over $3,000,000,000,” and because of long‑term maintenance obligations, property‑acquisition risks, FEMA flood‑map compliance and gaps in dedicated funding.

The chair read that CPRA officials argued continuing the diversion would divert resources away from other restoration and protection efforts statewide. “Given these constraints, continuing the projects would have diverted resources from a wide range of other restoration and protection efforts statewide,” Chairman Connick said as he relayed CPRA’s explanation.

Several members of Women of the Storm pushed back during the committee’s earlier meeting and in follow‑up discussions, the chair said. The group told CPRA the diversion was a “cornerstone science‑based project” for large‑scale land building and long‑term coastal sustainability and pressed for written responses, accounting for costs to date and clarity on funding sources including BP oil‑spill settlement dollars.

A CPRA representative present for the committee reiterated that the agency is managing a broad portfolio of projects. Michael O’Hare, identified in committee materials as a CPRA official, told senators the annual plan covers 143 projects across 20 parishes and that the agency is trying to move projects into construction quickly while balancing risk and cost.

Committee members asked for more documentation and for CPRA to provide clearer financial accounting and responses to the 13 written questions Women of the Storm submitted. Multiple senators thanked both sides for meeting and indicated they expect continued outreach and follow‑up information from CPRA before the matter advances further.

The committee did not take a vote on the diversion itself; the discussion was recorded as part of the CPRA annual‑plan review. The session proceeded to other bills on the agenda.