The Honorable Kathleen Blanco
Governor State of Louisiana
P. O. Box 94004
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004

Lieutenant General Carl A. Strock Commander U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Chief of Engineers
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20014-1000

Re: Morganza to Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Protection Plan; Morganza to Gulf of Mexico Hurricane Wetland Destruction Development Representative Bobby Jindal Pork Barrel Scheme Scam

Dear Governor Blanco and Lieutenant General Strock,

We, the undersigned coastal scientists and engineers, are writing to express our concerns over current Army Corps of Engineers and State of Louisiana planning for the restoration and protection of the Louisiana coastal zone. Many of us have dedicated our professional lives to the study of Louisiana coastal systems and have been among the first to recommend responsive measures: together we represent more than 200 years of experience on these issues. In sum, we believe that the current federal and state plans contain several positive elements but, at bottom, rely on an engineering approach that carries high economic, structural and environmental risk, and threatens the sustainability of the very ecosystem we are all trying to save. The purpose of this letter is to alert you to these concerns and to offer to assist in resolving them.

Current coastal protection plans feature large, linear levees across coastal wetlands. Such levees fundamentally alter, and impair, coastal hydrology. The notion that levees this massive can be made coast-friendly contradicts our experience with marsh management and spoil bank projects. At present, little reliable information exists relative to their impacts on hydrology, aquatic life and fisheries, differing water and wetland types, transport of materials from the Gulf to inland marshes, and the acceleration of subsidence in leveed areas. Unless these questions can be answered positively, these levees may undermine billions of dollars of effort towards coastal restoration.

Large linear levees across coastal systems also present risks of stability and maintenance over time. The larger the levees in this environment, the greater the danger of failure. Caution would indicate placement of levee alignments along interior ridges. Greater caution is indicated in the Louisiana coastal zone because of documented fault zones, some natural and others precipitated by subsurface extraction. Caution is also called for with alignments that could funnel storm surges into coastal communities, as witnessed during Hurricane Katrina.

Some of the proposed levees also invite new development in wetlands, indeed historically such development has been their primary rationale. The current proposals would render nearly 300,000 acres of coastal wetlands vulnerable to development pressures, against which zoning and regulatory programs have been entirely ineffective. The perpetuation of these same wetlands is the object of state restoration planning. Safeguards against new development, which would be vulnerable to increasing storm pressure and bring calls for yet more heroic structures, remain undescribed and uncertain.

Perhaps of greatest concern, despite the magnitude of the undertaking there appears to be no genuine alternative scenario. The most notable omission is an approach that would prioritize coastal restoration, and propose an appropriate mix of structural and land use measures capable of meeting that priority and sustaining the coast and its people for the next century and beyond. Objective comparison should be made of the total costs of the large linear levees, including materials, transport and perpetual maintenance, and the costs of alternative alignments and approaches.

Lastly, both federal and state plans are currently proceeding on an in-house basis, with occasional public briefings. Limited review is provided by outside experts, but only in reaction to project proposals. This process is inadequate for an endeavor of this scope, impact and risks. Because of the inherent limits of outside review, we recommend amending the existing planning structure to include more independent experts in the relevant disciplines at the planning table itself. .

In closing, we re-emphasize our desire to resolve these concerns in a constructive way. Many projects contained in the current plans should go forward on an expedited basis, with appropriate adjustments as their results are proven. The current emphasis, however, on large, linear coastal protection levees is in our view fundamentally flawed, and requires re-examination. We believe that, given their extraordinary costs and consequences, no irreversible commitments towards such levee systems should be undertaken until this re-examination takes place. We stand ready to assist in this discussion and would be pleased to meet with your representatives at an early time. For purpose of reply, you may contact Dr. John Day (johnday@lsu.edu), Dr. Eugene Turner (euturne@lsu.edu) Dr. Sherwood Gagliano (sgagliano@coastalenv.com), Dr. Robert Bea (bea@ce.berkeley.edu) and Dr. Ivor van Heerden (exnatalia@aol.com).

Respectfully submitted,