Deep in St. Bernard Parish, with newly restored marsh in the distance, Gov. Jeff Landry’s point man on coastal projects talked up his vision for addressing the state’s land loss crisis.

“It’s about building projects. We don’t need to study anything,” said Gordon Dove, the former Terrebonne Parish president and state legislator who chairs the state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.

“If we have to study something, I ought to be run off, and a lot of other people ought to be run off. We know what to build now, and we’re going to go in building projects.”

His comments were well-received by a friendly audience at the recent event in Delacroix, but they have met skepticism elsewhere — much like the strategy he wants to pursue.

Since it controversially canceled two unprecedented river diversion projects aimed at rebuilding lost wetlands, the Landry administration has been working out plans for alternatives.

Those plans are beginning to come into view, and a key component involves what would on paper seem eye-popping: a “land bridge” patched together across 94 miles along the state’s coast, stretching in pieces from Plaquemines through Terrebonne parishes.

To put it into perspective, that distance is longer than the driving mileage from New Orleans to Baton Rouge.

But the name and total distance may be somewhat of a misnomer. The “land bridge” would essentially be a series of coastal restoration projects stitched together across those areas, each one adapted to the needs of its location and not always contiguous. Sections would be built over time as planning is complete and money is available.

It would serve to not only rebuild wetlands that have been disappearing for a century but also slow storm surge at a time of intensifying hurricanes. The idea is not a new one, and the state has built smaller-scale restoration projects considered land bridges in various locations.

But the complications for what Dove and his coastal authority have in mind are immense. They include finding hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, seeking complex federal permitting, navigating existing pipelines and oyster leases, and identifying locations to dredge sediment that can be used for restoration.

Perhaps biggest of all is a question many have posed in response to the idea: Without the river diversions, is the land bridge actually worth what the state would pay for it? The diversions were intended to deliver sediment that would have nourished such a project, which eventually erodes like the rest of the coast.

‘Use the river’

For Dove, those concerns all pale in comparison to the benefits. He argues that pursuing such a plan allows the state to rebuild land quickly, at a lower cost and with less disruption than the diversions.

As for the eventual erosion, Michael Hare, the CPRA’s executive director, says restoration projects often last well beyond their 20-year design life span, and the coastal authority is looking into new ways of adaptation to further extend that. Future “renourishment cycles” where the state goes back in and replenishes those projects are also options.

But, as those favoring the diversions contend, there are many uncertainties still to be resolved related to the plans. They ask how much work can realistically be done in the coming years.

“I’m left with more questions than answers whenever I’ve heard them talk about land bridges,” said Steve Cochran, who serves on the governor’s advisory panel on coastal issues and has spent his career in related roles.

“One of the reasons that you hear people like me and others continuing to harp on the need to use the river is because it’s been painfully clear for a very long time that the river provides a level of continuing sediment that literally nothing else can do, particularly at a scale which is remotely close to the scale of the work that we actually need to do.”

Land bridge restoration projects patch together longer stretches of land that were once separated by water bodies before they washed away. A prominent example of an existing natural land bridge is the strip on the northeastern edge of New Orleans dividing lakes Borgne and Pontchartrain.

The 94-mile plan that CPRA is pursuing would not be one seamless stretch, though parts of it would be. It would be aimed at protecting the Barataria Basin, south of New Orleans and west of the Mississippi River, as well as Lafourche and Terrebonne.

An initial 23-mile phase in the Barataria area would be a priority. Dove has estimated the cost for that portion at around $700 million, though that is a preliminary figure since the state has yet to even determine a precise alignment.

So far, some $7 million is in hand for planning and design for Barataria and $4.5 million for the eastern Terrebonne portion, CPRA officials say. Certain projects already funded and ongoing will likely end up being part of the overall plan.

‘Listen to the people’

The state expects that much of the money could come from funds related to the 2010 BP oil spill — money previously intended to pay for the $3 billion Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, the unprecedented plan that broke ground in 2023.

Landry canceled that project along with a future companion one, the Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion, in the face of harsh criticism from commercial fishers in those areas and their parish leadership over the changes they would bring.

Building land bridges has long been part of the state’s 50-year coastal master plan, but the diversions were intended to nourish them and extend their life spans. Landry and Dove say the diversions were too risky and too costly, and would force too many shrimpers and oyster growers out of work.

Using BP money for the land bridge projects will require a detailed plan and approval from trustees overseeing those funds, while federal permits, land rights and sources of sediment will also be necessary. For areas closest to the river, piping in sediment from the Mississippi is an obvious option; farther away, the question becomes more difficult.

Coastal advocates warn that will mean more time wasted as the state’s land loss crisis accelerates. They also note the roughly $700 million in BP funds already disbursed for the two diversions, much of which is likely to be lost.

Dove said the diversions would have “taken all the money,” been too destructive and the state would have been on the hook for unanticipated costs.

“I believe and listen to the people that live in the community,” he said.

Quick solutions needed

In Delacroix is a smaller-scale example of what the state has in mind.

The recent visit there by Dove and others highlighted a series of five projects either complete or under construction, with a total budget of around $121 million. They involve more than 1,400 acres of marsh restoration in the Breton Sound east of the Mississippi River, including some work labeled land bridges.

Officials in places like St. Bernard Parish have lauded the Landry administration’s shift in strategy.

They argue — like Dove and Landry — that using time-tested marsh restoration strategies with dredged sediment is the most guaranteed way to rebuild land as quickly as possible.

John Lane, St. Bernard Parish’s coastal director, said during the event where Dove spoke that “there’s a theme happening here: It’s about the locals.”

“Chairman Dove is listening to locals,” he said.

Everyone agrees on one thing: There is little time to waste. The state has lost land amounting to the size of Delaware over the last century, and sea level rise is projected to worsen it in the decades ahead.

Cochran questions whether the new strategy and its uncertainties match the enormity of the problem.

“That’s about more than Mid-Barataria,” he said. “It’s about the process of decision-making. It’s about the discussions about facts versus rhetoric. … We don’t have time for politics as usual.”