U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

53–826 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 110–1033 

MOVING FORWARD AFTER HURRICANES 

KATRINA AND RITA 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2007—NEW ORLEANS, LA 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 26, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 4 

Cardin Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................. 5 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia .......................... 7 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 8 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 10 

Landrieu, Hon. Mary, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ........................ 10 

WITNESSES 

Woodley, Paul John, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and 

Major General Don T. Riley, Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 17 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 18 

Greene, Richard, Regional Administrator, Region VI, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

McDaniel, Mike, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality . 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Nguyen, Vien The, Reverend, Pastor of the Mary Queen of Vietnam Church ... 72 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Subra, Wilma, Subra Company .............................................................................. 92 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 93 

Coffee, Sidney, Chair, Louisiana Coastal Protection & Restoration 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 142 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 144 

Twilley, Robert, Director and Wetland Biogeochemistry Professor, Department of Oceanography and Coastal Science, Louisiana State University ....... 146 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 147 

Roach, Randy, Mayor, Lake Charles, LA ............................................................... 155 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 156 

Jackson, Thomas L., President, Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East .................................................................................................................. 158 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 159 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana ......................... 166 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ......................................... 168 

(1) 

MOVING FORWARD AFTER HURRICANES 

KATRINA AND RITA 

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, New Orleans, LA 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m. at the 

Louisiana Supreme Court Building, 400 Royal Street, the Hon. 

Barbara Boxer (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Isakson, Cardin, Klobuchar, 

Whitehouse, and Landrieu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. This hearing of the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee will come to order. First I want to say 

how pleased we are to be here and I want to tell you how we are 

going to proceed before I make my opening statement. And that is 

that we have three panels who we are going to hear from. And before they get to testify each of us is going to make an opening 

statement, which will range between 3 and 5 minutes. I would urge 

all of our witnesses not to go over 5 minutes, because if you do, I 

have to do this (indicating), just because we want to have time for 

questions. So that’s how we are going to proceed now. 

Before our panels we are going to hear from the Hon. Mary Landrieu. And then I’m going to ask her to please join us right here 

next to me so that we have Louisiana’s two Senators up front and 

center as they should be at this very important hearing. 

So good morning everyone, and thank you for joining us at the 

very first field hearing of the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee this Congress. And it shows how important the 

subject matter is that we are here. 

As the new chair of this committee I felt it was important for our 

very first field hearing to be here in New Orleans. The critical 

issues we will address today: Hurricane protection, wetlands restoration, and management of the massive amounts of debris left in 

the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Rita are a top priority for 

this committee and with the continued help and terrific leadership 

of your two Senators we intend to stand by the people of New Orleans. You deserve it. This great American city, this beautiful State 

and region continue to need our attention and will not be forgotten 

as long as I sit in this chair. 

I want to thank the members of the U.S. Senate who are here 

today in support of this effort. It wasn’t easy to get here. We had 
2 

all kinds of weather issues and they stuck with it and I just want 

to say thank you to them. 

And again, I want to recognize my colleagues from Louisiana for 

ensuring that we continue to focus on the needs of this hard-hit region. Senator Landrieu asked if I would conduct this hearing as 

quickly as possible at the start of the new Congress since our committee is responsible for oversight of the Army Corps of Engineers’ 

wetlands and waste disposal. These issues continue to have central 

importance as we move forward in the aftermath of the hurricanes. 

Senator Vitter is a member of the Environment and Public 

Works Committee and he has stressed the importance of dealing 

with ongoing challenges in his State, including the problems with 

debris in landfills. He also asked that we hold the hearing on this 

issue and I appreciate his strong interest in ensuring that this 

committee play an active role in addressing these matters. And we 

must, because it is our job. 

And again, as chairman of this committee, I want to assure all 

involved that we will stay focused on what needs to be done. Tragedy suffered by this region will be forever fixed in our minds. Since 

arriving last evening, members of this committee have traveled to 

some of the devastated areas, including reviewing the damage from 

the air this morning. Although there are many signs of hope, much 

of the devastation from Katrina is still all too clear. A year and a 

half after the storms a lot of work remains. 

Now, we know that there have been serious failures by our Government and we must learn from the past. But personally, I want 

to focus on the future. We want to be constructive and we want to 

do what is necessary. One thing I can assure you is that Congressional oversight of our Government is back. When the Army Corps 

of Engineers, the EPA or other Federal agencies are doing something right, we will commend them. But when they are not, we 

want to know so the problem can be fixed cooperatively and in a 

bipartisan way. 

The levees and flood walls should have protected the people of 

New Orleans but they failed, unleashing tragedy and unleashing 

horror. We now have several studies looking at what went wrong, 

the region lacked a comprehensive and effective system to protect 

it from the kind of storm surges that came with Katrina and Rita. 

As chairman of this committee I’m determined that we consider 

necessary legislation to address hurricane protection and restoration as part of the Water Resources Development Act and that we 

do it soon. And I want to say that your two Senators are pressing 

and we are all pressing to get this bill done and I commit to you 

we will get it done and we will have it on the floor of the Senate 

at the end of March. I would say we will have it out of the committee at the end of March and be pressing for it to be on the floor 

of the Senate from that time forward. 

It has been over 6 years since we had a WRDA bill and critical 

projects such as the Morganza Hurricane Protection Project and 

Louisiana Coastal Area Program need attention now. We must 

commit ourselves to restoring Louisiana’s natural hurricane protection system, the wetlands. We know that when storms pass over 

warm, open Gulf waters, they strengthen. We know we are going 

to be facing that even more in the future with global warming. For 
3 

centuries the protective wetlands of the Louisiana coast blunted 

the force of countless storms, absorbing their energy and softening 

their impact, but those wetlands have been disappearing before our 

eyes. Today Louisiana’s Coastal wetlands are only half as wide as 

they were 50 years ago. If we fail to restore disappearing wetlands 

there will be no floodwall high enough, no levee big enough and no 

pumps strong enough to protect this city and the coast. 

We also need to address the disposal of tons of debris generated 

by the hurricanes and flooding. We will examine concerns about 

possible risks of release of chemicals from these landfills, potential 

risks of flooding of the landfills, about illegal dumping in certain 

areas of the city. 

Now, we know how much you have suffered here, and the first 

message I want to give you again is a message of hope, that you 

will not be forgotten, that we are working together in a bipartisan 

way to bring justice to this area. And now I would turn it to Senator Vitter. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Good Morning, and thank you for joining us at the first field hearing of the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee in this Congress. As the new Chair of 

this Committee, I felt that it was important for our very first field hearing to be 

here in New Orleans. The critical issues we will address today—hurricane protection, wetlands restoration and management of the massive amounts of debris left 

in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Rita, are a top priority for this Committee. 

This great American city, this beautiful State and region, continue to need our 

attention and will not be forgotten. 

I want to thank the six members of the U.S. Senate who are here today in support 

of this effort. I particularly want to recognize my colleagues from Louisiana for ensuring that we continue to focus on the needs of this hard hit region. 

Senator Landrieu asked if I would conduct this hearing as quickly as possible at 

the start of the new Congress since our Committee is responsible for oversight of 

the Army Corps of Engineers, wetlands and waste disposal—these issues continue 

to have central importance as we move forward in the aftermath of the hurricanes. 

Senator Vitter is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and 

he has stressed the importance of dealing with ongoing challenges in his State, including the problems with debris and landfills. He asked that we hold a hearing on 

these issues, and I appreciate his strong interest in ensuring that the Committee 

play an active role in addressing these matters. 

As Chairman of this Committee, I want to assure all involved that we will stay 

focused on what needs to be done. 

The tragedy suffered by this region will be forever fixed in our minds. Since arriving last evening, members of this Committee have traveled to some of the devastated areas, including reviewing the damage from the air this morning. Although 

there are many signs of hope, much of the devastation from Katrina is still all too 

clear. A year and a half after the storms, a lot of work remains. 

There have been serious failures by our Government, and we must learn from the 

past. But I want to focus on the future. We want to be constructive, and to see what 

we can do now. 

One thing I can assure you is that Congressional oversight of our Government is 

back. When the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, or 

other Federal agencies are doing something right, we will commend them. But when 

they are not doing their jobs, we want to know so the problem can be fixed cooperatively, and in a bipartisan way. 

The levees and floodwalls should have protected the people of New Orleans. But 

they failed, unleashing a tragedy and a horror that was to some unimaginable, but 

in fact was foreseeable. 
4 

We now have several studies looking at what went wrong in protecting this region. The region lacked a comprehensive and effective system to protect it from the 

kind of storm surges that came with Katrina and Rita. 

As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am determined 

that we consider necessary legislation to address hurricane protection and restoration as part of the Water Resources Development Act and that we do it this year. 

It has been over 6 years since we had a Water Resources Development Act, and 

critical projects such as the Morganza hurricane protection project and the Louisiana Coastal Area program need action now. 

We must commit ourselves to restoring Louisiana’s natural hurricane protection 

system the wetlands. We know that when storms pass over warm, open Gulf waters, 

they strengthen. For centuries, the protective wetlands of the Louisiana coast blunted the force of countless storms, absorbing their energy and softening their impact. 

But those wetlands have been disappearing before our eyes. Today, Louisiana’s 

coastal wetlands are only half as wide as they were 50 years ago. 

If we fail to restore Louisiana’s disappearing wetlands, there will be no floodwall 

high enough, no levee big enough, and no pumps strong enough to protect this city 

and coast. 

We also need to address the disposal of tons of debris generated by the hurricanes 

and flooding. We will examine concerns about possible risks of release of chemicals 

from these landfills, potential risks of flooding of the landfills, and about illegal 

dumping in certain areas of the city. 

I am committed to working with Senators Landrieu and Vitter and the members 

of this Committee to accomplish what is needed for Louisiana and the region. Today’s hearing is an important step in that process. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. And I 

want to start by thanking you and the rest of the committee for 

being here and for holding this very important field hearing. Many 

committees in the Congress do field hearings regularly. What is so 

unusual about this is the very significant and broad representation 

we have. We will have seven U.S. Senators here, seven percent of 

the entire U.S. Senate, and I want to thank each and every one of 

you, as I know Mary does, for making the trip and being here and 

seeing things firsthand. 

This committee is enormously important to our recovery on the 

Gulf Coast. When I first came to the Senate, in 2004, I came to this 

committee and was honored to do so then. I’m even more honored 

to be on the committee now and find it even more of an important 

opportunity because of everything we are working through with 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

This committee oversees every activity of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, so needless to say, there are so many very important 

issues related to our recovery that are fore square before this committee. And in addition, of course, this committee oversees environmental issues. So other important issues, landfill issues, dumping 

issues are right before our jurisdiction as well. 

Thank you, Madame Chair, again for this hearing. I started work 

on a hearing like this in late 2006 and it really came out of some 

meetings I had in New Orleans East with Father Nguyen and 

many other citizens out there who were particularly concerned 

about the landfill issues that we are going to discuss during the 

hearing. And we began making plans for a hearing. And then, Madame Chair, you immediately picked up on those plans and expanded them and went forward as soon as you became chairman. 

So I appreciate that and I appreciate your bringing this hearing to 

the New Orleans area, as you said, the first field hearing of this 
5 

committee in the new Congress. I think that is very meaningful 

and very significant. 

Again, we are going to talk a lot today about crucial Corps of Engineers’ issues and all the Corps activity is in the jurisdiction of 

this committee, coastal restoration first and foremost; closing 

MRGO, which has to happen; reforming and improving the processes of the Corps in infusing that process with more outside independent scientific expertise; and also changing Congressional procedure as it relates to the Corps. The vitally important program, 

Morganza, the Gulf to provide some beginning hurricane protection 

to populated areas to the west of here, which right now have virtually none. All of these are enormously important programs, priorities that the Corps’ involved in, and therefore, this committee is 

involved in it. 

With regard to all of that, my bottom line and my plea, which 

I know the Chairman has heard and agrees with, is very simple. 

All of this moves forward and we have enormous positive language 

and proposals in the WRDA bill which we’re currently working on. 

WRDA is W-R-D-A, stands for Water Resources Development Act, 

and it is a major water resources bill that moves through this committee. It’s long overdue to be passed. It should have been passed 

at least two or three years ago, but we really need to get it done 

now because all of these issues are in WRDA and all of these issues 

can move forward positively through WRDA. 

So, Madame Chair, thank you for your commitment on WRDA 

and I certainly want to work with you and the rest of the committee to accelerate the process any way we can. We were talking 

on the bus about how we might accelerate that process. 

Finally, again, the genesis of this hearing from my point of view 

was a focus on the very significant landfill issues in New Orleans 

East and the very legitimate concerns of that community. I look 

forward to discussing that in Panels 1 and 2. I do think they are 

very serious issues. I have grave concerns about what has gone on 

and what is going on at the old Gentilly landfill and I don’t think 

you need to look any further than the front page of today’s TimesPicayune to understand some of the history that brought us here 

today. Certainly we’ll be discussing that in the hearing. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. Senators, the clock is right 

over there in front and so I’m going to turn it now to Senator 

Cardin of Maryland who was one of those Senators who waited 

around until very late last night to get here. We so appreciate it, 

Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Boxer, let me thank you very 

much for having this hearing. Let me assure you the time was not 

wasted. Secretary Woodley used that time to give me a private tutorial on canals and pumps and levees, so I appreciate that very 

much and I really want to thank you for conducting this hearing. 

I wanted to come here to New Orleans. It was not an assignment 

that was looked at as a burden. I wanted to be here. I wanted to 

see firsthand what was happening in New Orleans. Senator Lan-
6 

drieu and Senator Vitter both told me that you need to be here to 

see; that you can’t just read about it or look at the pictures, but 

you need to come by and see what is happening in New Orleans. 

I want to you know as a Senator who represents the people of 

Maryland, we are going to do everything we can to help. We want 

to restore a quality of life to people of this area that reflects the 

commitment of our nation. We also want to learn from what happened here. We want to get it right. We also want to learn. I represent a State in which water is a major part of our life. We live 

with water in Maryland and we know the beauty of it. We also 

know the danger of it. I want to make sure that we learn with 

what happened in Katrina so that we can take steps to protect people so that we can minimize these natural disasters. 

Katrina was the worst natural disaster in my lifetime affecting 

the people of our country. It was made worst because Governments 

were not prepared to do what they needed to do at all levels and 

we have to get it better. We have to understand what has happened. 

We also understand that the issue deals not just with building 

the levees and the pumps and the canals, but also dealing with the 

buffers, the wetlands. We have to do a better job in restoring wetlands in this area. 

I understand that during the course of this hearing we are going 

to lose wetlands that equal several football fields in that short period of time, because of the way in which we have developed life, 

the way we have changed the flow of the river, the way that we 

have built buildings. Well, we need now to take affirmative steps 

to improve the wetlands, to improve the buffers, so that the great 

work of our engineers in building stronger levees and better designed canals and pumps will be also supplemented by protecting 

the areas from the natural buffers that are so important in a 

storm, or so important just to deal with normal flooding conditions 

that are a way of life for people who live on coastal areas. 

So I also wanted to see some of the housing. I was disappointed 

I didn’t get here earlier because I had an appointment to meet with 

some people in the Lower Ninth Ward. We did by today in the tour 

to see some of the neighborhoods. And I understand the complexities—certainly better now than before I got here, the complexities 

of restoring communities and neighborhoods. 

But we have to pay attention in Washington. Neighborhoods 

need our help. People’s lives have been literally uprooted. We need 

to find a way to expedite return of some degree of normal life to 

neighborhoods today that still do not have that commitment from 

all of us. 

So, Madame Chair, I thank you for convening this hearing and 

for bringing together the type of witnesses I think that we can 

learn a lot from. This is a very important hearing. I’m glad it’s our 

first field hearing so that we can benefit from the expertise that’s 

in this room. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. It’s my pleasure 

to call on Senator Isakson of Georgia, who’s very interested in this 

hearing and has been a very active member of this committee. 

Senator, welcome. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 
7 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chair, thank you for holding this field hearing today, here in New Orleans. Because we have so many witnesses, so many topics, and so little time, I’m 

going to be brief. I really consider this a ‘‘hearing’’ in the true sense of the term 

an opportunity for the Environment & Public Works Committee to hear from some 

of the people who have been directly affected by the worst natural disaster in our 

Nation’s history and who will help the region recover and rebuild. 

I would like to make two brief points. First of all, Katrina was the worst natural 

disaster we have experienced but it’s important to acknowledge that it didn’t have 

to be. There were failures at all levels of Government which others have documented before, during, and after the storm hit. These failures from poor design, construction, and maintenance of the levees and floodwalls to inadequate evacuation 

plans and resources made a bad situation much worse. 

I bring this up because much of the rhetoric we have heard the past few decades 

has been about tearing Government down. And we allowed that to happen: not 

enough resources, not enough oversight. 

To put it simply and starkly, Katrina grimly illustrated the consequences of bad 

Government and the need for good Government. The flooding didn’t have to be so 

extensive, and people didn’t have to be stranded for days on the roofs of their homes 

or at the Superdome. 

I think it’s time to re-acknowledge that there are certain goods and services only 

Government can provide. Instead of spending all our time and effort trying to get 

rid of Government, let’s a find a way to make sure it provides those goods and services as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

The second point I would make is that we tend to think there’s a ‘‘technological’’ 

solution to all of our problems. That’s why I appreciate the fact that part of this 

hearing is devoted to the issue of wetland losses and restoration. 

Wetlands provide an excellent natural ‘‘buffer’’ system to absorb and reduce the 

impact of storms. But during the course of this hearing, wetlands the size of four 

to five football fields will sink into the Gulf of Mexico. Much of that loss is attributable to human activities. 

Protecting New Orleans and the other cities and towns along the Gulf Coast from 

the next big storm isn’t just an engineering issue. It’s not just about bigger, stronger 

levees and floodwalls. We have to stop wetland losses and give this natural buffer 

system of barrier islands, wetlands, grass marshes, and cypress swamps a chance 

to recover. 

Thank you again, Madam Chair, for holding this field hearing. I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses. We all have an enormous task at hand: to help one of 

America’s greatest cities come back, to help the entire Gulf Coast come back, and 

to protect this wonderful area and its people from having to endure something as 

devastating and horrific as Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath ever again. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHHNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you. And thanks first of all, to 

your commitment to bring the hearing here. Senator Landrieu and 

Senator Vitter made sure that every one of us in the Senate every 

day understand the plight and the concerns of Louisiana and I pay 

tribute to both of them on the efforts they have made on behalf of 

this great city and your State. 

Like Senator Cardin, I’m delighted to be here. I have equity in 

the city of New Orleans. I paid tuition at Tulane for 4 years. My 

oldest son graduated 15 years ago. I have fond memories. My wife 

and I honeymooned at 727 Toulouse Street in the Maison De Ville 

39 years ago and in my former profession I worked closely with 

Latter and Blum and Gertrude Gardner in the real estate business 

and have talked with those principals since the Katrina catastrophe and the following Rita catastrophe and understand the 

great plight and difficulties that the real estate industry and the 

homeowners in this region and this particular city have had. 
8 

So as ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee, I’m especially glad to be here today and I pledge at 

the outset my hardest effort and best effort to accelerate the Federal, State and local partnership in the reconstruction of this great 

city and this region. I’m delighted to be in the city today and I’m 

anxious to hear from the Corps both on the immediate reaction to 

the hurricane response operation and their ongoing reconstruction 

efforts in the New Orleans area. I’m equally interested in Senator 

Vitter’s statements with regard to Gentilly landfill. 

But most importantly of all, I’m proud to be here as a part of a 

committee that wants to do everything it can to help this great 

city, this State and this region recover from a great catastrophe. I 

yield back to the Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator, for you eloquent words. It’s 

my pleasure to call on Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota and we’re 

just thrilled she’s on the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Isakson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF GEORGIA

Thank you Madam Chairman, and Senator Vitter. I appreciate the opportunity to 

participate in today’s hearing, the latest in a series of oversight hearings conducted 

by this Committee since the devastation caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

New Orleans is a very special city to many Americans, and also to me personally. 

My wife Dianne and I honeymooned here 38 years ago, and my son John is a graduate of Tulane University. New Orleans holds a special place in my family’s hearts. 

I’ll be brief in my opening remarks so that we can get to our witnesses, except to 

say the following. 

Given this Committee’s jurisdiction over the Civil Works mission of the Army 

Corps of Engineers, and given my position as the Ranking Member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I am especially interested in hearing from 

the Corps regarding their hurricane response operations and their ongoing reconstruction and restoration efforts in the New Orleans area. I pledge to do all I can 

to work with my colleagues on this Committee and in the Senate to provide the 

proper oversight of the Corps, and resources to the Corps, to ensure that they fulfill 

their obligations to the people of New Orleans, LS, and the Gulf Coast. 

I am also interested in hearing from our witnesses regarding disaster debris management and removal. This issue is, in my mind, equally critical to facilitate the 

recovery here in New Orleans. As we saw today at the Gentilly Landfill, the types 

and amounts of debris generated by the storms is just staggering. We need to be 

sure that the manner in which we handle these wastes does not pose a threat to 

human health or the health of the environment here in New Orleans and Louisiana. 

Thank you again Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

And I want to extend a special thanks to you for holding this hearing here as well as Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter for 

hosting us here. I can tell you from being on the Senate floor, both 

of them are constantly have these issue up front and center. I don’t 

think there is a Senator that they haven’t talked to about this and 

you should know that about them. 

I wasn’t in the Senate when this area was struck by Hurricane 

Katrina and Rita, but I can tell you what I felt as a citizen of the 

State of Minnesota and that’s what the rest of this country felt, 

which was sadness and despair over the tragedy and the horror 
9 

and then a disappointment in our failings as a Government, failed 

policies that contributed to the disaster, and a failed response that 

exacerbated it. Then there was the pride and the pluck in the spirit 

of the people of New Orleans in how you responded to this. And 

actually there is a friend out there, Brad Cousins, who was my aide 

in the DA’s office for many years and he had gone to college at 

Tulane and then he was going to law school and he could have 

gone to any law school across the country. And after Katrina hit 

he wanted to go to Tulane and he came back here as a member 

of the first class that got together after Katrina. And that’s the 

kind of pride and pluck that I’m talking about and he was a Minnesota. 

Finally, I think we all felt a deep obligation to help, to do our 

part to make sure that we restore this vital region. As the other 

Senators have noted, we spent last night and today looking at the 

devastation, seeing some of the good that has been done, but also 

seeing the work that needs to be done and I can tell you Minnesota 

has a connection to New Orleans. As you know, the mighty Mississippi starts in Minnesota. You can actually walk across it. Lake 

Itasca is something all kids in Minnesota—it’s obligatory, you go 

up and say you walked across the Mississippi River. But more than 

that, we have a connection in that our commerce comes down this 

river and the entire country has really counted on the Mississippi 

and its Gulf Outlet as a vital channel of commerce. 

I see us as stakeholders in a strong and thriving Port of New Orleans and coastal region. Just for one example, the farmers in our 

State ship hundreds of millions of bushels of crops on barges to 

Louisiana Gulf ports and ultimately to the world beyond. Without 

thriving coastal wetlands and a vibrant chain of barrier islands, 

Louisiana’s systems of port, which handles more tonnage than any 

other port in the country, would be left unprotected and in the path 

of future storms. 

Secondly, as stakeholders we have a collective responsibility to 

make sure that the money spent to restore the ecosystem and to 

rebuild and protect the communities is wisely spent. This means to 

me a number of things. It means a coherent, integrated plan for 

this entire region, not a piecemeal collection of assorted projects so 

that we can get our best return on our investment. 

My background is as a prosecutor. I remember when we tried to 

do things regionally and statewide with our criminal justice system. We wanted to get one set complaint that we would use and 

I still remember a local police chief from a small jurisdiction saying: I can’t do that. I just bought new file cabinets. They wouldn’t 

fit. We have to go beyond that as we work together as a State and 

as a country to look at this integrated plan. It also means putting 

science before politics so that we are spending our money on 

projects that are ecologically and economically sound. 

And finally, it means exercising real oversight in asking the 

tough questions so that we in Congress make sure that the taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being spent well. 

I look forward to hearing today about the progress so far and the 

challenges ahead and I look forward to a bipartisan effort to find 

creative and lasting solutions. Thank you. 
10 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much. And now we will 

hear from the Senator from Rhode Island, another Senator who 

waited for hours and hours in the snow yesterday in Washington. 

We are just so delighted he’s here. Senator Whitehouse of Rhode 

Island. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I had the 

chance to share in the Cardin tutorial, so it was not wasted time. 

As a lawyer who has practiced for many years, as a private lawyer 

and as a prosecutor, I want to let you know how pleased I am that 

the Supreme Court has let us use their room. It’s a great thrill to 

sit here as a Justice would and I want to express our appreciation 

to Chief Justice Calogero and Justice Kimball, who are here, for 

their courtesy in having us use this great place. 

As a Senator from Rhode Island I share a very active concern 

about the effect of natural disasters, particularly hurricanes on our 

State. Many of you know that we are repeatedly struck with hurricanes. The most famous was the legendary hurricane in 1938, 

which was enormously destructive. And with the buildup that has 

happened since then if an event like that were to occur, it is not 

difficult for me to transplant the images that I saw this morning, 

looking out the window of those Blackhawk helicopters, to my 

home State, so I think I can speak for all of us when I say you have 

our full attention. And it’s been inspiring to see the signs of determination and resiliency as Louisiana and New Orleans have 

sprung back. Certainly that energetic spirit was on energetic display last night in the French Quarter as we passed through. But 

there clearly is also a lot of work to be done. And as I see the 

places that have not yet recovered and transplant those images to 

my home State, to Rhode Island, it becomes very, very clear to me 

why in our Democratic caucus, when we have the chance to sit together as Democrats and talk with each other, why Senator Landrieu is so relentless and so passionate and so persistent on this 

subject. 

I mean, from the news coverage you know it’s real, but when you 

come down here, you see it even more clearly. So I look forward 

to these hearings and I thank you, Madame Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, so much. And now it’s a great honor 

to call on the Senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, 

whose been a driving force along with Senator Vitter in focusing 

our attention on what has happened here. Senator, welcome. And 

we hope when you finish, you will take your little name plate and 

come on and join me right here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY LANDRIEU, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madame Chair. Let me begin by 

reiterating how grateful we are that you chose Louisiana for your 

first field hearing. For the New Orleans region, for all of south 

Louisiana, and for our future, that choice is one that we will always be grateful for. The fact that six of your members showed up 

for this committee is also very significant and that three members 
11 

who have only been in the Senate less than two and a half months 

chose this as one of their first trips when you were asked to go 

hundreds of places. Senator Vitter and I cannot tell you how grateful we are that you said yes and that you waited for 6 hours snowbound and still made the trip is even more commendable. 

I want to thank the Court for allowing us to continue to use this 

space, which is quite dignified, for the subjects that we discuss 

here, which is life and death and the future of this region and the 

contributions that this region has made over many, many decades 

and centuries to the growth and development of the greatest nation 

on earth. So we appreciate the dignity of this room and the fact 

that Justices Calogero and Kimball continue to give us their space. 

I hope it’s not impeding on their workload, but they seem to be 

handling it very well and we appreciate that. Very briefly, Madame 

Chair, I hope that we can cover three very important pieces today 

and develop a stronger Congressional record on three major points: 

One, to more fully grasp the cost and scope of the disaster that occurred here and the challenges that still remain in coordinating the 

levee system and coastal restoration system and internal pumping 

system that has to work together, coordinated and integrated for 

this region and for south Louisiana to remain safe and secure. It 

is very difficult for people outside, even for us that have lived here 

our whole life, to understand the interworkings of the levee system, 

the wetland system and pumping system to keep this area dry and 

to keep it safe. But as we flew on the helicopter this morning and 

we looked out and shared some thoughts, I said: It’s hard to find 

a beach anywhere around here because we aren’t on a beach. We 

are not on the Gulf. We were founded and protected by miles and 

miles of wetland with a great levee system that we have simply 

failed to sustain and keep up, and as a result, billions of dollars 

of damage have occurred. 

In your opening statement, Senator, I don’t have to convince you 

of this because your opening statement reflected your significant 

grasp of this situation. That’s why I’m so thrilled in your leadership for this committee and coming from Sacramento, a major capital city of a major State, you understand the challenges that also 

may occur to your own City of Sacramento. 

Secondly, the importance of the passage of the WRDA bill it is 

crucial. Louisiana has 20 percent of all the projects in that bill. I 

would like to say because our delegation is strong and we are determined, but it’s also because we have most of the water in the 

country. Since it’s a water bill. We have a lot of water projects. It’s 

been stuck for 7 years. We have to unstuck it—unstick it, move it 

forward and get the WRDA bill passed from the Morganza to the 

Gulf, which is a new authorization, that’s been struggling for 20 

years for its full authorization and a Golden Meadow levee system 

and others that need to move forward. We are very appreciative. 

Thirdly, the Congressional record should reflect after this hearing the tremendous strides that the State of Louisiana has made. 

Sometimes it’s overlooked that this State has already passed a 

Constitutional amendment to dedicate the new monies that we will 

receive from the great 37 1/2 percent share of offshore oil and gas 

revenues that will be dedicated, as Senator Klobuchar said, not to 

piecemeal, but to a long range project. The consolidation of our 
12 

levee boards has occurred. The framing of the LCA, Louisiana 

Coastal Authority, has been framed. New appointments have been 

made and our team is ready to go, to work with you to build a system that will never fail the people of this city and region or the 

people of this country again. 

And, finally these landfill issues are extremely important, but to 

put this in perspective, we generate about 350,000 tons of waste a 

year. Katrina left us with 22 million tons to deal with. 350,000 on 

a regular year. 22 million tons of debris. Larger than anything the 

country has ever experienced. So obviously there are challenges. 

We want to work with the neighborhoods, work with the communities, and with this committee’s leadership, I’m sure we’ll find the 

solution. 

Thank you, Madame Chair. And I will join you at the dais. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator, so much and we would ask 

now that the Panel 1 come up here, which is John Paul Woodley, 

Assistant Secretary of the Army, Major General Don T. Riley, Director of Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Richard 

Greene, Regional Administrator, Region 6, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Gentlemen, thank you so much and thank you for arranging this 

very important helicopter tour that we took this morning. Every 

minute that we’ve been together, whether it was on the ground last 

night, looking at the latest addition to safety, which is that incredible series of pumps and the gate. It’s the 17th Street bridge, is 

that where we were? Canal, yes. You have been just very, very 

helpful. 

So, General, are you all going to make opening statements? How 

are we going to work this? 

Mr. WOODLEY. No, Senator. I will make one statement on behalf 

of the Army. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) 

Mr. WOODLEY. I’m John Paul Woodley and I’m the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and I’m accompanied here by 

Major General Don Riley, Director of Civil Works of the Army 

Corps of Engineers. We have submitted a joint detailed written 

statement to the committee and so I will be very brief. I want to 

say, Senator, that the Corps of Engineers is very important for the 

City of New Orleans and has been for many generations. The reason for that is very simple. The reason is that New Orleans is very 

important to the Nation. I’m very proud of the work that the Corps 

of Engineers has undertaken to date both in response to the catastrophe and in rebuilding the protected works. But I’m also mindful 

of the many challenges that lie ahead. 

This hearing is very important and I want to express our profound gratitude to you and to all the Senators who have attended 

to draw attention to this issue and to move forward in working together. There is no place for rancor. There is no place for demagoguery. There is only room here for understanding and analyzing 

our issues, the difficulties that we face, and arriving together at 
13 

strategies to meet them. So thank you very much for the opportunity to present testimony today. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. I will start off with questions, and then 

I will turn to Senator Vitter, and we are going to try to keep the 

questions—I thought you were going to speak for everybody? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Well, only for the Army. The EPA—— 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Greene. 

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Woodley is represented by a very distinguished 

representative. 

Senator BOXER. That’s okay. I was confused. This is our EPA, 

how could I forget? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodley follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL WOODLEY, ASSISTANT SECTRETARY

OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS) 

INTRODUCTION

Madam Chair and other members of the committee, I am John Paul Woodley, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works). Attending this hearing with me is 

Major General Don Riley, Director, Civil Works, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the hurricane response operations and the ongoing reconstruction and restoration efforts by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers in the New Orleans area. As you know, the New Orleans 

Hurricane Protection System was extensively damaged during Hurricane Katrina. 

The Corps has completed repairs on 225 miles of the system. However, due to the 

significant changes in the coastal environment, and geological, and other changes 

that have occurred over many decades, the system does not provide the level of risk 

reduction envisioned when it was first authorized. We are working actively to address this concern and are also pursuing ways to improve upon the existing Hurricane Protection System. 

My testimony will focus on the Hurricane Protection System Restoration, Ecosystem Restoration, and the debris removal mission. 

HURRICANE PROTECTION SYSTEM RESTORATION STATUS

The Hurricane Protection System for the greater New Orleans metropolitan area 

consists of a series of levees, floodwalls, gates, armoring and pump stations. 

Design and construction activities are focusing on building the system to the level 

of risk reduction envisioned when it was first authorized, while implementing further improvements where appropriate. The designs themselves are being accomplished through a combination of contracts with private industry and the Corps of 

Engineers. All designs are then vetted through the independent technical review 

process. Furthermore, we will continue to assess and improve designs throughout 

the construction process. 

Generally, the Corps is working to reduce the risk of flood damage in the greater 

New Orleans metropolitan area from a storm with a one percent chance of occurring 

in any one year, which is known colloquially as a 100-year storm. To determine the 

impact of such a storm, we assembled a group of national and international experts 

to advance modeling techniques to determine both surge and wave heights by storm 

frequency for the area within the existing Hurricane Protection System. This is a 

progressive advancement encouraged by the American Society of Civil Engineers 

(ASCE) and the National Research Council. We are using this information in designing levees and floodwalls to reduce the risk of flood damage from such a storm. 

The FY 2008 Budget, released earlier this month, recommends, as part of an FY 

2007 Supplemental appropriations package, enactment of a statutory provision to 

authorize the Secretary of the Army to reallocate up to $1.3 billion of the emergency 

supplemental appropriations that were provided in FY 2006, but that remain unobligated. The proposed reallocation will enable the Corps to apply this funding to 

those measures that will best improve the near-term, overall level of risk reduction 

in the greater New Orleans metropolitan area. It will enable the Corps to complete 

higher priority work sooner, in concert with similar work in other areas. 

The estimate of the cost of the work necessary to accomplish our work is expected 

to increase as a result of various engineering forensic investigations and assessments, a review of new storm surge data from the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force Risk and Consequence study currently underway, increased mate-
14 

rial costs, and other factors. Updated, actionable re-estimates will not be available 

until this summer. 

While the Corps is moving forward with design and with refining cost-estimates 

for future work, we continue to make progress on ongoing work. The Corps has recently awarded contracts to furnish 11 additional pumps at the 17th Street Canal 

and eight additional pumps at London Avenue and to construct the pump platforms 

and install the pumps. The addition of these pumps will increase capacity at 17th 

Street to approximately 7,600 cubic feet per second (cfs) and increase capacity at 

London Avenue to approximately 5,000 cfs. These reflect increased capabilities 

based upon the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task force (IPET) modeling for 

the city’s 10-year design storm. This increased pumping capacity will be in place by 

August, 2007. While the work at the outfall canals is not yet complete, by June 1, 

2007, we will have increased pumping capacity at 17th Street from 4,060 cfs to 

5,200 cfs. Pumping capacities at Orleans Avenue and London Avenue Canals will 

remain at 2,200 cfs and 2,800 cfs, respectively, on June 1, 2007. 

Additionally, the Corps has completed upgrading the manually operated gates to 

mechanical operation. The mechanically operated gates provide storm surge protection at the outfall canals when a major storm is approaching. The temporary pumps 

in the outfall canals will provide interior drainage capability comparable to conditions that existed during major storms prior to Hurricane Katrina. We continue to 

prepare for the expected spring rains and the next hurricane season. 

RESTORATION EFFORTS

We are engaged on several fronts with respect to ecosystem restoration in coastal 

Louisiana. These activities are now conducted under various authorities. A key challenge that we face is finding a way to integrate all of these activities. If our strategy 

for restoring the ecosystem is to be successful, we will also need to ensure that our 

efforts to improve the level of risk reduction from future hurricanes in Louisiana 

are compatible with the long-term needs of the ecosystem. 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET

Since Hurricane Katrina, the Corps of Engineers has been involved in a number 

of simultaneous efforts located on or near the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet 

(MRGO). These efforts include emergency levee repairs, ecosystem restoration 

projects, and development of a proposed plan for de-authorizing deep draft navigation. Using some of the funds that the Congress appropriated in Public Law 109- 

234 (the fourth emergency supplemental appropriations act of 2006), we have been 

working on options to restore and protect critical coastal wetlands along MRGO, as 

well as ways to design structures for saltwater intrusion and storm surge prevention. Work is now underway to protect critical wetlands buffering some of the levee 

systems in the MRGO area. This work will help maintain important natural wave 

buffers and ecological habitats in the Lake Borgne estuary located east of New Orleans and in St. Bernard Parish. Residents of the area depend on these wetlands for 

storm damage reduction, recreation and commercial fishing activities. Our work also 

includes preparing a proposed plan for de-authorizing deep draft navigation on the 

MRGO. In December we submitted an Interim Report to Congress, which explored 

the future of navigation and addressed storm damage reduction and wetlands restoration in the channel area. 

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

The fourth emergency supplemental appropriations act of 2006 provided $20.2 

million to reduce the risk of storm damage to the greater New Orleans metropolitan 

area by restoring the surrounding wetlands through measures to begin to reverse 

wetland losses in areas affected by navigation, oil and gas, and other channels and 

through modification of the Caernarvon Freshwater Diversion structure or its operations. 

The landbridge in Barataria Basin is subsiding and eroding at an alarming rate. 

This land loss threatens not only fish and wildlife habitat but also oil and gas infrastructure and numerous communities, including Barataria, Lafitte, and the west 

bank of Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. Without the landbridge, the basin would 

be subjected to greater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico, including hurricane storm 

surge. To restore the fragile marsh, Federal and State agencies partnering under 

the Coastal Wetlands Planning Protection and Restoration Act of 1990 (CWPPRA) 

developed a series of complementary projects, each rebuilding or protecting a different piece of the landbridge. When completed, these projects will rebuild and protect more than 5,000 acres of wetlands. We are also looking at other options for ecosystem restoration in the vicinity of the landbridge. 
15 

The Corps is evaluating options for improving the performance of the Caernarvon 

Freshwater Diversion Project. The alternatives under consideration include modifications of its operation and/or combinations of channel restoration, increased sediment delivery, and marsh creation. 

COASTAL WETLANDS PLANNING, PROTECTION AND RESTORATION ACT

The CWPPRA program was authorized in 1990. The CWPPRA program is available only for restoration work in the State of Louisiana. The Federal Government 

finances 85 percent of the program’s costs through the Sport Fisheries and Boating 

Trust Fund, and the State covers the other 15 percent of the costs. 

CWPPRA provides targeted funds for planning and implementing cost-effective 

projects that create, protect, restore and enhance wetlands in coastal Louisiana. 

There are 143 projects in the program which will create, protect, or restore over 

120,000 acres of wetlands in coastal Louisiana. Project impacts range in size from 

nine acres to 36,121 acres. The types of projects include freshwater and sediment 

diversion, outfall management, dredged material/marsh creation, shoreline protection, sediment and nutrient trapping, hydrologic restoration, marsh management, 

barrier island restoration, and vegetation planting. Currently, 70 projects have been 

completed, another 18 are under construction, and 55 are in some stage of planning 

or design. Under this Act, the principal Federal wetlands agencies and the State use 

a competitive process for allocating funds to potential wetlands restoration projects. 

They try to select the best individual projects on the merits, but lack an overall 

strategy to identify integrated groups of projects that could yield greater environmental benefits by acting in concert on a watershed basis. 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

Given the magnitude of Louisiana’s coastal land loss and the extent of the associated ecosystem degradation, it is apparent that a more systematic approach would 

be the best way to restore natural processes. Larger-scale projects to benefit the ecosystem are needed. The barrier islands and coastal marshes of Louisiana also provide a natural buffer against some storm surges, and are a critical element of any 

overall strategy for reducing the risk of storm damage to the urban centers of the 

coast. 

The Corps, in collaboration with the State of Louisiana, Federal and State agencies, and other stakeholders, has developed a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Plan. 

This plan builds upon progress made under CWPPRA and is intended to guide the 

next phase of the restoration effort. The LCA plan is a near-term, 10-year plan of 

studies, projects, and program elements, with a total cost of $1.9 billion. We are currently undertaking investigations and plans to implement some of the proposed restoration features, and are working to address some of the key scientific uncertainties and engineering challenges associated with coastal restoration. 

However, we believe that the Congress should not authorize the LCA plan 

through a conventional authorization. To reduce taxpayer costs and make better use 

of the available funds for restoring coastal Louisiana wetlands, the Administration 

has urged the Congress instead to enact a broad authorization covering all studies, 

construction, and science work that would support the wetlands restoration effort, 

including the measures now undertaken under CWPPRA, without regard to the specific projects and funding allocations envisioned in the LCA plan. 

The kind of authorization that we have recommended will ensure that the coastal 

Louisiana restoration effort will be able to adapt and evolve as needed based on the 

best available science. Also, the Corps selected and formulated the projects proposed 

in its 10-year plan principally to address ecological benefits. While the program 

should retain its current ecological focus, it needs to establish priorities based on 

a full array of the potential benefits. This will require identifying opportunities 

where changes to the size, design objectives, or location of wetlands projects would 

advance ecosystem as well as storm damage reduction objectives. 

COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

The Corps began its Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration (LACPR) study 

in 2005. We are considering a full range of flood and storm damage reduction and 

coastal restoration measures, including those that could reduce the risk of damage 

from a ‘‘Category 5’’ storm. Potential measures are being developed based on extensive stakeholder involvement efforts with the State, resource agencies, Nongovernmental Organizations, academia, and the public. These measures will be integrated 

into alternatives, with the objective of developing an overall plan to improve the existing coastal restoration and protection system. We are using a risk-based approach 

to evaluate alternatives for risk reduction to people, property and coastal landscape 
16 

stabilization and performance for design levels ranging from the stage-frequencies 

that could be expected during a 100-year storm to those that might occur during 

a much more severe storm. Our analysis will focus more extensively on uncertainty 

and will include consideration of relative sea level rise, redevelopment rates, and 

storm intensity and frequency. A preliminary draft report was submitted to Congress in July 2006. 

As you can see, we have a wide range of programs and studies underway to reduce the risk of flood and storm damage, protect and rebuild the coastal wetlands, 

or both. As we go forward, particularly with the LACPR study, we will need to keep 

in mind the importance of integrating these dual, complementary objectives in a 

way that will promote a long-term, sustainable vision for the coast. 

DEBRIS REMOVAL

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita created catastrophic devastation throughout the 

Gulf region. In the State of Louisiana, some 60 million cubic yards of debris were 

strewn throughout 21 parishes covering almost 15,000 square miles. In order to 

maintain compliance at Federal, State, and local levels for debris management, the 

Corps coordinated extensively with Federal, State and local agencies, for debris removal planning and execution. 

WASTE SEGREGATION AND DISPOSAL

From the outset of the response, the corps applied rigorous protocols for segregation, collection, processing, staging, recycling, and disposal of hurricane generated 

waste to sustain compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Specific 

waste streams, which require special handling, included municipal solid waste, vegetative debris, construction and demolition debris, small motorized equipment, asbestos containing materials, electronic waste, household hazardous waste, white 

goods and tires. 

Robust quality control and quality assurance programs were followed throughout 

operations to assure the appropriate disposition of waste. The Corps employed quality assurance personnel to monitor segregation, collection and disposal of hurricane 

debris. Contracts for debris removal required execution of quality control plans to 

assure the application of waste disposal protocols. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the State of Louisiana employed monitors to augment the 

Corps’ quality assurance practices. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provided field oversight 

to address public health and worker protection needs respectively. Additionally, we 

brought our own team of auditors to assist in monitoring the work. 

Special care was exercised to ensure the proper handling and disposal of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C hazardous waste and household 

hazardous waste that is often commingled with debris. The EPA established and 

managed the operation of a hazardous waste processing center in eastern New Orleans for handling and disposal of hazardous waste until November 2006, when the 

operation of the site was turned over to the Corps. Approximately 5 million units 

of household hazardous waste have been processed through the site since the commencement of operations. 

LANDFILLS

To date, 48 landfills have been used for disposal of hurricane Katrina generated 

waste and 21 have been used for hurricane Rita generated waste. Presently, there 

are nine active landfills. The permitting of landfills for receipt of hurricane generated debris falls under the jurisdiction of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. The Corps does not engage in a direct contractual relationship with 

permitted landfills, but reimburses our prime contractors for tipping fees charged 

for waste disposal. Contractors have the discretion to direct hurricane waste to any 

of the properly permitted landfills to optimize the efficiency of their debris removal 

operations. The New Orleans area was served by four landfill facilities; Chef 

Menteur, Gentilly, Riverbirch, and the Highway 90 construction and demolition 

(C&D) landfills. Chef Menteur was an Enhanced Type III landfill that was permitted to accept C&D and non-regulated, asbestos containing material (ACM). The 

Chef Menteur landfill was opened from April 13 to August 15, 2006. Riverbirch is 

a Type I & II landfill that is National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutions (NESHAP) compliant and can accept regulated ACM (RACM), as well as other 

types of residential debris. Highway 90 is a Type III landfill that can accept C&D 

and non-regulated ACM. Gentilly is a Type III landfill that can accept residential 

C&D and non-regulated ACM. The Gentilly landfill is best situated to accept the 
17 

hurricane debris from the city of New Orleans, excluding RACM, due to its proximity to the waste stream. 

GENTILLY LANDFILL

The Old Gentilly Landfill (Gentilly Landfill) is located in an industrial corridor 

in eastern New Orleans. The facility is owned by the City of New Orleans and operated by Amid Metro Partnership, LLC. Commencing in the 1960’s, the Gentilly 

Landfill operated as a municipal landfill for solid waste generated in and around 

the City of New Orleans. The facility stopped accepting waste around 1986. The 

City applied for a permit in June of 2002, to reopen as a Type III Landfill to be 

constructed over the closed, municipal landfill. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) issued a Standard Solid Waste Type III Permit on December 28, 2004. In response to Hurricane Katrina, LDEQ issued a Declaration of 

Emergency and Administrative Order dated August 30, 2005, and subsequent 

amendments, which authorized the disposal of uncontaminated construction and 

demolition debris at permitted Type III landfills. On September 29, 2005, LDEQ 

issued a Commencement Order to the City authorizing the disposal of hurricane debris at the Gentilly Landfill. 

Corps contractors started using the facility on October 2, 2005, initially receiving 

an average daily quantity of 20,000 to 25,000 cubic yards (CY) of C&D material during the first month. The operation quickly ramped up to a daily average of 40,000 

to 50,000 CY over the next two months. On October 31, 2005, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Commencement Order citing concerns related to environmental sustainability and structural stability of the landfill which is in close proximity of the MRGO hurricane protection levee. LDEQ and LEAN entered into a Consent Judgment on March 16, 

2006, which resulted in establishment of a daily limit of 19,000 CY pending issuance 

by LDEQ of a decisional document addressing concerns raised by LEAN. FEMA subsequently directed the Corps to limit daily quantities to 10,000 CY at the end of 

February and further curtailed the daily quantities to 5,000 CY in March 2006. 

LDEQ issued their decisional document on August 28, 2006, which substantially addressed issues raised by LEAN. FEMA responded by relaxing the daily quantity limits. At present, the limit has been set at 15,000 CY per day. 

This concludes my testimony. Madam Chair, again, thank you for allowing me to 

testify on the ongoing efforts of the Corps of Engineers in the New Orleans area. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you or the other Members may have. 

RESPONSES BY JOHN PAUL WOODLEY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR CARDIN

Question 1. Certainly we will need a stronger inner line of defenses around population centers, but I am concerned that the Corps is focused too narrowly on physical structures and not enough on nature’s speed bumps: - wetlands and coastal barrier islands. What assurances can you give the Committee, and more importantly 

to the people of Louisiana, that you have the right balance in your plans for a sustainable future for the Gulf Coast? 

Response. The Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET) risk assessment for New Orleans included a new and technically robust process to estimate 

the future hurricane threat to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Scientists from the 

Corps, FEMA, NOAA, academia and industry, developed this process. It was determined early on that using historical data would not accurately project the future 

hurricane environment that the Gulf faces. 

The new method, the Joint Probability Method—Optimal Sampling, uses a range 

of potential hurricanes that range from relatively common events to very rare 

events to represent the future hazard. The storms are of a variety of intensities and 

sizes and follow a variety of tracks. They incorporate the latest knowledge of climate 

dynamics, including cycles of more intense and more frequent storms. The process 

also incorporates the latest information on hurricane behavior and the relationships 

between hurricane characteristics and surge generation potential. The hurricanes 

drive the most advanced surge and wave models to generate knowledge of the surge 

and wave conditions that might occur for any location around the region. The hazard is, as such, not the storms, but the probability of experiencing levels of surge 

and waves by location. This is much more sophisticated and relevant information 

for assessing the potential performance of hurricane protection measures and to understand how to increase protection and reduce risk. 

Sea level rises can be incorporated into this approach with regard to the total 

water levels that the protection structures face. Just as the normal tidal cycles are 
18 

factored into the water surface elevations, so can long-term sea level rises. The sea 

level rise projections are based on the best knowledge to date and can be adjusted 

as methods and information improve. Sea level rise and subsidence have both been 

factored into the 100-year structure designs to help ensure that they will be effective for the future, not just at the time of construction. 

Question 2. I am from Maryland and am familiar with the difficulties of largescale ecosystem protection in a heavily populated region. Restoring the Chesapeake 

Bay has been a difficult undertaking, as I know that Secretary Woodley understands from his time in Virginia. But two of the strengths of the Chesapeake Bay 

restoration effort have been its reliance on good science and its willingness to integrate multiple objectives in a coherent fashion. Secretary Woodley, is the Corps relying on the entire scientific community in developing its plans, and, if so, can you 

describe that collaboration? 

Response. Yes, the Corps is relying on the collaboration of an extremely large and 

diverse group of scientists. For example, the report prepared by the Interagency 

Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET) is the result of an intense performance 

evaluation of the New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System during Hurricane Katrina. The IPET is a distinguished group of Government, 

academic, and private sector scientists and engineers who dedicated themselves to 

this task from shortly after Katrina struck through the publication of this report. 

The IPET was created by the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

and the group’s work was peer reviewed on a weekly basis by a distinguished external review panel of the American Society of Civil Engineers and independently reviewed by the National Research Council Committee on New Orleans Regional Hurricane Protection Projects. The IPET applied some of the most sophisticated capabilities available in civil engineering to understand what happened during 

Katrina and why. Their purpose was not just new knowledge, but application of 

that knowledge to the repair and reconstitution of protection in New Orleans as well 

as improvement to engineering practice and policies. The results of much of the 

IPET work are largely already in the ground, having been transferred and applied 

prior to the formal completion of this report. 

RESPONSES BY JOHN PAUL WOODLEY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR WHITEHOUSE

Question 1. You testified that you are in the process of rebuilding at least parts 

of New Orleans’s levee system to a hundred-year storm level. To what degree have 

you included the possible rise in sea level attributable to global warming in your 

projections of a hundred-year storm event? How has global warming been factored 

into the hundred-year-event calculation? 

Response. Sea level rises can be incorporated into the Joint Probability Method 

that the Corps is using to model potential future hazards, with regard to the total 

water levels that the protection structures face. Just as the normal tidal cycles are 

factored into the water surface elevations, so can long-term sea level rises. The sea 

level rise projections are based on the best knowledge to date and can be adjusted 

as methods and information improve. All Federal levees in the New Orleans area 

are being designed for 100-year protection and incorporate factors related to subsidence and sea rises. Project designs often include changes such as performing several 

lifts in order to maintain the authorized degree of protection. In fact, construction 

of the lifts occurs at intervals throughout the project life. 

Question 2. Ordinarily, for major public works projects, a ‘‘critical path’’ document 

is prepared that lays out priorities and the scope of work. You indicated to me during the hearing that this material exists, but that all stakeholders in the rebuilding 

effort have not yet signed onto the plan. Please provide a copy (or, if publicly available, please identify the location) of the critical path document and specify your efforts in soliciting support from affected parties. 

Response. The Hurricane Storm Damage Reduction System (HSDRS) is comprised 

of over 250 projects (or system components) ranging from storm-proofing pump 

houses to levee armoring to floodgate construction. Because of the number of components, diversity in engineering solutions, and vast scope of work required to complete the system protection, there is not one critical path document. However, each 

project does have a critical path method (CPM) schedule. We are currently reviewing these schedules to ensure they can be executed to produce the 100-year protection system authorized by the U.S. Congress. This involves reviewing interactions 

among schedules and ensuring sufficient construction resources are available at the 

scheduled time. 
19 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GREENE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION VI, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. GREENE. Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the 

committee. I’m Richard Greene, Regional Administrator for the Environmental Protective Agency. I appreciate the opportunity to 

share a brief summary of my more thorough opening comments 

that we have filed with you that deals with EPA’s response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

While our mission under the National Response Plan is to deal 

with environmental impacts and remove threats to human health 

and safety in the storm-damaged communities, I cannot begin to 

tell you how much our hearts have gone out to the people who have 

suffered and continue to suffer as a result of these disasters. We 

are profoundly moved by the loss of life and the realization that 

thousands of countless lives of people have changed forever. At the 

same time we are reminded on a daily basis of the incomparable 

human spirit on display here and throughout the Gulf area. 

When the people of EPA first arrived in New Orleans our priority became that of helping to rescue approximately 800 men, 

women and children from rooftops, out of attics and trees and 

wherever else they were stranded. After that, we got on with our 

mission and at the peak of our activities the number of EPA employees and contractors assisting with our response efforts exceeded 1,400 in Louisiana alone. 

In reviewing what we have done it is difficult for even some of 

us to relate to the magnitude of our work. The resuscitation of the 

numbers and of things we have done and the network of local, 

State and Federal partners is detailed in my written statement so 

I won’t repeat them here. Needless to say, they exceed anything 

this agency has ever done before. Our successes include the following: The collection and recycling of major appliances and electronic goods, the collection and disposal of 5 million containers of 

hazardous waste, the restoration of drinking water and wastewater 

systems, the collection and analysis of thousands of floodwater 

sediments and soil samples, the cleanup of schools and other public 

facilities, the cleanup of major oil spills, assistance to the State in 

developing safe solid waste management and disposal practices, including unprecedented monitoring of landfill operations, the assessment of all Superfund sites to insure that the remedies remain secure and protective, the distribution of millions of public information fliers, brochures and advisories throughout the area, the development of an extensive website so that people can understand the 

conditions in their own neighborhoods. And this is but a 

partialness of the things that we have done and are doing. 

We continued today first to support the demolition and proper 

disposal of debris from what may turn out to be as many as 50,000 

structures, most of them homes in this part of the State. And we 

are fully engaged as well with recovery projects in coastal Louisiana, in the restoration of drinking water and wastewater treatment systems, in facilitating the redevelopment of neighborhoods 

through our Brown Fields programs, in support of the Louisiana 

Recovery Authority, and in efforts to stop illegal dumping and 

much more. 
20 

In closing I would like to read a short excerpt from a memorandum I sent only 4 months after Katrina hit to a member of the 

Inspector General’s team who was evaluating our work here. And 

I’m quoting: ‘‘It should be emphasized that EPA is responding to 

the largest national disaster in history. There is no precedent for 

what we are doing and our actions are charting the course for response to disasters of this type should they occur again. Any standard review of our actions is not possible, because there is no standard for what we are doing. The employees of EPA and our contractors have conducted themselves in an exemplary manner, working 

around the clock in heretofore unimaginable conditions that often 

have placed them at risk for their own safety for the sole purposes 

of bringing help and assistance to people in need.’’ 

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate today. I look 

forward to whatever questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greene follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GREENE, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION VI, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

INTRODUCTION

Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is 

Richard Greene. I serve as the Regional Administrator at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6, in Dallas, Texas. I appreciate the opportunity 

to provide you with an update on EPA’s response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

T he magnitude of the damage from these hurricanes presented significant challenges for EPA and our partners at the Federal, State, and local levels. EPA has 

long-standing and positive relationships with the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Coast Guard 

and other Federal agencies, as well as our partners in State and local governments. 

As with other Federal agencies, our involvement is facilitated through the National 

Response Plan (NRP). We believe that these relationships provided the basis for an 

effective response to the most destructive natural disaster in the history of the 

United States. 

EARLY RESPONSE FOR HURRICANE KATRINA

Beginning on August 25, 2005, EPA sent emergency response managers to the 

FEMA National Response Coordination Center and State Emergency Operations 

Centers to prepare for Hurricane Katrina to make landfall. When EPA arrived in 

New Orleans, it was clear that saving lives was the first priority. EPA responded 

to FEMA’s request for assistance and helped rescue approximately 800 evacuees. 

EPA sent additional response personnel to the affected areas as soon as travel into 

the region was possible. At the peak of activities, the number of EPA employees and 

contractors assisting with recovery efforts exceeded 1,400 in Louisiana. We joined 

responders in addressing urgent rescue needs by putting over sixty environmental 

monitoring watercrafts to work as search and rescue vessels. Our field employees 

and contractors, mostly environmental experts equipped to address oil and hazardous substances releases, joined fire fighters, police, and other first responders 

and rescued nearly 800 people in Louisiana. 

EPA ROLE IN FEDERAL RESPONSE

Under the NRP, EPA is the Coordinator and Primary Agency for the Emergency 

Support Function (ESF) #10, which addresses oil and hazardous materials. Specifically, our primary activities under this support function include: efforts to detect, 

identify, contain, clean up or dispose of oil or hazardous materials; removal of drums 

and other bulk containers; collection of hazardous materials from households; monitoring of debris disposal; air and water quality monitoring and sampling; and protection of natural resources. 

USACE is the lead Federal agency for the ESF #3, which addresses public works 

and engineering, including solid waste debris removal. EPA helped support the 

USACE by assisting in the location of disposal sites, providing safety guidance for 

areas affected by hazardous 
21 

materials, assisting in the management of contaminated debris, and by coordinating or providing assessments, data, expertise, technical assistance, and monitoring. As prescribed by the NRP, EPA also provides support to other agencies for 

a number of other Emergency Support functions. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

EPA’s primary responsibility was the collection and proper handling of hazardous 

materials. EPA provided technical advice and assistance, facilitated the recycling of 

more than 940,000 electronic goods. EPA carried out a highly effective program, in 

conjunction with the USACE, the States, and the local communities to collect and 

properly dispose of over five million containers of household hazardous materials in 

Regions 4 and 6. We also assisted in the proper handling and recycling of more than 

380,000 large appliances. As part of this effort, EPA assisted the USACE by separating hazardous materials from non-hazardous debris for proper disposal. 

DEMOLITION AND SOLID WASTE

FEMA is the primary agency for assistance under the Stafford Act Public Assistance Program which provides supplemental Federal disaster grant assistance for debris removal and disposal. The USACE offers state and local governments support 

in contracting for these services and for demolition services after local authorities 

have obtained any required waivers and clearances. To assist the FEMA and the 

USACE, EPA provided training for local parishes in Louisiana and contractors on 

Federal asbestos clean-up requirements. EPA also assisted by monitoring activities 

at over 2,300 demolition sites to help the State ensure compliance with the regulations. 

Under Federal law, the permitting and regulation of solid waste is primarily a 

State responsibility. EPA has promulgated criteria to assist States in defining safe 

solid waste management and disposal practices. During the response, EPA worked 

closely with Louisiana to develop ‘‘best practices’’ and protocols for solid waste landfills to screen out hazardous materials, and route them to appropriately designed 

and permitted hazardous waste landfills for proper disposal. To assist the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), EPA provided observers to monitor 

solid waste landfills around New Orleans to ensure that disposal practices conformed to the established protocols. EPA also established temporary air monitoring 

locations to replace the State’s damaged air monitoring network. 

SAMPLING AND MONITORING ANALYSES AND ACTIVITIES

In addition to our efforts related to the disposal and/or recycling of hazardous and 

solid wastes, EPA used a remote sensing aircraft, known as ASPECT, to locate 

chemical spills that needed emergency response to protect water quality, and air 

quality. Additionally, EPA’s mobile laboratory, known as the Trace Atmospheric Gas 

Analyzer (TAGA), conducted real-time air sampling in neighborhoods and near 

known spills. EPA also conducted more than 400,000 laboratory analyses of water, 

floodwater, sediment, and air samples. The analyses were made available on the 

Internet along with an interpretation of the results and recommendations. 

To help ensure that drinking water and wastewater systems were properly functioning, EPA assessed over 4000 water systems; provided technical and engineering 

assistance in evaluating damaged infrastructure for both drinking and wastewater 

systems; distributed testing kits to private well owners and helped them evaluate 

the condition of their drinking water wells; and reviewed over 100 restoration 

projects proposed by parish governments. To further help 

communities, EPA assisted in emergency efforts to bring clean drinking water 

back to the affected areas through monitoring of about 3,500 potable water trucks. 

To address floodwaters and sediment, EPA assisted in collecting and evaluating 

more than 400 floodwater samples; 1,600 sediment samples; and almost 700 soil 

samples which were sent to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR) for analysis. The plans for sampling flood water and sediments underwent 

an extensive peer review process, including a review by EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board (SAB). The SAB agreed that the sampling could help determine the potential 

for acute effects from short-term exposure to flood water and sediment. Sampling 

data were provided to ATSDR and to State and local health officials who used them 

to make decisions and issue advisories to the public, response workers and other 

Federal and State agencies. 
22 

OIL SPILLS AND HAZARDOUS RELEASES

With respect to oil spills and hazardous releases, EPA responded to 70 emergency 

situations that presented an immediate threat to human health and the environment, including chemical spills, fires, and other situations. EPA, and the LDEQ, 

with assistance by the U.S. Coast Guard, conducted assessments at hundreds of 

chemical and petrochemical facilities and more than 900 public and private schools 

to determine damage by the hurricane. As a result of these assessments, EPA identified six major spills in the New Orleans area resulting in releases of over seven 

million gallons of oil. The largest inland spill occurred at Murphy Oil in St. Bernard 

Parish, where a 10.5 million-gallon storage tank had moved off its platform and 

spilled about one million gallons of oil that affected over a 3 to 5 square mile area. 

Murphy Oil is now conducting a clean up of the area with EPA and LDEQ providing 

oversight. Over 2,700 houses and businesses have been cleaned of oil on the exterior 

and more than 1,200 houses have had oil cleaned from the interior. 

To further track potential hazardous releases, EPA, working together with state 

health and environmental agencies, conducted assessments of the seventeen Superfund sites located in Louisiana that were potentially affected by Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita to ensure that the remedies remained protective. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH

To address the unique needs of New Orleans, EPA reached out to assist diverse 

communities devastated by the impacts of the hurricanes. EPA met with the United 

Houma Nation and local community groups; facilitated meetings between State officials and members of the Vietnamese Community near the Chef Menteur landfill; 

created an Environmental Justice Interagency Taskforce (EJIT) to bring together 

local, State, and Federal agencies, universities, and community groups, to exchange 

information and to address community concerns; and identified full-time staff to address community concerns. 

EPA also convened the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council 

(NEJAC) to provide recommendations on how EPA can better respond to environmental justice concerns related to natural disasters. EPA is implementing several 

recommendations of the EJIT and NEJAC, such as adding to the Liaison Officer position in the Incident Command structure the responsibility to identify, highlight, 

and address environmental justice issues and concerns. 

Throughout the response, EPA shared information and sampling results with the 

community through press releases, radio public service announcements, handouts 

and flyers, and electronically on EPA’s web site. EPA also attended community 

meetings, visited churches and employers, dropped off flyers at post offices, municipal buildings, and local retailers - and stood 

at check points delivering information to returning residents. In total, EPA distributed over 3.8 million flyers to people living and working in Louisiana. 

COOPERATIVE PROJECTS

EPA is assisting the State of Louisiana through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) program, EPA has a long history of successful coastal restoration projects, including barrier island restoration in coastal 

Louisiana. Barrier islands are the first line of defense against hurricane storm 

surge. The $13 million Timbalier Island restoration project was completed in June 

2005 and provided over 273 acres of vegetated dune and marsh, which withstood 

the Katrina and Rita storm surges. The $10 million New Cut Dune and Marsh 

Project to rebuild another barrier island is underway. 

CONCLUSION

As the State of Louisiana moves forward in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 

EPA will continue to assist the State by conducting air monitoring, collecting hazardous materials from households, observing landfill and demolition activities, overseeing the Murphy Oil cleanup; and assisting with drinking water and wastewater 

issues. EPA will continue to work with our Federal, State, and local government 

partners to address the nation’s preparedness for future catastrophic events, such 

as Hurricane Katrina. 

At this time, I welcome any questions you may have. 

Senator BOXER. And now, I understand General Riley to not have 

a statement, but you are there to answer questions, so I will proceed with the questions. We will keep them to 5 minutes of questions and we won’t be able to do a second round. 
23 

Mr. Woodley, you testified that the corps is currently studying 

the closure of the MRGO to deep draft navigation. understand that 

was the task given to you by the Congress. MRGO has seen a 

steady decline in tonnage and traffic. Both Senators have spoken 

with all of us at length about this. The overwhelming sentiment of 

the experts is that MRGO should be closed completely. So my question is: Do you support the closure and rehabilitation of MRGO and 

should language to permanently close MRGO and rehabilitate the 

area be included in WRDA? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, Senator, the detailed study that would support that decision-making process is underway. The preliminary indication that we have, however, is that the Mississippi River Gulf 

Outlet is no longer economical. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would say that although ordinarily our recommendations would await the determination of the final report, 

I can advise you of our preliminary indications which are a matter 

of record. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for you succinct answer to this. 

Would it help you to have this language that the Congress would 

pass to permanently close MRGO and rehabilitate the area, and get 

some language in this year’s WRDA bill; would it be helpful? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I would say that my impression is that that would 

be justified language. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we will work with you on the language. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Precisely what the details of the recommendation 

of how exactly we should go about it, should await the final study. 

Senator BOXER. When will the final study be ready? 

Mr. WOODLEY. We will be prepared to present that in December. 

Senator BOXER. We will talk to you about some interim language. 

Mr. Woodley, the administration wants to reprogram $1.3 billion 

in appropriated funds from critical hurricane flood protection 

projects in Louisiana to other hurricane and flood protection 

projects in Louisiana. And what we are a little concerned about is, 

or at least I am, will the administration commit that if the reprogramming occurs that the full amounts to complete the project? 

From which the funds are taken will be restored when the cash 

flow is needed to those projects? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, Madam Chairman, that is entirely our intention. Our difficulty is that we are not able today to provide the 

committee with a detailed cost estimate of the additional work that 

will have to be done. I intend to be prepared to do so, however, this 

summer. 

Senator BOXER. The important thing for me, and I know the Senators here and all the Senators, is if funds are taken from one 

project for a cash flow purpose, we want to make sure that you are 

committed and the administration is committed to getting those 

funds back for those programs when they are ready for the funds. 

We don’t want half-built projects. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I will say, Madam Chair, that the reprogramming 

is entirely within the work that we have undertaken to provide 

hundred-year protection for the—protection against what we will 

term a hundred-year storm for the metropolitan area of New Orleans, and so, while that has historically been regarded as a collec-
24 

tion of different projects, my intent is to manage those projects as 

a single project. So I would not characterize it as reprogramming 

from a project in Louisiana to another project in Louisiana. This 

is in my view a reprogramming within the project we have undertaken to protect metropolitan New Orleans against the threat of 

catastrophic inundation. 

Senator BOXER. I’m just making a point that there will be reprogramming away from certain projects. That’s a fact of life. And 

I just want to make sure that when those programs—when those 

projects are ready for the funding, we don’t have to go back and 

have these two Senators have to go beg for more funding. I’m assuming that you are agreeing with us that at the end of the day 

the funding will be there even though you are refunding? 

Mr. WOODLEY. That is right. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. That’s fine. My last question, because my 

time is running out, is to Mr. Greene. What is EPA doing to address the big problem of illegal dumping? How have you responded 

to the State’s request for help to fight this program—this problem? 

Mr. GREENE. We are very concerned about illegal dumping. It is 

a threat to the community and we are working closely with State 

and local officials to assist them in monitoring and law enforcement efforts to bring that under control. 

Senator BOXER. So you are working with the State, and you feel 

you are doing everything you can do here? 

Mr. GREENE. We have our criminal investigation division working with local law enforcement authorities. We are providing monitoring cameras, visual inspections from the ground, and other 

forms of assistance. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. Thank you. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madame Chair. Secretary Woodley, 

thank you for being here and thank you for all of the Corps’ continuing work. I want to go back to a few of the issues the Chair 

has touched upon. One is closing MRGO. First of all, very recently 

you all issued a new work program with regard to the $75 million 

we have already provided for restoration, and that was largely out 

of discussions I had with folks in the Corps to use that money to 

much more aggressively and quickly move to closure. And I want 

to publicly thank you for that new plan, because I think it’s a vast 

improvement and is moving toward closure a lot more aggressively. 

Now, as you can guess, I want to keep pushing very aggressively 

in that direction. If the Congress changed the requested date of 

your study from December to June of this year, could and would 

the Corps redouble its efforts to finalize the recommendations 

which you gave us a preview of so we can get on with it? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, I can certainly say that we would do everything possible to do that. And that I would have to ask the persons involved in the study as to whether any part of it was—things 

simply take a certain period of time in order to accomplish. 

An example of that would be sometimes we have to give 30 days’ 

notice of a public hearing. You can’t give 30 days’ notice in 10 days. 

And so that type of thing may be a problem, but I think—— 

Senator VITTER. I would ask you to start those discussions in the 

Corps, because I’m going to be promoting that. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 
25 

Senator VITTER. I think your testimony sort of confirms that we 

all know where we are headed. So my attitude is we might as well 

get there before the next big event instead of after. I know you 

share that sense of urgency. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. I also want to touch on this $1.3 billion movingfunds-around issue. I have obviously made my views known on all 

that. I have a real hesitation with robbing Peter to pay Paul. The 

Chair said, and was very persistent in asking you, will we have 

funds at the end of the day for those other projects. 

Madame Chair, my concern is how long that day is, and because 

it could be a reasonable period of time or it could stretch these 

projects out into the future unreasonably. What I have proposed is 

getting an additional $1.3 billion at least this budget in order to 

fund those vital west bank projects without robbing from the east 

bank projects. What is the—apart from the OMB sort of number 

crunchers who don’t want any dollar figures to go up, what is the 

possible objection to that if at the same time you are giving additional language that gives you flexibility to move money around 

within the region to do whatever work is tee’d up to be done? 

Mr. WOODLEY. My only objection would be that if that is an action that would take place in the course of the normal budget cycle, 

and under which an appropriation act would not be passed until 

later in the year, it will delay our issuance of contracts. Our request is for an immediate emergency action to prevent our having 

to delay issuance of contracts that are ready to proceed. 

Senator VITTER. But this proposal that was made by the administration to move the money is in the context of the new proposed 

budget, so that’s on the same timeline I’m talking about. 

Mr. WOODLEY. I did not think so, Senator. It was presented at 

the same time but it was presented in a different context, which 

would allow the Appropriation Committees to act on it more swiftly, and that is our request to them. 

Senator VITTER. Could not the appropriation committees do what 

I’m talking about along the same timeline? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Absolutely. They certainly could, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. I want to also underscore the importance of pumping capacity at the outfall of canals. That’s a continuing concern that we all have, I know you share it, that it’s very 

important. 

And now, quickly, just a few questions, Mr. Greene, because I’m 

very concerned about this landfill issue. As I understand the EPA’s 

position, you have largely deferred on these landfill issues to the 

Louisiana DEQ; is that correct? 

Mr. GREENE. Thank you, Senator. We are very much aware of 

the concern in the community and our responsibility to ensure safe 

and proper operation of the State-authorized landfills. You and 

Senator Landrieu have both discussed that with me personally, so 

I know of your long concern, your ongoing concern. And we are 

doing everything that we can within our jurisdiction to maintain 

very close supervision of these operations; in fact, supervision like 

this has never been done before anywhere. 

Senator VITTER. Well, as I understand your main attitude, you 

have largely deferred the decisions to the State level because C&D- 
26 

type debris, which is what we are talking about, is generally regulated there. My concern is that the State, in fact, is using an expanded definition of C&D, not a normal definition under emergency 

orders, and that contains things like asbestos-containing material. 

So, in fact, aren’t you perhaps deferring or passing the buck inappropriately, since we are not talking about traditional C&D, we are 

talking about other stuff including asbestos-containing materials? 

Mr. GREENE. Senator, a very close supervision of the separation 

of hazardous materials at the site of the pickup and its origin is 

the best way to ensure that does not go to the wrong kind of landfill. And then the close supervision of what is deposited in the landfill is further a check and balance including the instruction to remove any improper items from that landfill. 

Senator VITTER. But it is acknowledged by everyone, including 

the Louisiana DEQ, that asbestos-containing material, other similar material outside the normal scope of C&D is going to that landfill, correct? 

Mr. GREENE. Well, to the extent that it is allowed to go to that 

landfill because it was not regulated asbestos material and it was 

already lying on the ground and considered to be C&D waste. But 

even unregulated asbestos material is being handled in an appropriate manner and taken to enhanced areas within the landfill, 

zones in the landfill that are designed to receive that kind of waste. 

Such maaterial, which has been hopefully wrapped and protected 

further, is then buried, which is what you would like to see happen 

to asbestos in a safe manner to keep it out of the atmosphere. 

Senator VITTER. We will get into this more in Panel 2, but I have 

a real concern in doing that in an unlined landfill when we could 

be bringing it to lined landfills for the same or less cost in the region. 

As you know, the old Gentilly site was an illegal dump that was 

closed down. The capping process hasn’t been completed, berming 

process hasn’t been completed, corners have been cut under emergency order of Louisiana DEQ. And I honestly think it is bad policy 

being promoted locally by politics and money and not considerations o the public good. So I would urge the U.S. EPA to renew 

and heighten its supervision. 

Mr. GREENE. Thank you, Senator. We share your concerns. Our 

twice-a-week inspections and extensive reports that are written 

and review of the records in the operations will continue and we 

will work hard to insure that those operations are proper and protective of human health. 

Senator BOXER. I want to just remind Senators, if they can possibly keep to the five minutes, if you can, and we will leave the 

record open, Senator, for a week so that you can get more detailed 

questions to all of our witnesses. I know I have some myself. 

Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. There are many important issues 

at this hearing and our time is short but I’ve got to get back to this 

$1.3 billion, General Riley, because not only is it a significant 

amount of money that we are depending on to continue to build 

projects on the east bank and west bank, and as I said, protect this 

entire region but I want to pursue this. 
27 

You have testified, Secretary Woodley, that it’s your intention find an additional $1.3 billion. But is it in your mind, on the minds 

of the administration, to request an additional $1.3 billion either 

through the supplemental, which we are considering now, or are 

we just going to borrow $1.3 from one set of projects and then hope 

someday in the future the money will come. 

And, General Riley, what have you been told about an additional $1.3 billion in supplemental, if anything? 

Mr. RILEY. Ma’am, what I have been told by the Administration 

and meetings in the White House is the president is committed to 

fully funding the 100-year-level protection through the normal 

budgeting process. What we have right now is four and a half billion dollars—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. In the normal budgeting process or the supplemental? 

Mr. RILEY. Through the budgeting process. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So not through the supplemental? 

Mr. RILEY. The reappropriation request is through the supplemental. We have four and a half billion dollars that is unobligated 

so there is funding there now to proceed. 

Senator BOXER. This is for the record, the committee knows this 

well, but for the record. If this additional $1.3 is added to the supplemental then I will support it because it’s emergency funding and 

it’s not counted anything against in the budget. If it has to go 

through the regular budget process, we have to find $1.3 billion 

projects from somebody else, take it away from them and use it for 

ours. And in these days, those days are over with, so I want to go 

firmly on the record that we will fund this through the supplemental appropriations process, not through the regular process because otherwise we will never get the money. And I’m going to take 

the President at his word when he stood at Jackson Barracks and 

said he would fund it. 

And I would like to go on record now, Madame Chair, that we 

will fund it through the supplemental. 

No. 2, you mentioned in your testimony, General Riley, that you 

believe that we should move to a more independent way of funding 

over time this major project that we have underway, which could 

exceed $30 billion in scope. As the Chairman said, a combination 

of levees, wetlands, pumping systems, all integrated to support 

navigation, oil and gas protection, the running of the port that gets 

the goods from Minnesota and gets it out to the rest of the world. 

What exactly is the Corps proposing so that we can, for the first 

time in the history of this country, act this way and not give people 

false hope? 

Mr. RILEY. Well, ma’am, of course, we haven’t completed our proposal, but what we are looking for is not only to design it as a system but to build it as a system and operate it as a system. As you 

know with that large amount of funding over a long period of time, 

there is a lot of uncertainty out there. We have to have the flexibility with the State partners to adjust as we move along and if it’s 

appropriated in pieces of projects then we don’t have that flexibility. We would ask for not only to build it as a system but appropriate it as a system, and I defer to the Secretary for clarification 

of that. 
28 

Senator LANDRIEU. Very quickly, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I will say this, Senator, that I believe you will 

find that when we are prepared to present this as an entire package that our request will actually exceed an additional $1.3 billion. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I can promise you it’s going to be a lot more than $1.3 billion. This project over time is going to be north of $30 

billion, which is why we had to secure a new and substantial revenue stream as well as making within this committee’s jurisdiction 

a more expedited and coordinated process. I hope for the record 

that you all are working closely with the parishes on their internal 

pumping capacity, because as we flew over those canals this morning, obviously if you close canals to keep storm surge out but you 

don’t have the pumping capacity adjusted correctly, all you are 

doing is going to flood Jefferson and Orleans and Plaquemines and 

St. Bernard from rainwater. And then finally, if EPA could—real 

quickly, why was the decision made that X amount of debris could 

be taken to a landfill that FEMA approved and then the Environment and Public Works approved a different amount? And who has 

jurisdiction over deciding in a catastrophe? Does EPA control or 

FEMA control? 

Mr. GREENE. Senator, the landfill operations that we are talking 

about are all under the State jurisdiction and they are managed 

and operated by the State. And our role is oversight and review 

and support for what they are doing. And I think your question has 

to do with the various changes that have occurred and the amount 

of waste that has been allowed to go particularly to the Gentilly 

landfill. And that number has changed based on events. And there 

was even a legal action that resulted in a resolution of how much 

the limit should be and then the Corps got some instructions from 

FEMA about limiting their use, so those numbers have changed 

over time. 

Senator LANDRIEU. It’s very important, Madame Chair, and I will 

take 30 seconds, for us in a catastrophe when we are dealing with 

this kind of waste to, first of all, clarify who’s the final authority. 

Is it the local EPW, is it the Federal EPA or does FEMA get to regulate volumes based on what they choose to reimburse or not? And 

the record from what I have read is unclear and this committee 

could go a long way in helping us figure that out. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Before I call on Senator Isakson, I 

want to make a point here, General Riley. I know you mean nothing but well here, but the fact is a typical level for a construction 

account for the entire country is $2 billion in a year. So if you think 

it’s going to be easy in the regular appropriations now to increase 

a $2 billion authorization by $1.3 billion, it’s just not in the realm 

of possible. So what you need to do is consider what these Senators 

are saying about restoring this in the emergency supplemental or 

people around here are going to be very skeptical. And that’s the 

last thing that we need is to have skeptical people saying: Well, 

just go to regular appropriations process when, in fact, it would 

mean essentially almost doubling the amount and it’s just very 

tough to do that. And I wish we could do that, but it just doesn’t 

happen in a year when everyone says we have to reduce deficit. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Madame Chair. General Riley, first 

of all I want to commend you, after watching or seeing 17th Street 
29 

Canal project, the gates, lifts, pumps, all the construction, you have 

demonstrated great capacity in a relatively short period of time, I 

think in 13 months you told us last night. Secondly, there is someone who will testify later who begs the question and you are not 

going to be around to answer it so I thought I would ask it because 

it helps me to understand. Mr. Thomas Jackson in his printed testimony says the drainage canals throughout St. Bernard Parish are 

clogged with swamp grass that floated into homes and drainage canals by the hurricane. The grass is blocking the drainage canals 

and breaking rakes at pumping stations and continuous pleas from 

their executive director to you to clean that up have gone unanswered. Are you all getting those pleas and where does your responsibility begin and where does maintenance responsibility end? 

Mr. RILEY. Yes. Certainly we listen to those pleas, and when we 

get them we work with FEMA. That type of work in a standard 

emergency would come under a mission from FEMA to us. As it affects the flooding capacity or flood fighting then we are directly 

under our authority, and we can act on that. We will work very 

closely with them to determine where the best authority lies and 

then to work with the problem. 

Senator ISAKSON. But in non-emergency times, when FEMA is 

not around, the Corps has certain responsibilities in terms of the 

levees and the canals. But so, too, does local authority. Is maintenance of things like debris pretty much a local responsibility? 

Mr. RILEY. Yes, sir, that’s correct. As we turn over any system 

to the local authority. So interior drainage canals, that’s by the 

Sewerage and Water Board. 

Senator ISAKSON. It is a Federal-local partnership? 

Mr. RILEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator ISAKSON. Mrs. Woodley, in the staff prepared remarks 

according to what we learned last night at the IMAX theater and 

all the education we got, it took 5,000 years for the Mississippi 

Delta to develop primarily from the overflow of the Mississippi 

River. And then when we began to restrict that by building the levees. Since that period of time we have lost 1.2 million acres of land 

and we estimate might lose 500 square miles in the next 50 years. 

As we are reconstructing the levees and as we are putting in the 

pumping systems, what are we doing to accelerate the natural assets to reconstruct or renew those wetlands? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, that is an effort that was ongoing in 

partnership with the State of Louisiana and in partnership also 

with many, many interested persons from around the country to 

find out the ways in which we can use the resource of the Mississippi River, the fresh water that it represents, the sediment and 

silt that it carries and begin to use that to fight against this loss 

of wetlands along the Louisiana coast. And s it is another matter, 

as Madam Chair knows, that is awaiting your decision under the 

Water Resource Development Act. 

Senator ISAKSON. How much time do I have left? 

Senator BOXER. You have a minute 24. 

Senator ISAKSON. Just real quickly, Mr. Greene. I understand at 

the Gentilly landfill there is not a leachate collector or lining system? 
30 

Mr. GREENE. Well, the Gentilly landfill operation currently is 

being conducted on top of the cap for the old landfill that was 

closed underneath it, so that cap provides the protective barrier for 

the new waste that’s going in there. 

Senator ISAKSON. Is it impermeable or does it have collector system? 

Mr. GREENE. It meets the minimum requirements and beyond of 

the C&D landfill base. 

Senator ISAKSON. I expect from flying over that area this morning, the water table is pretty high around that landfill; is that correct? 

Mr. GREENE. Well, I don’t know the height of the water table, 

Senator, but the monitoring wells and close supervision and the 

testing that has been done and continues to be done addresses all 

those kinds of questions. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

I was listening on the exchange of the $1.3 billion and I serve 

on the budget committee in addition to the Environment and Public Works committee. I think it raises two concerns. I understand 

the Senator’s concerns about the fact that $1.3 billion was appropriated through supplemental emergency appropriations for the 

tragedies in this region. But when you reprogram it, it seems to me 

that you are also allowing emergency funds to be used for other 

purposes, which is not really what the budget act was all about. 

So I think it’s not only an issue that may very well be of concern 

to where that money comes back to these projects, but whether, in 

fact, this is the right way in which to show offsets if this money 

is going to be used for other Corps’ programs. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator, that should be very clear. The money is 

being used for other matters that were also funded in the supplemental but for which the funding in the supplemental was inadequate and which are now of a higher priority, that is to say because we can use the funds at this time. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand that. 

Mr. WOODLEY. It’s not a question—we have no question of changing the funding from a matter that was funded in the emergency 

supplemental to something that was not funded in the emergency 

supplemental. That is, we have no concept of doing such a thing 

as that. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I would caution that when you have offsets, a different standard is used in evaluating whether it truly is 

an emergency request or not. There have been a lot of issues included in the supplemental that have not been as strict as they 

should because it’s not subject to offsets. 

I think the main point here is whether New Orleans is going to 

get the money it needs and I agree with my colleagues that it’s 

going to be difficult, if not impossible, to get that through the normal appropriation process, and I think that’s the major focus, but 

I would also say it could cause a problem as to proper budgeting. 

We will take a look at that. 
31 

Let me get back to the point that Senator Isakson mentioned 

about the erosion of our wetlands and the natural buffers to the 

problems of flooding in this area, the speed bumps, so to speak. We 

were impressed by that as we flew over today. I just want to know 

whether we have a game plan here? I understand you are waiting 

for us to act, but is there a game plan? Are we trying to stop the 

erosion? Are we trying to increas the amount of wetlands? What is 

our objective here? We have an objective as far as the levees are 

concerned. We want to ge to hundred-year flood protection. Do we 

have an objective as to what we are trying to achieve as far as the 

wetlands are concerned, General Riley? 

Mr. RILEY. We do have objectives and we are not in all cases 

waiting on Congress. We have the Breaux Act in place and those 

are small scale demonstration projects which are proving very 

fruitful. We have the LCA study, Louisiana Coastal Authority, that 

is awaiting authorization. And we also—you have authorized and 

appropriated funds for the Coastal Louisiana Protection Study, 

which is more of an umbrella study to look at the integration of 

coastal wetland restoration as well as hurricane protection and 

flood damage. So that’s our objective and the objective as far as it 

pertains to coastal wetland restoration is to immediately do what 

we can to stop the erosion and then to begin where we can, with 

the State and all the local partners, begin to restore some of those 

wetlands that have been lost. We have a pretty clear vision about 

where we want to head with that. 

Mr. WOODLEY. Senator—before we leave the topic, let me say 

that I fully take your point and understand your point and the 

other Senators’ with respect to the mechanism that we use for 

funding, and I will say that the decision to seek another, seek this 

additional funding through another supplemental is a decision that 

would be made with the higher levels, with the executive branch 

in consultation with the leaders of the Congress as appropriate. I 

can only speak to the the methodology, whether supplemental—I 

certainly agree with the point that a supplemental offers many advantages. Whether it’s some other mechanism, that is not my decision. I know what I will be advocating for, but that’s another thing. 

I can testify to the Administration’s commitment to seek the funding at the appropriate time to move forward on this vital work. We 

do not intend—in fact, the movement of funding is intended to accelerate the work, not intended to retard any other work, so that 

is—— 

Senator CARDIN. Madame Chairman, I know my time is expired. 

I know we need to move on. I just hope on the funding issues, I 

hope you can get more specifics as to objectives on the wetlands 

restoration. I think that’s critically important that we have that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I agree, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You know, when I think back of what so 

many lived through and we saw the images on TV of the people 

stranded on the roofs and so many poor and I always thought of 

these as sort of a mirror on the leadership of this country and now 

how we proceed from here is going to be a mirror on the leadership 

of people up here as well as all of you and so, in your testimony, 

Secretary, when you talked about how the key challenge that we 
32 

have here is to integrate all the activities into a coherent, comprehensive plan. And we talked about—— 

Senator Landrieu talked to General Riley about the way this is 

funded and some of this is how Congress has behaved over the 

years. Some of this is because some of the local issues and people 

not getting together. But I heard the other day that the way the 

Corps makes its decisions on priorities is based on whether or not 

they enhance the value of the land. Is that correct? 

Mr. WOODLEY. In the past, in a flood control arena it’s not so 

much to enhance the value of the land as the value of the property 

that would be damaged in the event of inundation balanced against 

the cost of the protection. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So it’s a cost benefit analysis? Does it consider the value of human life? 

Mr. WOODLEY. It does not. And let me say that the work we are 

undertaking for New Orleans is not being analyzed on a cost benefit basis. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you think that should be done differently? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I believe that we are desperately in need of reform in the way that we justify flood damage reduction works 

across the country, yes, I do. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The September 2006 GAO report found that 

the Corps is proceeding with over $7 billion of interim repairs and 

construction without a comprehensive strategy and implementation 

plan to insure that these various efforts are appropriately coordinated and integrated and talked about a piecemeal approach. And 

again, we talked about the fact that this is a number of factors, 

some in your control, some outside of your control. But could you 

tell me how you think we can fix this? 

Mr. WOODLEY. I believe that we have come a long way toward 

fixing that already, Senator. I think we have a plan now to reach 

the hundred-year protection level. Going beyond that, we have an 

authorized study to determine the feasibility of providing higher 

levels of protection. And so what we don’t have is all of the information in place that would allow us to present this plan as a fully 

coordinated and fully informed plan to the Congress. But we have 

a timeline and a schedule to achieve that and I believe that that 

is on track and is imminent. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. What do you see as the mistakes in the 

past about how Congress has funded those things, both and you 

General Riley, and how we should change things? 

Mr. RILEY. Ma’am, if I could take the first part of that. I think 

what we saw is how we, in the emergency supplemental right after 

the storm, appropriated certain pieces and certain projects. We now 

see that we should have asked for a system not only designed in 

the plan that approached through authorization and appropriation, 

so the $1.3 billion appropriation request is a first attempt to let us 

take a look at the system and raise the system up to a level of protection together across the board rather than the piecemeal approach. 

So where we are proceeding with the higher levels of protection 

past 100-year is a very comprehensive, systematic approach inte-
33 

grating all the structural and non-structural solutions. And we will 

present then a comprehensive plan for that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Anything, Secretary Woodley? 

Mr. WOODLEY. The history of the planning process within the 

Corps of Engineers has been that it has been very much project 

specific. It has been limited in geographical scope, and then in this 

area and in others the different pieces have proceeded at different 

rates in part because of the controversy surrounding certain parts 

of the system, but also because, in part because of the different 

abilities of local partners and local sponsors to provide their share 

of the funding. Very important process, very important principle of 

civil works in the Corps of Engineers is that, generally speaking, 

we will proceed in partnership with a local authority and on behalf—on a basis of cost share with the Federal paying 65 or perhaps 75 percent, the local contributing 35 to 25 percent. And that 

is a very important principle. That was established in the 1986 

Water Resource Development Act, and it has reaped many benefits 

because of the way it integrates the local interest and the local 

needs into the national system. However, Senator, it has all the 

vices of its virtues. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I see. 

Mr. WOODLEY. And our effort now must be to find out ways to 

reform that system while maintaining its virtues and mitigating its 

vices. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. We look forward to the second panel to 

hear about the way—the need to coordinate better the local with 

the Federal, so thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In a significant public works project, a 

dam or a bridge or power plant or something like that, there is ordinarily a critical path diagram that lays out the order of priorities 

and timing of the key elements of the project. Given all that’s happened and how many different moving parts there are, is there 

such a thing for the hurricane recovery and where would I go to 

see it? 

Mr. WOODLEY. Yes, sir, we could give that to you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What does it look like? Give me a preview 

of coming attractions. 

Mr. RILEY. Sir, if I could take that one. Of course, there’s the 

staff right behind me working here, the Task Force Hope in the 

district. We have the rudimentary pieces of that over time because 

of all the pieces that come on that. The critical path really is the 

permanent pump stations at the lake right now. Those would take 

the longest duration. Not the most critical, because there is a temporary fix in place that doesn’t quite yet have the pumping capacity 

yet. But that’s the essential critical fact. The next thing closest to 

that would be gates at the inner harbor. As you flew over that 

today, you saw repair of the levees and the flood walls, but there 

are other flood walls that are lower than authorized. So the best 

way is to close the navigable gates at either end of the inner harbor. So those are the two things that would take the longest time. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But there is a critical path analysis that 

all of the major players and stakeholders are aware of and have 

bought into at this stage? 
34 

Mr. RILEY. No. I can’t guarantee that, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Which part? 

Mr. RILEY. We have work to do to partner with all of the stakeholders to make sure they are part of it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The bought into part is the part that’s not 

accurate about my hypothesis? 

Mr. RILEY. That’s correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. Thank you. Here is the thing. 

I think you have heard from all of us in our different approaches 

that we still all believe there is an emergency here. Now, if $1.3 

billion worth of projects was an emergency to do, it’s still an emergency to do. So for you to sit here and say go to the regular appropriations process for $1.3 billion that you deem to be an emergency 

already says either it was an emergency, it was not when you declared it so, which we know it was, we all know that, or you are 

just shrinking back for some reason that may deal with taking on 

OMV or whatever it is. We would hope and urge and request that 

you let us know, honest to God, what you need because otherwise, 

we are not going to be successful. 

So I think the message from all of us here is, please, tell us what 

you need to get this job done. Don’t sugarcoat it. Shake off any bureaucracy because we are still in an emergency. When we fly over 

this city and we see the things that we saw and narrated by your 

two Senators here with emotion and feeling as only they could 

bring to it, we believe there is still an emergency here. So that’s 

really our message to all of you and we will follow up with questions. 

We thank you very much. We are going to move to Panel 2. We 

are going to then go to 3-minute rounds of questions because we 

are, in fact, running a little bit late. It’s surprising that Senators 

have a hard time keeping it to just a few minutes, but that’s a fact. 

So we call on Panel 2. Mike McDaniel, Secretary of the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality, Father Vien Nguyen of 

Mary Queen of Vietnam Church and Wilma Subra for the Subra 

Company. And we will hold our questions to 3 minutes and we welcome you and will hold your statements to 5 minutes. 

Welcome. And unless you have come up with a another plan, I 

was planning to start with Mr. McDaniel, is that all right, and 

move our way down the panel. 

Mr. McDaniel, please proceed and the clock is over there. We will 

inform you when your 5 minutes are up. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE McDANIEL, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Thank you, Madame Chair. I’m Mike McDaniel, 

secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 

My testimony today is going to be necessarily condensed, however 

we have provided the committee with additional written testimony 

and supplementary exhibits, which will be helpful to those interested in learning more about LDEQ’s activities in response to the 

hurricanes as well as lessons learned from our experience. 

The LDEQ’s responsibility under the Louisiana Emergency Operations Plan are limited primarily to what we call ESF10, which is 
35 

oil spill, hazardous materials and radiation. However, as detailed 

in my written testimony, the department responded to a broad 

range of needs immediately following the storms, including search 

and rescue, reconnaissance damage and environmental threats assessment, environmental sampling and assessment, hazardous and 

radioactive materials management and, of course, debris management. 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita left in their wake over 62 million 

cubic yards of debris. In addition to vegetative debris and demolished structures, there were around 150,000 flood-damaged homes, 

around 350,000 abandoned vehicles, and about 60,000 abandoned 

vessels to be dealt with. 

In accordance with National Emergency Response Plans the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers has been assigned primary responsibility 

for the management of debris from the hurricanes. Although the 

LDEQ has no directly-assigned responsibilities for debris management under this plan, we do have statutory responsibilities for the 

regulation of solid waste and protection of the environment. 

From the onset we have worked with the corps providing technical and regulatory assistance from their debris mission activities. 

Perhaps our most important roles have included working in conjunction with local Governments to identify and approve sites for 

debris management and to approve or provide oversight to see that 

the debris is handled and disposed of in an expeditious and environmentally sound manner. 

It is important to note that LDEQ does not direct waste to any 

disposal facility. With the exception of the slow pace of demolition 

of flood-damaged structures, the cleanup and disposition of hurricane debris has gone reasonably well. The debris cleanup and disposal in the Rita-impacted portions of the State are essentially 

complete. Cleanup and disposal in the Katrina-impacted areas is 

about 80 percent complete with the remaining debris associated 

primarily with the demolition and disposal of flood-damaged structures. At least 30,000 homes in both St. Bernard and Orleans Parishes have been identified for demolition and disposal. This number 

could potentially increase. 

The pace of the demolition is tied primarily to authorizations 

provided by locals Governments. Although not within its defined 

missions in the State plan, LDEQ volunteered to manage the contract for recovery, remediation and recycling of vehicles and boats. 

There have been some challenging issues, but we presently expect 

these efforts to be complete in August of this year. 

Although the debris mission has gone reasonably well it has not 

been without some challenges for LDEQ. Perhaps generating the 

most attention were the department’s approval of the Gentilly and 

Chef Menteur sites for landfill disposal of hurricane-generated construction and demolition debris. The LDEQ’s decision to approve 

these facilities was based on a thorough evaluation of the need for, 

suitability of and proximity of these facilities to the hardest hit 

areas. Both of these sites have previously gone through technical 

evaluation and permitting process prior to the hurricanes. The rationale for use of these facilities is detailed in the decisional records 

included in the written testimony we have provided. 
36 

The concern about hazardous or prohibited materials being introduced into these sites have been addressed by an unprecedented 

program of oversight and inspection, which is also detailed in our 

written materials. 

Finally, I would like to briefly share with you some lessons 

learned. I will provide examples of what went well, what needs to 

be improved and conclude with recommendations for you to consider in preparation for the next disaster. 

Unified command center instant management team collaboration 

and coordination worked exceedingly well for those local, State and 

Federal agencies dealing with the environmental issues following 

the storms. I think it could be a good national model. It was an 

efficient and effective means to address issues overlapping multiple 

jurisdictions. Additionally, I don’t think we could have asked for 

better working relationships than those we enjoyed with EPA Region 6 and the members of the Corps of Engineers debris management team. 

On the other hand the relationship with FEMA was mixed. At 

times they were responsive and helpful, however, for the most part 

they were slow to act and inconsistent in their decisions. Most frustrating to us was their intrusion into the debris management 

arena, ignoring the findings of DEQ and EPA, independently commissioning outside contractors for studies and redirecting waste 

disposal by imposing funding restriction. This confusion responsibility needs to be addressed at the Federal level. 

There were a number of issues concerning regulatory flexibility 

during emergency response and recovery. 

Senator BOXER. Sorry, sir. I’m going to have to ask you to complete that thought. Complete that thought and then move on. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. May I complete with a request? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, please. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. That is, after having gone through the experiences we have gone through here, the one thing I would ask that 

you consider is putting together some kind of Federal playbook that 

provides the guidance in waste management and regulatory flexibility and other matters so that the next poor souls that have to 

deal with this have a head start. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. McDaniel. 

Reverend, welcome. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDaniel follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MIKE MCDANIEL, SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

I. INTRODUCTION

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) appears before the 

United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to provide testimony regarding response actions taken in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and the environment, with emphasis on hurricane debris management. 

The testimony below will briefly describe the devastation caused by these hurricanes; provide a summary of the response actions taken by the LDEQ working in 

coordination with its federal, state, and local government partners to protect the 

public health, safety, and welfare and the environment; provide an overview of 

LDEQ’s responsibilities for tasks (with particular emphasis on the debris management mission); describe the collaborative process utilized by debris mission partners 

to authorize debris management sites; and provide a detailed explanation of the 
37 

basis for LDEQ authorizations for two specific sites, the Gentilly and Chef Menteur 

Landfills, to receive hurricane related construction and demolition (C&D) debris. 

Based on lessons learned from the combined Katrina and Rita disasters, the 

LDEQ will also describe events and processes that worked well and those that did 

not and make recommendations for plans and actions that are needed to address 

future disasters in an environmentally sound and efficient manner. Finally, the 

LDEQ will explain its plans to address the hurricane related increased illegal dumping that continues to prevent proper solid waste disposal in the New Orleans metropolitan area as it struggles to recover from these two hurricanes, and request resources to address illegal dumping resulting from this disaster. 

II. BACKGROUND

A. Hurricane Katrina 

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the Louisiana gulf coast, causing 

widespread damage within 25 Louisiana parishes. Hurricane Katrina has proven 

itself to be the largest and most costly disaster to date in American history. 

B. Hurricane Rita 

On September 23 and 24, 2005, Hurricane Rita struck Louisiana, causing widespread damage to an additional ten parishes in the southwest portion of the state, 

and in addition causing further damage within a number of the same parishes devastated by Hurricane Katrina, notably the City of New Orleans, and Jefferson, 

Plaquemines, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes. 

C. Impacts 

The devastation caused on the Louisiana-Mississippi Gulf Coast by Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita in August and September of 2005 cannot be adequately described 

in words. Statistics are useful but do not convey the experience of living through 

the violence of the storms and then, for survivors, the revelations of the aftermath. 

Many people’s feelings mirrored the devastation of the natural and manmade environment around them—an environment ravaged by wind and water. More than 

1,400 Louisiana residents lost their lives due to Hurricane Katrina, its approach 

caused the first mandatory evacuation in New Orleans’ history, and it caused $1.3 

million persons to leave their homes in south Louisiana. More than 200,000 Louisiana residents are still displaced. 

While the damage done by the floodwaters was extensive, the weight of the water 

also caused damage. The two hurricanes poured 480 billion pounds of water into the 

city, resulting in about 80 percent of New Orleans being submerged for almost a 

month. The city’s infrastructure, including hundreds of miles of underground utilities—electric, gas, water, drainage, cable, and phone lines—was damaged by the 

water’s weight as, simply stated, portions of the city collapsed. Entire areas were 

pushed even further below sea level. 

Altogether, these storms combined to generate over 62 million cubic yards of debris, enough to fill the Louisiana Superdome more than 10 times. 

To address the unprecedented level of disaster caused by Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, a coalition of federal, state and local agencies formed under the National Incident Management System’s Incident Command structure to respond to the emergencies. The LDEQ participated in numerous operations in responding to the disasters. Although LDEQ has no directly assigned responsibilities for debris management under the state’s Emergency Operating Plan, the LDEQ does have statutory 

responsibilities for the regulation of solid waste and protection of the environment. 

From the onset, the LDEQ has been engaged extensively with the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) providing technical and regulatory assistance for 

their debris mission activities. Perhaps the LDEQ’s most important roles have included the identification and approval of sites for handling and disposal of debris 

and to provide oversight to see that the debris is handled and disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. 

Although recovery continues for the New Orleans metropolitan area, as of January 19, 2007, the United States Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reported that it had spent more than $30 billion 

in federal funds on response and recovery activities related to Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. 

D. Expectations 

For those members of Federal, State, and local Government called into action, the 

public’s expectations of government was a primary consideration. With regard to the 

enormous amount of hurricane generated debris blocking roadways, downing power 

lines, and damaging buildings, preventing the return to normalcy, the public ex-
38 

pected that the debris would be removed quickly and safely so that recovery could 

begin. Hurricane Katrina has led to the largest clean-up in U.S. history so far. 

Faced with such a situation, all levels of Government expect to work together 

within the incident command and emergency response structure to hammer out a 

coordinated plan of response that provides for the efficient removal and management of the hurricane generated debris and that is protective of human health, safety, and the environment. 

E. Government Response to the Hurricanes 

Preceding landfall of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana Governor Kathleen 

Babineaux Blanco issued declarations of emergency on August 26 and September 

20, 2005, respectively, due to the imminent threat of high winds, torrential rain, 

flooding, damage to private and public property, and risk to the safety and security 

of the citizens of Louisiana. In the aftermath of each hurricane, the Governor extended the state of emergency due to the extreme damage caused and the continuing disaster and emergency conditions in the affected areas. 

The Federal Government responded similarly, with presidential and FEMA declarations of emergency. On August 29, 2005, in response to Hurricane Katrina, 

FEMA issued a Disaster Declaration covering south Louisiana. On September 21, 

2005, the President of the United States declared that an emergency existed in the 

State of Louisiana and authorized FEMA to mobilize and provide equipment and resources necessary to alleviate its impacts in response to Hurricane Rita. 

F. LDEQ Emergency Response Activities 

Consistent with the National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System, Louisiana’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness 

(now GOHSEP) has a detailed Emergency Operations Plan. In this plan, LDEQ’s 

responsibilities are contained primarily in Environmental Support Function 10 

(ESF-10)—Oil Spill, Hazardous Materials and Radiation. LDEQ plays a support role 

in oil spills, but provides personnel and resources in the oversight of spill mitigation. LDEQ plays a support role in hazardous materials management. The Louisiana State Police has primary responsibility in this function during the emergency 

phase; however, LDEQ is responsible for the collection, removal, waste classification, transportation, and disposal of the hazardous disaster debris and wastes. 

LDEQ has primary responsibility for managing radiation issues. 

LDEQ began assembling an Incident Management Team (IMT) at the LDEQ 

Headquarters, Galvez Building immediately following Katrina’s landfall. A Unified 

Command Center (UCC) was established to house and support the IMT. In addition 

to LDEQ, the UCC contained representatives from the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Corps, US 

Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, US Geological Survey, 

Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinators Office, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, and local governments. 

Although the LDEQ’s responsibilities under Louisiana’s Emergency Response Operations Plan are limited primarily to ESF-10—Oil Spill, Hazardous Materials and 

Radiation, the LDEQ responded to a broad range of needs immediately following the 

storms including: 

• Search and rescue—Teaming with the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association, LDEQ 

employees aided in the rescue of approximately 480 people from the area impacted 

by Hurricane Katrina. 

• Reconnaissance, damage and environmental threats assessment including: industrial sites, oil spills, wastewater treatment plants, rail cars, barges, radioactive 

materials locations, drinking water sources and intakes, underground storage tanks, 

ruptured pipelines, superfund sites, access routes, and photo documentation. Aerial 

reconnaissance was used to provide an initial evaluation of the status of industrial 

sites, water and wastewater treatment plants, rail cars, ships, barges, radioactive 

material locations, National Priority List (Superfund), and known hazardous materials sites. In addition to high resolution aerial photography and satellite imagery, 

also utilized were the EPA ASPECT aircraft, the Department of Energy’s airborne 

radiation detectors and a helicopter mounted HAWK camera. Hazards such as oil 

spills and gas releases were photo documented and potential access routes were 

evaluated to assist first responders and for follow-up ground assessments. 

• As facilities and sites became accessible, ground assessments were made of all 

potential sources and known releases of hazardous materials. Drinking water 

sources were evaluated for contamination and the operational status of water and 

wastewater treatment plants were determined. In many cases multiple visits to 

sites were made in order to ascertain that potential hazards had been secured. For 

example, 383 visits were made to 258 radiation source licensees in order to verify 
39 

that all of the radiation sources had been secured. To date, more than 6,000 damage 

assessments have been made. • Environmental Sampling and Assessment: with EPA and other partners, thousands of environmental samples were collected including floodwaters, Lake Pontchartrain and surrounding coastal areas, Mississippi River, sediment and soils, seafood, and air quality. Over a million individual analyses were performed and data 

and health risk assessments presented to the public on EPA and LDEQ websites. • Hazardous Materials Management—With valuable assistance and resources 

provided by EPA, over 22.4 million of pounds of hazardous materials were collected 

and removed from waste streams for proper treatment and disposal. Over a million 

white goods such as refrigerators, 956,000 electronic goods, and 250,000 small engines were collected and sent to be recycled. Over 4 million orphan containers— 

many containing hazardous materials- were collected and processed for recycling or 

disposal. Over 110 school laboratories were cleared of hazardous materials. • Debris Management—The LDEQ has no assigned role in ESF-3, Public Works 

and Engineering, which addresses storm debris management. However, it does have 

statutory responsibilities for the regulation of solid waste and protection of the environment and has been engaged extensively with the Corps, the Federal agency providing assistance to the state in storm debris cleanup and disposal. LDEQ’s principal role in the Corps’ debris mission has been to identify suitable sites for handling and disposal of storm debris and to provide technical assistance with debris 

management issues. Surveillance and enforcement activities related to storm debris 

management fall under LDEQ’s statutory responsibilities. In addition, the LDEQ is 

playing a major role in the removal and disposition of 350,000 flooded and abandoned vehicles and more than 60,000 abandoned vessels. 

The LDEQ also provided assistance in other assigned areas such as ESF-11, Agriculture, in the disposal of animal carcasses, and ESF13, Public Safety and Security, 

by providing security for its own first responders during search and rescue activities. The LDEQ also incorporated the management and disposal of unwanted ammunition, firearms, and explosives as part of the ESF-10 debris mission; these were 

not handled by law enforcement. 

G. Environmental Sampling and Reporting of Results 

It is important to recognize that the basic premise of both the National Response 

Plan and the National Incident Management System is that incidents are generally 

handled at the lowest jurisdictional level possible. However, when both local and 

state resources and capabilities are overwhelmed, states may request federal assistance. Given the circumstances following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, LDEQ requested assistance from the EPA to help with several tasks related to management 

and disposition of hazardous materials and with environmental sampling and assessment. 

1. Soil/sediment 

Beginning in September 2005, LDEQ and the EPA along with other federal and 

state partners conducted a comprehensive investigation to characterize any potential environmental effects to the parishes that were flooded by up to 10 feet of water 

from Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO). Since early 

September 2005, the agencies have collected approximately 2000 sediment and soil 

samples in Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, and St. Bernard Parishes in four discrete phases. Most of these samples were analyzed for over 200 metals and organic 

chemicals. 

As each phase of sampling was completed, the results were compared to conservative health-based screening levels for residential exposure developed by EPA and 

LDEQ. Summaries and general assessments of the data were developed by EPA and 

LDEQ with input from the Centers for Disease Control. 

(CDC), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH), and FEMA. 

The sample results indicate that the sediments left behind by the flooding from 

the hurricanes are not expected to cause any adverse health impacts to individuals, 

including children. A few localized areas were re-assessed due to elevated levels of 

arsenic, lead, benzo(a)pyrene, and diesel oil range organic petroleum chemicals. The 

results of these re-assessments indicated that: 1) the highest concentrations of arsenic were likely associated with herbicides used at or near golf courses; 2) 

benzo(a)pyrene was found in a 1 acre section of the Agriculture Street Landfill 

Superfund site and will be addressed as the Housing Authority of New Orleans finalizes plans for badly damaged town homes in the area: 3) diesel and oil range 

organic chemicals are diminishing over time and are now below residential levels; 

and 4) the elevated levels of lead detected in samples collected by EPA are not the 
40 

result of the hurricane. The lead results by EPA are comparable to the historical 

concentrations of lead in New Orleans soil found in studies conducted by local university researchers before the hurricanes. 

2. Surface water 

LDEQ worked with EPA, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF), and the Lake Pontchartrain 

Basin Foundation to monitor the quality of flood and surface waters in the Hurricane Katrina impact area. From September 2005 through March 2006, a total of 

62,989 quality control and sample results have been produced, recorded and evaluated to date for Hurricane Katrina. This represents 497 sampling events from 64 

sites sampled. Results for organic compounds and metals were mostly non-detect. 

Of the over 40,000 results for organic compounds analyzed, only two exceeded 

non-drinking water human health criteria. Of the approximately 1,984 analytical results for metals, only 3 exceeded chronic aquatic life standards. Most impacts observed were a result of the hurricane and not a result of the pump down of floodwaters into Lake Pontchartrain. The quantity of floodwaters pumped from the New 

Orleans area into Lake Pontchartrain was estimated to be less than 5.0 percent of 

the lake’s volume. The analytical data clearly shows that Lake Pontchartrain water 

quality was largely unaffected by the pumping of floodwaters from New Orleans. 

3. Biota 

Along with initial concerns about the health of Lake Pontchartrain came fears regarding the quality of the seafood found there. The results of sampling of flood 

waters and ambient Lake Pontchartrain waters helped mitigate these fears, revealing no chemicals above levels of concern. However, with added prudence, the DEQ 

and the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) embarked upon a 

5-week effort to sample and analyze tissues from commercially and recreationally 

important finfish and shellfish species. The USFDA laboratories analyzed 416 tissue 

samples for a wide variety of chemicals. The results confirmed that the seafood in 

Lake Pontchartrain is healthy and edible. 

The analytical data showed that no advisory against seafood consumption was 

warranted. As an added precaution, fish and shellfish tissue will be sampled over 

the next 2-5 years to confirm the absence of chemical contamination in Lake Pontchartrain seafood. In addition, the USEPA and NOAA Fisheries have conducted offshore and near shore fish and shellfish tissue sampling in the Gulf of Mexico and 

found no contaminants at levels of concern. This is an important issue in the recovery of Louisiana, demonstrating and supporting the safety of the seafood, and therefore the viability of the seafood industry, as the seafood industry infrastructure 

(fishing vessels, docks, ice houses, processors, restaurants) struggles to overcome the 

physical impacts of Hurricane Katrina. 

4. Air 

In order to evaluate air quality while pre-Katrina air monitoring stations were 

being re-established, LDEQ collected twenty-three grab air sample canisters in the 

Katrina affected area. All samples were analyzed for a total of 59 target volatile organic analytes (VOC). In addition, a Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations 

(PAMS) hydrocarbon analysis was performed to quantify total non-methane hydrocarbons and identify 56 common hydrocarbon species. The majority of the grab samples had reported VOC concentrations at or slightly above normal ambient background levels. All of the detected VOC concentrations were well below the Louisiana 

ambient air standards and the ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels (MRL). 

EPA conducted air sampling in New Orleans and the surrounding areas following 

Katrina. The EPA Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer (TAGA) results indicated that 

there were elevated concentrations of benzene in the area affected by the release 

from Murphy Oil (Chalmette) shortly after the storm. The TAGA is a self-contained 

mobile laboratory capable of continuous, real-time sampling and analysis. It can detect chemicals in the low parts per billion levels of outdoor air or emissions from 

various environmental sources. Subsequent air sampling in this region indicates 

that benzene concentrations have decreased and are now below screening levels. 

Sampling in other areas indicated that the chemical concentrations present in the 

air were below ATSDR screening levels. EPA also collected several sets/rounds of 

total particulate samples in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. This data indicates 

that the particulate concentrations were well below the level of health concern for 

Particulate Matter (PM10). 

In November 2005, DEQ prepared a report on air toxics based upon data collected 

from the established Kenner air monitoring site. A total of 47 samples were collected and analyzed on the 24-hour sampler between September 11, 2005 and November 13, 2005. The most abundant compounds found in these samples were pro-
41 

1All orders addressing Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are available on the LDEQ website at 

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/Default.aspx?tabid=2570. 

pane, ethane, acetone, isopentane, toluene and n-butane. All of these compounds 

were detected within the normal concentration range for an urban area. The general 

profile of compounds detected was very typical of an area dominated by mobile 

source emissions. The total hydrocarbon reading averaged 147 ppbC which is slightly below the normal range for an urban area. None of the average concentrations 

for any of the targeted VOCs were above the annual average Louisiana Ambient Air 

Standards, nor were any of the individual sample concentrations above the 8 hour 

ambient air standards. 

H. LDEQ Emergency Orders 

On Sunday, August 28, 2005, LDEQ Secretary Mike D. McDaniel, Ph.D., convened 

a special meeting of his staff to discuss preparations for the hurricane. One of the 

outcomes of that meeting was a Declaration of Emergency and Administrative Order 

(emergency order), which the Secretary signed on August 30, 2005 to address the 

emergency conditions and measures deemed necessary in the wake of Hurricane 

Katrina to prevent irreparable damage to the environment and serious threat to life 

or safety throughout the designated emergency areas. Considering post-landfall conditions, a nearly identical emergency order was issued on September 27, 2005 in response to Hurricane Rita. 

These emergency orders have been revised and reissued every sixty days based 

on additional information and changing conditions; they are still in effect in the 

most severely affected areas. Each order contained certain measures specifically authorized by the LDEQ and determined necessary to respond to the emergency. Exhibits 1 and 2 contain the latest two versions of the Hurricane Katrina emergency 

order; the Hurricane Rita orders are very similar.1

The LDEQ has a duty under the Louisiana Constitution to strike an appropriate 

balance between protection of the environment and economic, social, and other factors, consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the people. The emergency 

orders have been an important part of LDEQ’s fulfillment of that duty in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. LDEQ’s goal and expectation has been that 

the emergency orders would provide the information and regulatory flexibility to 

allow debris management and other recovery-related activities to occur as quickly 

as possible and in an environmentally sound manner. 

1. Purpose of emergency orders 

The emergency orders serve the dual purposes of: 

• providing regulatory flexibility essential to the hurricane recovery efforts, as allowed under the Louisiana Environmental Quality Act (see, e.g., La. R. S. 30:2033), 

and • providing useful information to the public about Louisiana’s environmental laws 

and regulations. 

2. Regulatory flexibility 

The regulatory flexibility provided by the emergency orders consisted primarily of 

the temporary relaxation of procedural requirements for activities in the defined 

Emergency Areas, in order to expedite the restoration of important services and the 

removal of the enormous volume of hurricane debris. The emergency orders did not 

allow any activity that would endanger human health or the environment, and the 

orders had very little effect on substantive requirements, such as the limitations on 

effluent discharges to waters of the state. The orders generally required such standards as would a permit but did not require the time associated with the administrative process of obtaining a permit. 

It was immediately necessary to provide regulatory flexibility to allow water discharges for necessary services and activities, such as potable water treatment, sanitary discharges where systems had been damaged, temporary housing locations, and 

temporary gasoline dispensing locations. The affected public needed safe drinking 

water, functioning sanitary facilities, and adequate shelter. Fuel was needed for 

first responders in the first days and weeks; fuel was also needed by the public, e.g., 

to operate generators on a continuing basis during widespread power outages. Regulatory flexibility was provided by managing such discharges in a manner protective 

of human health and the environment, as follows: 

• Allowing the discharge of wastewaters associated with potable water treatment 

systems in the emergency areas, without a permit, and without first submitting a 

notice of intent to LDEQ. All such discharges were required to comply with the substantive limitations on effluent pollutant parameters set forth in the permit that is 
42 

normally required for such discharges and the operator was required to monitor and 

report analytical information in compliance with the regulations. The authority 

granted by this provision enabled the timely operation of portable drinking water 

treatment facilities in areas with no other source of safe drinking water. 

• Allowing the discharge of gray water (domestic wastewater from all sources except toilets) within the emergency areas, without a permit. All such discharges were 

required to comply with the substantive limitations on effluent pollutant parameters 

set forth in the permit that is normally required for such discharges and the operator was required to monitor and report analytical information in compliance with 

the regulations. This provision facilitated the location of temporary housing for displaced hurricane victims. • Allowing the discharge of storm water runoff by the Corps from construction activities related to response activities in the emergency areas. This allowed the Corps 

to take immediate action wherever needed, such as repairs to the levee system. 

The LDEQ made these water discharges possible through issuance of emergency 

orders. The emergency orders provided standards and limitations, including effluent 

standards required by the Clean Water Act Amendments. The Secretary determined 

that there was greater potential for harm to the public health, safety, and welfare 

and to the environment from the delay of discharge of the wastewaters addressed 

in the orders until a permit could be issued. The orders represented the most prudent way of addressing immediate environmental problems created by the hurricanes while still providing protection for human health and the environment. Protective substantive limits and reporting requirements were imposed; only administrative processes associated with permits were curtailed by the orders. 

It was also necessary to provide regulatory flexibility to manage the vast amounts 

of debris generated by the hurricanes in an efficient and environmentally sound 

manner. The emergency orders provided this flexibility in the following terms with 

regard to solid waste disposal facilities (landfills): 

• Allowing landfills to handle a greater volume of waste per day than current permits allowed. Permit limits on volume are based on normal conditions; they do not 

anticipate, and are not appropriate for, addressing debris management needs of the 

worst natural disaster in the nation’s history. 

• Expanding the scope of the Louisiana definition of C&D debris to include items 

not provided for in the LDEQ’s solid waste regulations. 

See Exhibit 3, LAC 33:VII.115. Appendix D of the Emergency Declarations and 

Orders listed material to be considered as C&D debris: 

1. Nonhazardous waste generally considered not water-soluble, including but not 

limited to metal, concrete, brick, asphalt, roofing materials, sheet rock, plaster, lumber from a construction or demolition project, and other building or structural materials; 

2. Furniture, carpet, and painted or stained lumber contained in the demolished 

buildings; 

3. The incidental commingling of construction and demolition debris with non-friable asbestos-contaminated waste. (i.e., incidental non-friable asbestos-contaminated 

debris that cannot be extracted from the demolition debris); and 

4. Yard waste and other vegetative matter. 

Under ordinary circumstances, LDEQ regulations (unlike federal requirements) 

prohibit the disposal of the previously listed items in landfills that are permitted 

only for C&D debris. The rationale for the LDEQ regulations’ prohibition is that furniture, carpet, yard waste, etc., under ordinary circumstances, are frequently mixed 

with household garbage containing putrescible waste, for which C&D landfills are 

not designed. In the aftermath of the hurricanes, in contrast, the wastes listed 

above are usually mixed with non-putrescible C&D debris, and segregation of the 

waste types is simply not practical. A determination was made by LDEQ, in consultation with EPA, that these items could be disposed of in a C&D landfill with 

no threat to the environment or human health. As noted above, flexibility extended 

to the difference between state and federal regulations. No federal regulation or 

standard was violated by granting this flexibility. 

In addition, the emergency orders provided for other debris management processes, by existing C&D facilities as well as new, temporary debris staging and disposal sites: 

• Allowing site-specific authorization by LDEQ for disposal in an ‘‘enhanced’’ 

C&D debris landfill of construction and demolition debris generated from residential 

structures of four units or less that are subject to a government-ordered demolition, 

and that are assumed to contain potential asbestos-containing waste material. In 

order to accept such wastes, a C&D landfill must comply with special requirements 
43 

set forth in the emergency orders that ensure the protection of workers and the public from asbestos emissions, such as perimeter air monitoring, disposal of asbestoscontaining material in dedicated areas separate from non-asbestos containing C&D 

waste, prohibition of visible emissions, daily cover and warning signs. Enhanced 

C&D landfill requirements meet or exceed federal requirements for disposal of asbestos waste. • Allowing the discharging of wastewaters from C&D landfills without a permit, 

provided that the discharges meet certain limitations on effluent pollutant parameters, and provided that the operator monitors and reports analytical information 

in compliance with the regulations. • Allowing management of uncontaminated debris at unpermitted temporary 

staging areas. • Allowing site-specific authorizations for temporary storage, chipping, grinding, 

and burning of hurricane-generated vegetative debris at staging areas. • Allowing local governments to burn hurricane generated vegetative debris such 

as trees, leaves, vines, twigs, branches, grass, without prior notice to LDEQ. • Allowing the commencement of emergency demolition or emergency cleanup of 

asbestos-containing material resulting from the hurricanes, without prior notification to LDEQ. 

Although the emergency orders expanded the scope of C&D debris for hurricane 

generated debris, the material otherwise included is not considered to be a threat 

to the environment and is consistent with minimum federal requirements. In addition, it is not feasible during emergency conditions to follow normal administrative 

permitting processes that usually take in excess of 6 months. 

The emergency orders also allowed repairs to permitted solid waste management 

facilities, as necessary to restore essential services and the functionality of storm 

water management and leachate collection systems damaged by the hurricane, without prior notice to LDEQ. This provision was necessary to ensure that there was 

as little impact as possible to the environment from existing facilities that may have 

been damaged by the storms. 

The orders also provided flexibility and information for other regulated facilities, 

such as those with underground storage tanks. Requirements for release detection, 

corrosion protection, and inventory control applicable to owners and operators of underground storage tanks were temporarily suspended, during the time that the tank 

system was not accessible due to conditions resulting from the hurricanes. However, 

the emergency orders also required an emergency evaluation of the tank system before returning it to service, according to the protocol set forth in the emergency orders. 

2. Public information 

The public information function of the emergency orders included, among other 

things: 

• Guidance to assist operators of sanitary wastewater treatment systems in start 

up and operation. • Guidelines for temporary housing sites, including requirements relating to sanitary wastewater treatment and discharge, storm water discharges associated with 

construction, household waste collection and recycling, and site closure. • Guidance for compliance with the Louisiana Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants, as they relate to asbestos, during demolition and renovation activities. 

Since the issuance of the first emergency order after Hurricane Katrina, LDEQ 

has continued to revise the emergency orders in response to new information and 

changing conditions For example, LDEQ has recently eliminated several parishes 

from the Emergency Areas to which each emergency order applies. These changes 

are in response to the recovery progress that has been made in many areas. 

III. HURRICANE DEBRIS MISSION

A. Overview of Debris Mission 

The hurricanes left more than 62 million cubic yards of debris, millions of orphan 

drums and containers of unknown origin and content; over 350,000 flooded and 

abandoned cars; over 60,000 flooded, damaged, and/or abandoned vessels; over one 

million units of white goods; over 956,000 units of electronic goods; and 140,000 to 

160,000 flooded homes. 

The removal and proper management of debris after these two hurricanes was 

and continues to be a critical element of the recovery efforts. Without debris removal, there can be little rebuilding and repopulating. All types of debris, household 

contents, houses, cars, vessels, trees, white goods, electronics and more must be re-
44 

moved and properly disposed of in order for citizens to return to their homes and 

businesses. Although more than 12,000 storm damaged houses have been demolished, it is estimated that about 30,000 additional homes remain to be demolished 

and disposed. 

As of January 19, 2007, the Corps had removed 26,428,074 cubic yards of debris 

under a FEMA-funded mission assignment. This includes debris from demolition activities. 

As of February 14, 2007, more than 51 million cubic yards of debris has been removed. Of this amount, 22.4 million pounds of hazardous and industrial waste were 

recovered and properly disposed. In addition, more than one million units of white 

goods and more than 956,000 units of electronic goods have been recovered and recycled. 

Other information provided in chart form below summarizes the debris mission 

progress to date and the work still to be accomplished. This chart includes all debris 

removed pursuant to any FEMA-funded mission, not just the debris removed by the 

Corps. 
45 

B. Debris Mission Task Force 

Following landfall of Hurricane Katrina, the LDEQ joined forces with other federal, state, and local agencies for the purpose of orchestrating and implementing a 

plan for the management of the then estimated more than 55 million cubic yards 

of debris. Designated as ‘‘Debris Operations’’, these agencies met daily, sometimes 

meeting two or three times a day as sub-committees, to address planning needs, actual and potential legal issues, agency authority and resources, and to organize 

which agencies would be responsible for particular tasks in the overall mission. For 

example, one of the subcommittees was charged with the development of a checklist 

and/or flow diagram to be used as a tool by state and local government entities to 

assist them in making a decision on the condemnation and demolition of public and 

private buildings and residences. 

It was clear that the debris mission’s scope would require the expertise and resources of all agencies to handle the amount of hurricane debris in an efficient and 

environmentally sound manner. The following agencies worked in collaboration to 

identify the debris management mission; develop the process to authorize debris 

management sites; and provide guidance to local government, clean up contractors, 

and the public: 

• City of New Orleans 

• St. Bernard Parish 

• GOHSEP 

• LDEQ 

• Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

• LDAF 

• Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 

• CDC 

• EPA and its contractor START 

• United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (Congressional, Debris, 

Office of General Counsel, Safety, Infrastructure) 

• Corps and its contractors: Phillips and Jordan, ECC, and CERES Environmental 

• United States Coast Guard 

• United States Department of Agriculture 

• National Disaster Medical Service/ Disaster Mortuary 

• United States Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) 

• United States Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, 

Office of Audits 

C. Debris Management Plan 

The intent of the debris management plan, to be developed by the debris mission 

task force, was: 
46 

[T]o formalize a process that will enable the State of Louisiana, [the Corps], 

and [FEMA] to comprehensively manage funding for large scale and complex debris clearances. The plan was also to address the responsibilities of 

the various Federal, State and local governmental agencies to control the 

removal and disposal project for the designated parishes. 

The purpose of the plan was to furnish local governments with basic information 

on hurricane debris management within the scope of effective environmental management. Local governments were understandably unable to use normal non-emergency resources and processes to manage the unprecedented amount of hurricane 

debris. The plan was also designed to ensure that debris management projects met 

requirements of the Stafford Act, its regulations, and all applicable environmental 

laws; assist the state and parishes with contracting and contract monitoring as necessary; and to the extent possible, avoid eligibility, contractual, and environmental 

problems. 

The group recognized that the plan should be considered a starting point, with 

recommendations for a regional disaster debris management plan requiring the approval of all Government agencies before the final plan could be implemented. 

1. Process for approval of debris management sites 

Based on its jurisdiction over solid waste regulation, the LDEQ was tasked with 

developing a process to identify and approve hurricane debris management sites. It 

did this in consultation with its debris mission partners, particularly the Corps and 

EPA. As early as September 28, 2005, the LDEQ had prepared a Debris Management Plan, which was subsequently revised. See Exhibit 5. The plan was provided 

to the task force members for review, and finalized by LDEQ in consultation with 

these same debris mission partners. 

While the LDEQ’s jurisdiction over solid waste extends to determining need (capacity) and suitability of facilities, it does not include the authority to direct waste 

to be disposed in any particular facility. In addition, it is LDEQ’s policy that no staff 

member shall direct or refer business to any individual or entity. 

Based on the plan, local government and LDEQ were responsible for identifying 

and approving appropriate staging, processing and disposal sites for hurricane generated debris. All sites used for staging or disposal of hurricane generated debris 

that did not already possess a valid LDEQ permit were initiated by receipt of a request from a parish or other local government authority; the request included identification of potential sites and the type of activity to be performed at each location. 

See Exhibit 6, the initial request form. The LDEQ evaluated several different types 

of potential sites: debris management sites for staging of different types of hurricane 

generated debris; chipping, burning, and grinding of wood waste; and disposal of 

C&D. Following this process, approximately 400 sites were approved for this purpose. 

Site evaluation began with a visit to the site by an LDEQ representative, and a 

representative of one or more of its debris mission partners, the Corps, and/or 

FEMA. Each site was assessed based on the criteria sheet provided by FEMA. See 

Exhibit 7, Emergency Debris Management Site Certification Form. The criteria was 

discussed and adapted as needed to fit the variations presented by each site and 

local needs. 

For C&D/wood waste disposal, the LDEQ supplemented these criteria by requiring individualized site suitability analyses by an LDEQ engineer or geologist using 

visual observations, test pits, soil borings, or any other available methods/information. Soils with low permeability and groundwater classification were the key criteria for site approval. In the event that soils did not meet geological requirements, 

the location was either denied or additional requirements, such as installation of a 

clay liner, were imposed. This site analysis process was designed to be as close to 

that of the actual analysis required for C&D disposal sites without the delay associated with strict compliance with the procedural and/or administrative regulations 

to obtain a permit. 

All sites were and are required to be operated in accordance with a written operational plan approved by LDEQ. Furthermore, all sites are required to be closed in 

accordance with the technical requirements of the pertinent regulations. 

With the exception of the slow pace of demolition of flood damaged structures, the 

clean up and disposition of hurricane debris has gone reasonably well. The debris 

cleanup and disposal in the Rita impacted portions of the state are essentially complete. Accordingly, the C&D disposal sites authorized by the Emergency Declarations and Orders in this area will shortly cease accepting waste and begin closure 

procedures. According to FEMA, as of February 9, 2007, cleanup and disposal in the 

Katrina impacted area is 75 percent complete, with the remaining debris associated 

primarily with the demolition and disposal of flood damaged structures. It is esti-
47 

mated that about 30,000 structures in both St. Bernard and Orleans Parishes will 

have to be demolished and disposed of. The pace of the demolitions is tied primarily 

to authorizations provided by local governments. FEMA also estimates that the 

Hurricane Rita debris mission is 96.4 percent complete. 

LDEQ Authorizations for the Gentilly and Chef Menteur Landfills 

The emergency orders applied to all permitted solid waste disposal facilities (landfills), including the Gentilly solid waste disposal facility, which, at the time of Hurricane Katrina, had already received its LDEQ permit. In addition, the emergency orders were used to authorize operation of unpermitted C&D landfills; Chef Menteur 

was a prime candidate for such authorization due to a number of factors, which are 

set forth in more detail below. 

1. Gentilly Landfill 

The City of New Orleans submitted a permit application to LDEQ in June 2002 

to construct and operate the Gentilly Landfill for the disposal of C&D debris and 

wood waste. On December 28, 2004, a permit to construct and operate the Gentilly 

Landfill was issued by LDEQ. Thus, at the time of Hurricane Katrina, the Gentilly 

Landfill was permitted and was in the process of completing required tasks necessary under the terms of the permit before it could receive its order to commence 

operations. 

The 2004 permit for the Gentilly Landfill authorized the construction of a landfill 

over a previously closed municipal landfill. This ‘‘piggyback’’ concept has been used 

before in Louisiana and other parts of the country. The goal of this technique is to 

fully maximize the utilization of an area that has already been utilized for disposal 

of waste, thus preserving green space. Using the ‘‘piggyback’’ concept, the existing 

cover system over the closed landfill acts as a liner system for the new landfill on 

top. 

The Louisiana Solid Waste Regulations require C&D landfills to be constructed 

over an area with low permeability of soils. The existing cover system of the closed 

municipal landfill at Gentilly Landfill meets this requirement. 

In accordance with the LDEQ regulations, a public notice of the draft permit was 

published inviting public comment. The LDEQ did not receive any public comment 

during the public comment period that placement of waste on top of the closed landfill would cause any adverse environmental impact. The LDEQ issued the final permit on December 28, 2004. 

Before the facility had completed minor permit requirements (e.g., the installation 

of a fence around the facility) necessary to receive an order authorizing commencement of operation pursuant to LAC 33:VII.509.C.(4), Hurricane Katrina struck Louisiana. On September 29, 2005, after Hurricane Rita had swept through the state, 

adding its devastation to that of Katrina, the LDEQ issued an order authorizing 

commencement of operations at the Gentilly Landfill Exhibit 10. In the aftermath 

of the destruction of these two storms, the LDEQ had determined that the facility 

was sufficiently complete to commence operation and was a necessary component of 

the recovery efforts for the New Orleans metropolitan area. 

A later decisional document, Exhibit 15, issued by LDEQ on January 20, 2006, 

sets out the factors weighed in the decision to utilize the Gentilly Landfill site to 

receive hurricane generated C&D debris. 

a. Need and suitability determination of Gentilly Landfill to receive hurricane 

C&D debris 

The decision to use Gentilly Landfill to receive hurricane generated C&D debris 

was based on the need for the facility and its suitability to receive such debris. The 

LDEQ determined that massive amounts of debris had been generated by the two 

storms. The LDEQ also anticipated that the damage caused by flooding would result 

in generation of additional demolition debris. The Corps’ initial estimates were that 

55 million cubic yards of debris had been generated by the storms in southeast Louisiana. At that time, an estimated 140,000-160,000 homes in southeast Louisiana received flood damage. 

Following receipt of a request from local government to use Gentilly Landfill to 

receive hurricane C&D debris, the LDEQ issued an order authorizing commencement of operation for the Gentilly Landfill on September 29, 2005. Following 

issuance of this order, public concerns over the use of the facility were raised. In 

response to these public concerns, LDEQ required groundwater and soil samples to 

be collected. These samples, as well as data from the city’s groundwater monitoring 

plan, showed no adverse environmental impact from the old landfill. 

After evaluating these concerns, the LDEQ issued its decisional document, Exhibit 

15, that responded to these concerns and therein authorized the continued operation 

of the facility and revoked the Order Authorizing Commencement of Operation 
48 

issued September 29, 2005. The decisional document provided the reasoning and rationale for the decision to continue to authorize the Gentilly Landfill. Specifically, 

in its decisional document, the LDEQ noted that previously, during the initial review of the LDEQ permit application, several borings were drilled through the 

waste in the underlying landfill to determine the suitability of constructing a C&D 

landfill above the old municipal landfill. The data, once analyzed, indicated that 

waste had undergone biodegradation, likely attributable to the partial closure and 

aerobic conditions in the old municipal landfill. The decisional document also reflects that as part of the collaborative site assessment process, on November 11, 

2005, EPA conducted a separate assessment and found no concerns regarding 

groundwater or any other contamination concerns. 

Two other locations were considered as alternatives prior to authorizing the use 

of Gentilly Landfill: Recovery 1 and Amid. The decisional document sets forth that 

Recovery 1 was rejected due to concerns related to its existing height, landfill stability, and imposition of additional loads. The available area was smaller than 20 

acres and consequently would not provide sufficient air space for the large capacity 

of debris to be disposed. It was further determined that Amid, an existing C&D 

landfill, had only three months of air space remaining, and was therefore also inadequate for the debris generated in the area. 

The LDEQ noted that the Gentilly site met all of the technical requirements for 

a Type III C&D Landfill, as demonstrated by the issuance of the permit in December 2004. In addition, the Gentilly site is in close proximity to the hurricane devastated areas and therefore to the bulk of the hurricane generated debris. Further, 

the Gentilly Landfill site is located in a remote location, and except for some industrial development, is relatively undeveloped. See Figure 1 below. Due to the remoteness of the location, waste haulers can readily access roads to the landfill. For all 

these reasons, the Gentilly site was the preferred alternative. 
49 
50 

The decisional document details further alternatives considered by LDEQ based 

on concerns raised by opponents to the use of the Gentilly Landfill. Existing landfills in Jefferson Parish, specifically Riverbirch and Highway 90 Landfills were also 

considered by LDEQ. 

Riverbirch is a Type I & II landfill used for disposal of industrial solid waste and 

residential or commercial solid waste. It is generally more expensive to dispose of 

waste at a Type I/II facility, due to the additional regulatory requirements for these 

landfills, including liners and leachate collection systems. These additional requirements are unnecessary for landfills receiving C&D debris, so placing C&D debris in 

a Type III landfill is a more efficient use of landfill capacity and resources for this 

relatively benign type of waste, thus reserving the Type I and II landfills’ disposal 

capacity for industrial and municipal solid waste, respectively. 

The Highway 90 Type III facility located in Jefferson Parish was then (and is currently still) accepting hurricane generated C&D debris, and was subject to the same 

design requirements and standards as the Gentilly Landfill. However, the LDEQ determined that Highway 90 alone could not efficiently process the unprecedented 

amount of hurricane C&D debris to be disposed. The LDEQ decision to authorize 

Gentilly Landfill’s immediate use in addition to that of Highway 90 recognized that 

use of Highway 90 included a number of transportation and other safety considerations: increased distance, traffic congestion, longer transport time, and the ability 

of the facility to safely process such a large daily volume of debris. See Figure 2 

below. Waste transporters reported that they could haul four or five trips per day 

to Gentilly as opposed to two trips per day to Jefferson Parish disposal facilities. 
51 
52 

The legend and graphics in Figure 3 below show the distance in miles to Gentilly 

and to the facilities in the vicinity. 
53 
54 

2See http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/apps/pubNotice/pdf/Chefmonteurdecisionvietnamese5- 

1206.pdf. 

In addition, as a result of the increased distance and travel time for hauling 

75,000 cubic yards of C&D debris to Highway 90, as compared with the Gentilly 

Landfill, waste haulers’ truck emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, sulfate, and ammonia would increase by 

nearly 300 percent, using EPA’s MOBILE6 emissions model. 

b. Decisional process with public input 

Although the decisional document issued by the LDEQ on January 20, 2006 addressed concerns and opposition to the use of Gentilly Landfill that had been expressed at that time, the LDEQ revised and reissued the decisional document on 

August 28, 2006 to provide additional information and precautionary measures to 

address continuing public concern. Notice of the August 28th decisional document 

for public review and comment was provided to the public; see Exhibits 27 and 29. 

An LDEQ Administrative Order was issued that same date (Exhibit 28), limiting 

the weekly gate rate to 280,000 cubic yards and daily rate to 50,000 cubic yards, 

and requiring inclinometer and visual readings to confirm landfill stability, application of waste in lifts less than 25 feet, and implementation of the ground and surface water monitoring plans previously submitted. 

Previously, on October 31, 2005, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network 

(LEAN) filed suit challenging the LDEQ order to commence which authorized the 

operation of Gentilly Landfill for disposal of hurricane generated C&D debris. The 

parties entered into a consent judgment. Issuance and public notice of the revised 

decisional document, along with issuance of the administrative order on August 28, 

2006, met the terms of the consent judgment. 

The revised decisional document noted that Gentilly Landfill had submitted a 

groundwater monitoring plan on July 7, 2006 (as required by the LDEQ’s prior Administrative Order dated April 3, 2006, Exhibit 19). The plan, reviewed and approved by the LDEQ, provided for the placement of monitoring wells around the perimeter of the landfill to provide early warnings of potential relevant chemical 

changes in groundwater quality at the facility. The LDEQ further documented its 

analysis of the pathways of groundwater discharge to any surface water bodies, also 

based on public concerns. 

Finally, also in response to public concern, the LDEQ contracted with a third 

party investigator to evaluate the slope stability of the final landfill elevation to determine what effect, if any, the landfill would have on the MRGO levee. The investigation included soil borings and analysis of the subsurface soils. The investigation 

concluded that the operation of the Gentilly Landfill would have no adverse affect 

on the MRGO levee. Notwithstanding the findings and conclusions of this investigation, the LDEQ required the installation of inclinometers to monitor any movement 

in subsurface soils, to provide sufficient advanced warning to avoid any remote potential that this landfill could impact the MRGO levee. 

The public comment period for the revised decisional document closed on January 

18, 2007, and the LDEQ is currently evaluating all public comments received to determine if additional revisions to the decisional document are necessary or advisable. 

2. Chef Menteur Landfill 

Prior to Hurricane Katrina, the Chef Menteur facility had undergone full LDEQ 

permit review for a Type III C&D disposal facility. The permit was not granted because the conditional use permit required by LDEQ regulation was denied by the 

New Orleans City Council on March 20, 1997. 

On February 14, 2006, the Mayor of New Orleans submitted a request for the use 

of the Chef Menteur facility as a disposal site for hurricane generated C&D debris; 

see Exhibit 16. After a careful examination of scientific and/or engineering considerations, sound reasoning, and a proper evaluation of practical alternatives, including 

the information gathered in site assessment using the collaborative process, the 

LDEQ issued site authorization on April 13, 2006, Exhibit 20, and a decisional document on April 26, 2006, Exhibit 21, supporting that authorization. Notice of the 

decisional document’s availability for review and that LDEQ would receive comments was provided to the public comment; further, the document was translated 

into Vietnamese because of the significant Vietnamese-speaking community in the 

vicinity.2

Chef Menteur is located at 16600 Chef Menteur Highway, New Orleans, in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, approximately 2 miles east of Interstate Highway 510 on 

U.S. Highway 90 (Latitude 30 02’ 52′′, Longitude 89 52’ 55′′). The site is owned by 

Expedition Enterprises, L.L.C., but leased to and operated by Waste Management 
55 

3An ‘‘Enhanced’’ C&D Landfill is a C&D landfill allowed to accept asbestos-containing waste 

material under requirements (equivalent to Louisiana Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (LESHAP) requirements) set forth by the LDEQ Declaration of Emergency and Administrative Order; and as found consistent by EPA with NESHAP for asbestos (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) in a March 1, 2006, letter to the LDEQ, Office 

of Environmental Compliance, Assistant Secretary, Harold Leggett, Ph.D. 

of Louisiana, L.L.C. (Waste Management), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management Holdings, L.L.C. Pursuant to the exercise of LDEQ’s statutory emergency 

authority, the Chef Menteur site was authorized to operate as an ‘‘Enhanced’’ C&D 

Landfill3 to receive hurricane generated C&D debris. 

As set forth in the decisional document, the LDEQ determined that protection of 

human health and the environment, as well as public safety issues, warranted authorization of the Chef Menteur facility to receive hurricane generated C&D debris. 

Prior to granting emergency authorization to Chef Menteur, the LDEQ had authorized the utilization of the Gentilly Landfill for disposal of some portion of the massive amounts of hurricane generated C&D debris. However, due to public concern, 

the Gentilly Landfill was, at the time the Chef Menteur site request was being considered, required to operate under an LDEQ administrative order that limited 

Gentilly’s intake of debris to 19,000 cubic yards per day. In addition FEMA unilaterally reduced the amount of debris it would provide reimbursement for to 5,000 cubic 

yards per day. These limitations resulted in a decrease in the volume of hurricane 

generated C&D debris transported and disposed in Orleans Parish. It also triggered 

the need for alternative C&D disposal sites. 

Based upon Corps reports at the time, approximately 5,154,909 cubic yards of vegetative debris and 12,460,570 cubic yards of demolition debris in Orleans Parish remained to be processed. Additional debris not yet included in the Corps situation 

reports was expected due to a FEMA national flood insurance policy that required 

the elevation of certain structures in the New Orleans metropolitan area by as much 

as three feet. Many houses that could not be elevated properly were slated for demolition. In light of these Corps reports and based upon a Corps Structural Demolition 

Decision Analysis for the demolition of structures in Orleans Parish, the following 

results were predicted, unless additional receptor sites in close proximity to the anticipated demolitions were approved: 1) the estimated rate of demolition would require reassessment; 2) the execution, in approximately eight months, of the first 

phase of demolition (structures near collapse) would become questionable; and 3) the 

execution of the broader mission, which could include demolition of 20,000 or more 

structures, would require over 6 years. 

Therefore, to expedite the removal and disposal of the remaining C&D hurricane 

generated and demolition debris associated with demolition activities in the area in 

and around Orleans Parish and particularly in the Ninth Ward Area, the LDEQ authorized the construction and operation of Chef Menteur disposal site. 

As shown in Figures 2 and 3 above, Chef Menteur is in close proximity to the 

major sources of hurricane generated C&D debris. As Figure 4 below shows, the 

Chef Menteur site is approximately two (2) miles from the nearest residential neighborhood. 
56 
57 

Figure 5 shows, by way of comparison, the closer proximity of the landfills, including Highway 90 Landfill, to the community of Waggaman than that of Chef Menteur 

to the nearest community. 
58 
59 

4Although environmental suitable, the LDEQ never issued a permit to Construction Debris, 

Inc., based on its 1994 application because the Council of the City of New Orleans denied the 

conditional use permit for Construction Debris, Inc., which the facility was required to obtain 

under LAC 33:VII.519.N. 5See Waste Management of Louisiana, Chef Menteur Disposal,, Emergency Disaster Cleanup 

Site Request: Supplemental Operational Information, Vol. 1, March 1, 2006, and March 15, 

2006, Section 7. 6A ‘‘fastland’’ is property located inside the hurricane protection levee system, which is outside 

the jurisdiction of the local coastal management program. 

The gravity of the emergency situation created by Hurricane Katrina required 

regulatory flexibility and a consideration of the timeframe for debris removal. With 

the authorization of Chef Menteur Landfill, the LDEQ estimated the timeframe for 

completion of debris disposal (when combined with existing the Gentilly and Highway 90 Landfills) to be as follows: 

—Remaining Vegetative Debris: 5,154,909 cubic yards 

• Using Highway 90 only—10.2 months2 or 5.3 years1 

• Using Gentilly and Highway 90—5 months2 or 8.8 months1 

• Using all three landfills—3.4 months2 or 4.7 months1 

—Remaining Demolition Debris: 12,460,570 cubic yards 

• Using Highway 90 only—1.7 years2 or 11 years1 

• Using Gentilly and Highway 90—10.4 months2 or 1.5 years1 

• Using all three landfills—7.2 months2 or 9.6 months1 

Note: 1—Assuming landfill receives actual permitted weekly volume only 

2—Assuming landfill receives 133,000 cubic yards/week 

Along with the City of New Orleans’ request to use the Chef Menteur facility, 

Waste Management also submitted operational information, including for example, 

waste acceptance guidelines, asbestos-containing waste material management, Louisiana Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (LESHAP) Protocol, and the 

requirements to operate as an ‘‘Enhanced’’ C&D Landfill. 

The LDEQ concluded that the Chef Menteur was environmentally suitable for 

such a C&D site. Historically, the Chef Menteur site had undergone an extensive 

permitting review process by the LDEQ pursuant to a permit application submitted 

in 1994 by Construction Debris, Inc.4 The LDEQ found that additional factors rendered Chef Menteur suitable for emergency C&D disposal. These factors included: 

1) Zoned industrial; 

2) Proximity to areas where hurricane-generated debris is found and where demolition of storm damaged structures will be occurring, thereby resulting in reduced 

hauling time and cost, and reduced vehicle pollution effects, as shown on Figure 2; 

3) Adequate distance from neighbors as shown on Figure 3; 

4) Previously reviewed by the LDEQ for placement of a C&D landfill pursuant to 

standard permitting procedures; 

5) Evidence of suitable geology and engineering for the purposes of a C&D landfill5 and is located within fastlands;6

6) Operated by a national company with experienced and properly trained employees; 

7) Contains no known archeological or historical sites within 1,000 feet of the site 

boundaries; 

8) Contains no rare, threatened or endangered species or habitats within 1,000 

feet of the site boundaries; 

9) Contains no state or federal parks or scenic streams within 1,000 feet of the 

site boundaries; 

10) Easily accessible route; 

11) Sufficient available acreage; and 

12) Already contains existing excavations or borrow pits that will be utilized, after 

modification, for disposal cells (Cell 1 and Cell 2). 

After carefully considering the request, and ascertaining the concurrence of local 

government, the LDEQ authorized the Chef Menteur site as a temporary C&D disposal facility authorized pursuant to the emergency orders. The facility was authorized to accept for disposal the following materials: 

• Nonhazardous waste generally considered not water-soluble, including but not 

limited to metal, concrete, brick, asphalt, roofing materials (shingles, sheet rock, 

plaster), or lumber from a construction and demolition project; 

• Furniture, carpet, or painted or stained lumber contained in the demolished 

buildings; 

• The incidental commingling of construction and demolition debris with non-friable asbestos-contaminated waste (i.e., incidental non-friable asbestos-contaminated 
60 

7‘‘White goods’’ are defined as ‘‘discarded domestic and commercial appliances such as refrigerators, ranges, washers, and water heaters.’’ LAC 33:VII.115. 8‘‘Putrescible waste’’ is defined as waste ‘‘susceptible to rapid decomposition by bacteria, fungi, 

or oxidation, creating noxious odors.’’ LAC 33:VII.115. 

debris that cannot be extracted from the demolition debris, all in accordance with 

the requirements applicable to ‘‘Enhanced’’ C & D Landfills); and • Yard Trash. 

The wastes to be accepted were generated from direct and indirect effects of hurricane damage; the primary sources being Orleans, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany 

parishes. Available capacity of the landfill was set at approximately 7.2 million 

cubic yards, with the accepted waste being immediately landfilled in prepared cells. 

After each cell reached its design limitations, they were to be capped according to 

approved LDEQ procedures. White goods7 and putrescible,8 hazardous, liquid, infectious, industrial, commercial, and residential wastes were not allowed to be disposed 

at the Chef Menteur site. 

Public participation in this decision was achieved through the issuance of a 

decisional document setting forth the LDEQ’s reasons for authorizing the Chef 

Menteur site; see Exhibit 21. This document was public noticed in major newspapers in both New Orleans and Baton Rouge, as shown in Exhibit 22. The public 

notices provided a 30-day public comment period. Because of the nearby Vietnamese-American community, a Vietnamese language version of the decisional document was made available to facilitate public review and comment. Public participation in the Chef Menteur authorization differed from the normal public participation 

process in that it came after the decision, not before. 

The LDEQ’s decision to authorize the Chef Menteur site met with opposition from 

the Vietnamese community and others. Lawsuits were filed in state and federal 

courts both in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Many of these legal challenges are 

pending. However, the facility is no longer operating due to a cease and desist order 

issued by the City. Also, as a result of this cease and desist order issued by the City, 

the LDEQ has advised the facility that it intends to revoke its emergency authorization to operate because of the lack of local government concurrence for the continued 

use of the facility. Since then the facility has advised LDEQ that it will be closing 

and it plans to submit a revised closure plan to accomplish same in the near future. 

3. Both Gentilly and Chef Menteur landfills met all technical and substantive requirements for permitted C&D landfills 

Every permit application is evaluated for technical merit and compliance with the 

applicable regulations. In addition, the permit process imposes public participation 

requirements prior to issuance of the permit. The LDEQ went through its normal 

process in permitting the Gentilly Landfill, including the normal public participation 

prior to issuance of the permit in December 2004. LDEQ simply exercised its emergency authority to allow the facility to commence operation prior to completing some 

incidental tasks required by the permit. 

Although Chef Menteur was not a permitted facility, the LDEQ had previously 

completed the full review for compliance with all technical and substantive requirements, even though no permit was issued. The authorization of Chef Menteur to receive hurricane generated C&D debris followed the standard process developed by 

LDEQ in collaboration with its debris mission partners as part of the debris mission 

plan. The Chef Menteur site was required to meet all technical and substantive requirements for a permitted facility. 

The only deviation from the normal permitting process for this site was that public notice and the opportunity to comment were provided after the fact rather than 

before the decision. Moreover, the LDEQ carefully considered the comments made 

and concerns raised and maintained its full authority to adjust or rescind the authorization as appropriate. 

4. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: ‘‘Cradle to grave’’ debris management 

In addition to the thorough evaluation of proposed disposal sites, the LDEQ, in 

collaboration with its debris mission partners, has conducted (and continues to conduct) rigorous examination and robust oversight of the entire debris management 

process to minimize, to the maximum extent possible, any negative impact to 

human health or the environment from disposal of hurricane generated C&D debris. 

The primary focus of this oversight is to prevent any prohibited items from being 

disposed of at approved hurricane generated C&D debris disposal sites. 

To address the removal and management of debris, the LDEQ prepared the Hurricane Katrina Debris Management Plan which was released on September 28, 

2005, and revised on October 14, 2005, Exhibit 5. These earlier plans and lessons 
61 

learned have been incorporated into the LDEQ Comprehensive Plan for Disaster 

Cleanup and Debris Management released July 2006 and revised August 2006, Exhibit 26. An integral part of these plans is the segregation of debris so that the various types of debris can be properly managed and disposed. Segregation of debris 

occurs at multiple points in the debris handling process and Federal and State oversight has also been implemented at various points in the process to further insure 

proper disposal. 

First, residents and contractors are instructed to remove household hazardous 

waste, white goods, and electronic goods and place them curbside prior to gutting 

or demolishing houses. See Exhibit 35.These items are then picked up by designated 

contractors and taken to specific staging areas for further processing for either disposal or recycling. 

To further insure proper debris segregation and disposal, spotters are employed 

to observe the loading of all debris so that only the debris designated for transport 

is loaded. Spotters are also located at staging areas to insure that only the debris 

types designated for that site are staged there. At disposal sites trucks must stop 

at towers where observers check each load and then additional spotters check the 

debris as it is unloaded. If inappropriate waste is received, the entire load may be 

rejected or the inappropriate waste is segregated and the site is responsible for, and 

must document, the proper disposal of the inappropriate waste. 

Finally, LDEQ and EPA constantly assess the entire debris management process 

to ascertain the proper handling and disposal of all storm related debris. Inspectors 

assess the debris stream, and the effectiveness of the spotters, as the debris is loaded and un-loaded at the source, staging areas, and disposal sites. Oversight of landfills and debris sites is conducted based on the type and volume of waste received. 

The major C&D landfills in the New Orleans area have had either LDEQ or EPASTART inspectors on site during all hours that the landfills are open. 

The frequency of other sites’ debris stream assessments varies from daily to once 

per two weeks, as noted above, based on type and volume of waste received. Inspections of scheduled demolition sites are coordinated with LDEQ and various entities. 

The chart below provides a summary of the oversight assessments of operations to 

date at landfills and demolition sites. 
62 
63 
64 

9See the first paragraph on page 37, supra, for the statistics as of February 14, 2007. 

The best measure of the effectiveness of the ‘‘cradle to grave’’ management of the 

storm debris can be found in the amounts of hazardous and industrial waste, white 

goods, and electronic waste which were properly disposed of or recycled. As of February 14, 2007, more than 4.9 million containers of hazardous waste have been recovered and 22.4 million pounds of hazardous and industrial waste has been properly disposed. In addition, more than one million units of white goods and more 

than 956,000 units of electronic goods have been recovered and recycled. 

5. Treated wood in C&D landfills 

Environmental concerns have been raised concerning disposal of treated wood containing chromated copper arsenate (CCA) in C&D debris landfills. Federal and state 

environmental regulations define CCA treated wood materials as a non-hazardous 

waste. This classification is based upon the disposal of CCA treated timbers in the 

form of the material’s intended use, wood products, and not in the crushed and 

ground form that is tested in determining whether a product should be classified 

as a hazardous waste (AWPI, 1997). Assertions that CCA treated lumber poses a 

threat to groundwater when disposed of in a C & D landfill are usually based upon 

studies that show that some CCA treated lumber exceeds the Toxicity Characteristic 

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) regulatory limit of 5 mg/L for arsenic. Leachate from 

CCA treated wood has been shown to range from 3.0 mg/L up to 7.5 mg/L (Dubey 

and Solo-Gabrielle 2004). TCLP regulatory levels are based upon a model that assumes wastes in an open dump will be surrounded and layered with decaying municipal trash, which will produce a harshly acidic environment, thus encouraging 

constituent chemicals to dissolve from the waste and migrate to groundwater. The 

TCLP regulatory level is the predicted leachate concentration that would be protective for a hypothetical drinking water well located 500 feet from the disposal site. 

Conditions at the New Orleans C&D landfills are drastically different from the 

assumptions that were used in the TCLP model. There are no drinking water wells 

within miles of the landfill or potable aquifers anywhere in Orleans parish, for that 

matter. The nearest Point of Exposure (POE) at the landfill is not a nearby drinking 

water well, but surface water bodies located at least four times further away than 

the hypothetical drinking water well used in the TCLP model. Additionally, drinking water standards are not applicable or appropriate for the protection of a surface 

water body that is not used as a source of drinking water. A more appropriate measure of environmental protection is the Louisiana Surface Water Quality Criteria. 

The Surface Water Quality Criterion for arsenic is 5 times higher than the drinking 

water standard. This criterion for arsenic is protective of primary and secondary 

contact recreation, as well as fish and wildlife propagation. 

Based upon these factors, leachate concentrations reported for both new and 

weathered CCA treated wood materials are not expected to result in any unacceptable impact to groundwater or surface water at or near south Louisiana C&D landfills. This conclusion is supported by the model used to develop the TCLP regulatory 

standards and confirmed by site specific evaluations using the models and protocols 

in Louisiana’s Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action program (RECAP). 

IV. WHAT WORKED WELL

A. Interagency Collaboration 

Overall, the interagency collaboration following the hurricanes worked well, and 

allowed efficient and effective use of resources by federal, state, and local government agencies. 

1. Management of waste stream 

Proper management of recyclables, household hazardous waste, electronic waste, 

and white goods are examples of tasks where all levels of government collaborated 

and coordinated their activities and oversight to accomplish important goals of the 

debris management plan.9 Maintaining close lines of communication between members of each subcommittee or task force contributed to the successful efforts. 

2. Environmental Sampling and Reporting of Results 

It is important to recognize that the basic premise of both the National Response 

Plan and the National Incident Management System is that incidents are generally 

handled at the lowest jurisdictional level possible. However, when both local and 

state resources and capabilities are overwhelmed, states may request federal assistance. Given the circumstances following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, LDEQ requested assistance from the EPA to help with several tasks related to management 
65 

and disposition of hazardous materials and with environmental sampling and assessment. 

EPA and LDEQ, along with other federal and state agencies, coordinated to gather environmental samples, analyzed these samples, interpreted the results, and 

communicated the results to the public. Much of the sampling done was specifically 

tailored to address the concerns of local governments and the public in the areas 

affected by the hurricanes, as follows: 

• A comprehensive investigation addressed the soils and sediments of the parishes that flooded; samples were analyzed for over 200 metals and organic chemicals. The study concluded there was no cause to anticipate any adverse health impacts to individuals, including children. 

• Non-scientific catch phrases such as ‘‘toxic soup’’ and ‘‘toxic gumbo’’ used to describe flood waters in the impacted area raised public concern. The LDEQ and EPA 

conducted extensive sampling and determined that while the waters were unsanitary, they were not toxic and presented no long term health hazard. The agencies 

then issued a joint press release communicating to the public the analytical results 

and their conclusions. 

• Fears about the safety of flood waters and Lake Pontchartrain led to fears 

about the safety of consuming seafood. Finfish and shellfish were sampled in Lake 

Pontchartrain, and in offshore and near shore gulf waters to confirm that seafood 

was safe to eat and no advisory against seafood consumption was warranted. 

• Air sampling began immediately after Katrina and continued through November 13, 2005. Elevated concentrations of benzene were detected in the area affected 

by the release from Murphy Oil (Chalmette) shortly after Katrina; however, subsequent sampling showed results below screening levels. Particulate sampling (Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes) and air toxics (Kenner) found concentrations well 

below any level that would raise health concerns. 

B. Planning for Permit Actions and Displaced Residents 

The emergency orders also provided special procedures for public notice and public participation regarding proposed permit actions in the emergency areas. These 

special procedures were designed to facilitate notice to the large number of residents 

displaced by the hurricanes, and included such measures as increasing the number 

of required newspaper advertisements, and the extension of public comment periods. 

Immediately following the hurricanes, the LDEQ deferred noticing of any environmental permits in affected parishes until a reasonable plan could be devised. A comprehensive plan was developed by November 2005 to provide for extra noticing of 

permits in parishes affected by hurricanes. That plan distinguished between 3 categories of impact and notice requirements. Amount of notice depended on how severe the damage was estimated to be and the percent of the population displaced. 

To widely disseminate the plan, the LDEQ issued notices in the State Register, The 

Advocate, and on LDEQ’s public notice web page. The LDEQ sent the plan to the 

members of the Environmental Justice Interagency Taskforce (EJIT) group that was 

spearheaded by EPA Region 6. 

Public notice and comment procedures were designed to vary according to the categorization of the parish in which the facility with the permit activity was located. 

The LDEQ evaluated all affected parishes according to all relevant factors, including 

but not limited to the following, to arrive at 3 different categories: 

1. newspaper circulation rates (both paid subscriptions and free distribution), 

comparing pre-hurricane with then-current rates 

2. basic services - power, potable water, and sewage treatment 

3. local government approval for residents to return for long-term habitation 

4. number of open schools 

5. availability of locations to serve as document repositories and in which to conduct public hearings should they be requested 

6. condition of roads 

Parishes were identified as Category 1 when newspaper circulation rates and 

basic services had been restored to at least 90 percent of pre-hurricane levels, the 

parish was open for long-term habitation, and public schools had resumed operation. 

Initially, this category included the following 27 parishes: Acadia, Allen, Ascension, 

Assumption, Beauregard, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Iberia, 

Iberville, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Lafourche, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, St. 

Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, 

Tangipahoa, Vermilion, Washington, West Baton Rouge, and West Feliciana. 

In Category 1 parishes, the LDEQ continued to implement the public notice procedures in place before the hurricanes. That included publication in the required 

newspapers, sending notice to individuals on the LDEQ’s permits mailing list, plac-
66 

ing notice on the LDEQ web page, and sending electronic notice to individuals who 

have registered to receive notices in this manner. The LDEQ Public Participation 

Group (PPG) used its knowledge of newspaper distribution rates and patterns to determine if the notice should be placed in more than one local newspaper. Some permit procedures required notice to also be placed in the official state journal, The Advocate. 

Parishes identified as Category 2 when newspaper circulation rates and basic 

services had been restored to at least 50 percent of pre-hurricane levels, the parish 

was open for long-term habitation, and public schools had resumed operation. Initially, parishes in this category were St. Tammany, Jefferson, Terrebonne, 

Calcasieu, and Plaquemines. In Category 2 parishes, the LDEQ followed the same 

procedures provided for Category 1, with the addition of the following: Notices were 

placed in The Advocate to identify the permits placed on public notice for the previous week, sorted by parish. These notices clearly identified the electronic web link 

to view the public notices and gave the phone number to call to request additional 

information or to find out where documents might be reviewed locally. 

Category 3 parishes were the most severely affected parishes. Any parish not 

meeting all of the criteria for Category 2 were considered Category 3. As of this 

date, the parishes in this category are Cameron, Orleans, and St. Bernard. In Category 3 parishes, the LDEQ follows the same procedures as for Category 2, with the 

addition of the following: 

1. Comment periods will be extended a total of 15 extra days. 

2. Notices will be published twice in the selected newspaper(s). 

3. An additional newspaper will be selected in which to publish the notices. This 

will be the newspaper with the largest circulation in a parish that physically adjoins 

the parish in which the facility is located. 

4. If not already required to do so, the LDEQ will publish notices in The Advocate, 

the official state journal. 

When arranging public hearings to solicit comments regarding permitting activities, the LDEQ will work with stakeholders to find suitable hearing site locations. 

The plan was revised in October 2006, based on reevaluation of newspaper circulation, population reestablished, availability of public services, etc. The LDEQ 

continues to provide additional public notice procedures today. The dislocation of 

residents and the damage to infrastructure in the emergency areas has affected the 

ability of the LDEQ to solicit and receive comments on proposed permit actions. The 

procedures detailed above are intended to address these issues in a manner that offers the opportunity for meaningful public participation and that meets the requirements and intent of the state and federal permitting statutes and regulations. 

V. WHAT DID NOT WORK WELL

Although, as noted above, federal, state, and local government agencies worked 

well together in the aftermath of the hurricanes to address the majority of response 

and recovery activities, no clear guidelines or references existed on how to provide 

regulatory flexibility for actions predictably necessary for an effective and efficient 

response to this level of disaster. Many of these actions, including the need for 

multi-level government collaboration, could have been anticipated. Forethought and 

coordination before the event could have significantly reduced the amount of resources necessary and the time frame for efficient government action. 

The LDEQ had certain expectations when faced with the unprecedented events 

caused by the two hurricanes. It shared the expectations of its government partners 

that cooperation and coordination would be hallmarks of any successful response 

and recovery plan and its implementation. The lessons learned from Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita and Louisiana’s subsequent preparation for the 2006 hurricane 

season lead LDEQ to suggest that further steps be taken to prepare all regions of 

the country for the possibility of a natural or man-made disaster. 

A. The time it took (6 MONTHS) to work out regulatory flexibility for various issues, 

such as the asbestos NESHAP 

Shortly after Hurricane Katrina made landfall and the extent of the devastation 

became apparent, LDEQ recognized that it needed to coordinate with the EPA on 

potential National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements regarding asbestos. On September 7, 2005, while New Orleans and parts 

of St. Bernard parish were still under water, LDEQ staff made inquiries of EPA Region 6 regarding burning construction and demolition debris not susceptible or that 

otherwise would be inspected as required by the asbestos NESHAP regulations. 

Subsequently, acting upon the advice of personnel from EPA Region 6, on September 22, 2005, LDEQ requested a No Action Assurance (NAA) from the asbestos 
67 

NESHAP for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. The request concerned inspection 

and demolition of residential structures and the potential burning of hurricane related and demolition debris that could possibly contain incidental asbestos. 

In an effort to quantify the potential scope of the asbestos issue in recovery efforts, LDEQ staff, using in part US Census data for the impacted area, derived estimates of the possible number of residential structures that could reasonably be expected to contain asbestos, based in a large part to the age of the home. The results 

of this estimate raised the concern that there would not be enough trained asbestos 

inspectors available to staff near-term demolition activities. 

In preparing the September 2005 NAA request, LDEQ also reviewed state and 

federal regulations and available EPA guidance. Available EPA guidance did not address either the extent of the devastation or the unique circumstances surrounding 

Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath. The NAA request indicated that the inspection, segregation, and disposal steps set forth in EPA’s guidance documents would take years 

to complete; meanwhile, the uninhabitable buildings would continue to pose significant health and safety concerns. LDEQ was also concerned that landfill capacity in 

the immediate area would be insufficient to handle the estimated volume of debris 

generated by the storms and the resultant recovery efforts. 

Further complicating the debris issue, the New Orleans area has a large and destructive Formosan termite infestation. To prevent further spread of this termite, 

the Commissioner of the LDAF issued a quarantine on the movement of any wood 

or cellulose products from certain parishes unless it has been fumigated or otherwise treated for Formosan termites and the movement is approved by the Commissioner or the Commissioner gives written authorization for untreated material to be 

moved from the named parishes. Therefore, disposal of the construction and demolition debris in landfills outside of the affected parishes would require treatment with 

pesticides under the State Quarantine Order designed to prevent the spread of the 

Formosan termite to less-infested areas. 

In its NAA request, LDEQ outlined a set of demolition and disposal practices for 

the New Orleans area designed to remove uninhabitable structures in an expeditious manner while minimizing public health and safety risks. By adopting the practices outlined in its request, LDEQ estimated that the New Orleans area could be 

free of debris within six months. 

Then Hurricane Rita struck southwest Louisiana, adding its destruction to a state 

already reeling from a devastating blow. 

On October 21, 2005, an NAA was issued by EPA headquarters. This NAA acknowledges: 

The flooding of the City of New Orleans and nearby communities following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita poses particularly difficult challenges for recovery and reconstruction efforts. Louisiana estimates that the hurricanes and floods left as many 

as 260,000 homes structurally unsound or otherwise uninhabitable. The State believes as many as 170,000 of these structures, a significant fraction of which are 

residences, may contain asbestos, lead paint, or other hazardous materials. The volume of debris from the demolition of these structures plus other debris from the 

hurricanes and floods is overwhelming. 

In its October 2005 NAA, EPA offered the following response: 

EPA at this time is exercising its enforcement discretion to grant LDEQ a no action assurance for the federal asbestos NESHAP for limited demolition and disposal 

of asbestos-containing waste material in the parishes noted above, in support of 

parametric evaluation burns, as further described below. To qualify for the no action 

assurance, those activities must be carried out in accordance with the LDEQ guidelines, Appendix B to this letter (concerning parametric evaluation burns), and the 

conditions set forth in the attached document entitled ‘‘EPA’s Conditions For Granting A No Action Assurance And Associated Recommendations For LDEQ Asbestos 

Demolition And Disposal Procedures For Jefferson Parish, Orleans Parish, 

Plaquemines Parish And St. Bernard Parish In The Aftermath Of Hurricane 

Katrina And Hurricane Rita.’’ The conditions are also accompanied by recommendations. As a further condition of this no action assurance, LDEQ must take all necessary steps to prevent or minimize any increased risk to human health and safety. 

At this time, the no action assurance does not extend to any other federal requirements that may apply to the limited demolition and disposal of asbestos-containing 

material in support of the parametric evaluation burns or to any other demolition 

and disposal of structures in the New Orleans area under the State’s proposed plan. 

The NAA was of limited duration and scope: 

This no action assurance will extend for a period of 6 months from the date of 

this letter and will only apply at present to demolition and burning carried out for 

purposes of Appendix B. After completion of Appendix B and evaluating the data, 
68 

10As a delegated program, LDEQ had adopted asbestos regulations which in most cases mirror 

the Federal language, but which are in some areas more stringent. 

EPA may provide, as appropriate, a written notice to LDEQ that the no action assurance is being extended to further demolition and burning, subject to the conditions outlined in the attachment. As part of that evaluation, EPA will also consider 

whether the no action assurance should extend to other federal requirements that 

may apply to the demolition and disposal of structures in the New Orleans area 

under the State’s proposed plan. Prior to the expiration date, the situation will be 

reviewed to determine if this no action assurance and accompanying conditions need 

to be modified or revoked. This no action assurance applies only for the specified 

activities in the parishes noted above. 

As the ACD burn test project was being developed after the October 2005 NAA, 

LDEQ began development in November 2005 of a protocol for compliance with its 

asbestos LESHAP regulations.10 In January 2006, LDEQ forwarded a draft ‘‘LDEQ 

Protocol to Comply with the NESHAP and LESHAP Regulations’’ to EPA. 

As a result of EPA and LDEQ work on this protocol and extensive discussion of 

the issues, which included a joint LDEQ/EPA Region 6/EPA Headquarters meeting 

in Baton Rouge, EPA issued an NAA on February 3, 2006. This NAA provided regulatory flexibility as follows: 

residences that are subject to a government issued demolition order based on the 

residence being 1) structurally unsound but not necessarily in danger of imminent 

collapse, or 2) moved off of its foundation, to be treated as though the demolition 

order is based on a determination that the house is structurally unsound and in 

danger of imminent collapse. Under section 61.145(a)(3) of the asbestos NESHAP 

regulation, buildings subject to a government issued demolition order based on a determination that the building is structurally unsound and in danger of imminent 

collapse are not subject to otherwise applicable requirements for inspection and removal of asbestos prior to demolition.’’ The effect of the February 3 No Action Assurance allowed residences subject to government issued demolition orders based on 

the structures being unsound or moved off their foundations to be demolished and 

disposed of in accordance with the streamlined requirements of section 61. 145(a)(3). 

The NAA further allowed this determination to be made for groups of structures 

(i.e. blocks or subdivisions). This NAA was effective for twelve months from the date 

of issuance. 

On February 24, 2006, EPA extended the February 3, 2006 NAA as follows: 

the February 3, 2006 No Action Assurance to residences that are subject to government issued demolition orders because they are uninhabitable for other environmental reasons (e.g., from excessive flood damage rendering the home uninhabitable). Under this No Action Assurance, as under the February 3 action, such residences may be treated as though they are subject to government issued demolition 

orders based on a determination that they are structurally unsound and in danger 

of imminent collapse and thus subject to section 61.145(a)(3) of the asbestos 

NESHAP regulation. In other words, LDEQ, the [Corps], local governments, or persons acting under direction of any of these governmental entities, may apply to such 

residences the NESHAP requirements governing buildings that are ′′structurally unsound and in danger of imminent collapse.′′ As noted above, for such buildings the 

asbestos NESHAP dispenses with prior inspection and removal of asbestos but requires notification and proper handling, transport and disposal. EPA is taking this 

action because it recognizes the necessity of addressing a number of residences not 

covered by the earlier No Action Assurance, but in need of expeditious demolition 

and removal. 

The February 24, 2006 NAA also extended the NAA coverage to local governing 

bodies and indicated that ‘‘since the enhanced C&D landfills, as well as Louisiana’s 

permitted Type I and Type II landfills are required by Louisiana to either meet or 

exceed federal disposal standards under the NESHAP, EPA will defer to the State 

to set disposal location priorities.’’ EPA also indicated that ‘‘our staffs are revisiting 

the use of Air Curtain Destructors and grinders as means of debris volume reduction to further assist in addressing the lack of adequate landfill space.’’ 

In a letter dated March 1, 2006, EPA indicated that the ‘‘LDEQ Protocol to comply 

with the LESHAP Regulations’’ was consistent with NESHAP regulations and/or the 

NAA letters of February 3 and February 24, 2006. At this time, LDEQ, local governments, and federal partners finally had a consolidated roadmap for demolition and 

recovery efforts as they pertained to the asbestos NESHAP. Recovery work was able 

to move forward. 

The length of time necessary to obtain the NAA from EPA resulted in unnecessary delays in the recovery. The need for EPA guidance and/or assurance as to the 
69 

asbestos NESHAP’s application was foreseeable, given the inevitability of a disaster 

to a heavily populated area, whether from hurricane, earthquake, tornado, flood, or 

other causes. 

B. Lack of Clear Guidelines for Use of Tools/Methods To Meet Disaster Needs 

No federal guidelines existed regarding use of tools and methods to manage hurricane or other disaster related debris. For example, due to the amount of debris, the 

LDEQ considered burning as a possible method for managing some hurricane generated C&D debris. However, upon consultation with EPA, several issued were 

raised, including but not limited to the asbestos NESHAP. 

The LDEQ attempted to work with EPA and FEMA to conduct a test burn of 

C&D material to gather appropriate data and information to support fact based decision making. The scope of the test burn was expanded exponentially over time, 

and in the final discussions, no funding source was available to conduct the burn 

as designed. 

The scale of the combined disasters caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita only 

highlights the need for a variety of debris management tools and methods that both 

state and federal partners can agree are protective of public health, safety, and welfare and the environment in advance of the next disaster. 

C. Lack of Coordination in Granting Regulatory Flexibility 

Since the issuance of the emergency orders, an issue has been raised that the following authorizations of unpermitted water discharges may violate the Clean Water 

Act: 

1. discharges from potable drinking water plants, 

2. discharges from temporary housing, and 

3. discharges from debris management sites. 

As noted above, people in a disaster area must have drinking water, sanitary facilities, shelter, and fuel. 

EPA advised the LDEQ to use its enforcement discretion, i.e., give no action assurances, rather than authorize the discharges. Although the no action assurance 

manifests the agency’s determination not to prosecute violations, it does not provide 

relief or protection from potential citizen suits and other third party suits. 

Furthermore, EPA has an interest where federal programs are implicated, such 

as Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and RCRA programs, when the state has been 

delegated program authority. The LDEQ was able to provide necessary regulatory 

flexibility to respond to the emergency through its emergency orders, but could offer 

no relief or assurance from similar federal requirements or the threat of overfiling 

by EPA. Regardless of the type of environmental regulatory authority in place, in 

the aftermath of a disaster, the public has a right to expect that those with authority will work together in a coordinated way to make decisions protective of human 

health and the environment and that the public can rely upon the regulatory flexibilities provided through a rational process of decision making that takes into account the practical needs of those in the disaster area. 

D. Lack of Coordination, Blurring of Lines of Responsibility 

FEMA, EPA, LDEQ, and the Corps were all members of the debris mission task 

force, as noted previously in the Debris Mission Task Force section. The LDEQ expected that agencies would implement their portion(s) of the debris management 

plan or other response and recovery activities, and that deference in environmental 

matters would be given to environmental agencies. As a result, the LDEQ did not 

expect that FEMA would independently attempt to reevaluate receipt of hurricane 

debris at Gentilly Landfill, after the EPA and the LDEQ had approved that site for 

receipt of such debris. EPA and LDEQ were the debris mission partners with responsibility for environmental considerations and compliance at hurricane debris 

disposal sites, and the LDEQ had approved the site operation plan, with EPA’s concurrence. 

This unexpected insertion by FEMA into a smoothly running collaborative process 

caused direct, foreseeable impacts, not least of which was the need for both LDEQ 

and EPA to commit resources to addressing the various levels of concern expressed 

by the public, media, regulated community, and government, including this very 

committee, that understandably arose. 

One example of the detrimental consequences of violating this principle occurred 

with regard to the approved use of Gentilly Landfill to receive hurricane related 

C&D debris. The LDEQ issued a standard permit to Gentilly on December 28, 2004. 

LDEQ then issued an emergency authorization to the facility to start receiving hurricane related C&D debris on September 29, 2005. Shortly thereafter, the Corps 

began sending a substantial amount of C&D debris to this facility. 
70 

At FEMA’s request, EPA performed an investigation and analysis concerning the 

potential federal CERCLA liability for use of the Gentilly Landfill and issued a 

memorandum November 11, 2005, Exhibit 11. In EPA’s opinion, the use of this facility to receive hurricane related C&D waste would impose no CERCLA liability on 

FEMA. The memo offered ‘‘recommendations for current usage of the landfill to 

avoid a release of hazardous substances that would necessitate a superfund response.’’ EPA’s findings and conclusions were consistent with the prior study performed by the licensed engineering firm of EE&G, the Corps’ subcontractor. 

Without discussion or consultation with or notice to its debris mission partners 

LDEQ and EPA, FEMA commissioned a study by National Infrastructure Support 

Technical Assistance Consultants (NISTAC) to examine the potential impact by the 

Gentilly Landfill on the environment due to its use as a C&D landfill to receive hurricane related C&D debris. NISTAC’s draft report concluded that FEMA could be 

exposed to high risk of future environmental liability based on current conditions 

and environmental history of the Gentilly site. 

Time and effort was required by both LDEQ and EPA, first to review, then to consult together, and finally to refute the findings of the draft NISTAC report prematurely released. See Exhibit 18, February 16, 2006 LDEQ press release entitled 

‘‘DEQ refutes claims in FEMA report concerning Gentilly Landfill.’’ These expenditures reduced the resources available to focus on priority debris mission and other 

tasks. 

Based on the never finalized NISTAC report, FEMA instructed the Corps to limit 

the amount of debris sent to Gentilly Landfill on a daily basis to 5,000 cubic yards 

per day, which resulted in a substantial reduction from daily intake at the facility. 

Reduction of the amount of debris sent to Gentilly Landfill potentially had the following impacts: increased time, distance, and expense for disposal. 

E. Illegal Dumping Has Gotten Worse 

The volume of hurricane related debris from the two storms, combined with congestion at the facilities approved to receive such debris, and volume limits imposed 

unilaterally by FEMA have likely contributed to an increase in illegal dumping, including illegal dumping at night. The LDEQ, although receiving an increased number of complaints about such dumping, had and has insufficient resources to provide 

adequately secure surveillance activities. The impact of the 2005 hurricane season 

exacerbated what was already a shortfall of resources to deal with illegal solid 

waste disposal statewide. 

Solid waste issues for illegal dumping are mainly the province of local governments. Traditionally, LDEQ field inspection services in the area of solid waste focus 

on permitted landfills. However, complaints, including those concerning illegal 

dumping, are investigated as logged into the LDEQ’s Single-Point-of-Contact system. 

In construction and demolition activities, as with most business operations, time 

means money. The increased waiting time at local landfills and landfill operating 

hours contributed to increased illegal dumping; piles of C&D debris were discovered 

within a short distance of the landfills’ entrances. 

Added to the commercial or business factors fostering increased illegal dumping 

were factors that may contribute to illegal dumping by individuals. With the discontinuation of curbside waste pick-up, residents returning to the area faced several 

challenges, including the following: (1) local governments set time frames to gut or 

demolish homes; (2) the uncertainty of programs to assist with rebuilding costs or 

needs; (3) the uncertainty of the return of utilities or development to certain areas; 

and (4) the high cost of contractor work, including demolition and debris removal. 

Because of the loss of basic city services necessary for public health and safety, 

available local government resources were focused first on restoring those services. 

The loss of a police presence in various areas resulted in increased illegal activities, 

creating a security concern for surveillance personnel, especially for night surveillance in largely uninhabited areas where illegal dumping occurs. As illegal solid 

waste dumping has increased, it has become a serious threat to human health and 

the environment—LDEQ investigators have discovered illegal disposal of asbestos 

waste, medical and veterinary products, white goods, and remnants of car crushing 

operations, etc., in the hurricane affected areas. 

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTS

A. National Plan or Guidelines for Regulatory Flexibility for Emergency Response 

EPA, in consultation with state agencies and appropriate federal agencies, should 

develop a national plan or guidelines that provides for environmental regulatory 

flexibility and debris management necessary to respond to emergencies. At a min-
71 

imum, this plan should provide for a process to obtain and provide authorization 

of activities necessary to respond to the emergency that would normally require a 

permit from the state environmental agency or the EPA. Even more useful would 

be a plan that includes agreed processes, tools, methods, guidelines, etc. This would 

require all affected agencies reaching consensus together before the disaster occurs. 

Regulatory flexibility would include guidance or instructions for achieving compliance under disaster conditions or relief from compliance and how to obtain it. Reporting requirements, for example, are typically extended or waived when the communication infrastructure has been affected or there has been an evacuation or substantial damage. 

The LDEQ suggests, based on its recent experiences, that the following areas be 

included, at a minimum, in the national plan/guidelines to achieve consistency in 

federal and state disaster responses and to clarify public expectations in environmental matters: 

• authorization of necessary water discharges, e.g., from potable water treatment 

plants and temporary housing locations; • requirements imposed on hurricane debris management sites; • selection criteria for debris management sites; • environmental evaluation methods and tools (including, e.g., sampling protocols); and • demolition and disposal operations’ compliance with the asbestos NESHAP, etc. 

The plan or guidelines should also address the tools and methods appropriate for 

debris management, such as land disposal, chipping, grinding, recycling, and burning. There should be studies of these various debris management tools, including 

funding to cover the cost of testing to establish the most efficient methods of disposal of disaster related debris, e.g., trial burn of construction and demolition debris, 

to properly evaluate burning as a tool for disposal. Accordingly, the LDEQ recommends that funding be made available to properly evaluate the various debris 

management tools, including assessment of burning as an option for management 

of disaster related C&D debris. All necessary agencies should participate to develop 

the consensus on each tool’s appropriateness for use. As new technologies and tools 

become available, they should also be evaluated and incorporated into the plan or 

guidelines as appropriate. 

Determination of anticipated emergency response and recovery needs for regulatory flexibility while protecting human health and the environment would allow 

better utilization of resources, avoid delay, and speed recovery. 

B. Lines of Authority and Tasked Responsibility Should Be Respected 

Federal emergency management processes and authority should respect to the 

maximum extent possible (i.e., unless national security is at issue) decisions and determinations made jointly by federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over 

human health and the environment. Specifically, on environmental issues, non-environmental agencies should defer to environmental agencies who have the primary 

responsibilities for environmental protection and are staffed and equipped to provide 

that protection even in an emergency. Environmental agencies, as a matter of routine, must be prepared for and respond to environmental emergencies. 

The LDEQ recommends that the principle of respect for lines of authority and 

task assignments be incorporated in a meaningful way in the national emergency 

management process. Concerns by one or more agencies outside the area of authority or task force should be raised and left with the authorized and/or assigned agency/agencies. Allowing an agency outside the process to interfere with the mission or 

task promotes confusion and inefficiency and could have serious adverse consequences. 

C. Physical Security for Environmental Priorities 

The federal mission should encompass funding for physical security, including 

armed escort, for necessary and/or priority investigation of threats to human health 

and the environment by federal and state agencies with jurisdiction thereof, in a 

disaster area throughout the response and recovery phases. As discussed above, assistance can quickly become critical to combat environmental priorities, such as 

curbing illegal dumping. The loss of effective law enforcement presence in a disaster 

area leads to increased problems, including increases in illegal solid waste dumping 

that can pose a serious threat to human health and the environment. 

By maintaining a visible law enforcement presence in the locations impacted or 

most likely to be impacted, illegal dumping can be effectively suppressed in disaster 

and recovery areas. Tools such as arrest and seizure and forfeiture of equipment 

used in the illegal dumping will serve as deterrents as word is quickly spread to 

the community that illegal dumping is not tolerated. 
72 

Because the amount of money that an illegal dumper stands to gain or save can 

be significant, civilian authorities (LDEQ inspectors) are placing themselves literally 

into the line of fire with the illegal dumper, especially if the inspector finds himself 

or herself alone at night confronting several dumpers at one time. 

Although the LDEQ has a small criminal investigations unit of five commissioned 

officers, it would be impossible to field operations for extended periods due to officer 

fatigue and safety concerns. Additional resources are therefore necessary to provide 

security needs for LDEQ surveillance to combat the increased illegal dumping. 

[Note: Exibits 1—38 to the written testimony of Mike McDaniel can be found in 

Committee files.] 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND VIEN THE NGUYEN, PASTOR OF 

THE MARY QUEEN OF VIETNAM CHURCH 

Mr. NGYUEN. Madame Chair and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Reverend 

Vien Nguyen. I’m pastor of Mary Queen of Vietnam Church in New 

Orleans East. I also speak on behalf of the citizens for a strong 

New Orleans East, a coalition that includes 32 homeowners’ associations in New Orleans East that came together in response to the 

debris handling post Katrina. So in my reference to community, 

whenever I make that reference, I mean both that church and the 

Citizens for a Strong New Orleans East. 

One of the Senators here expressed an interest in knowing what 

is the recovery rate, how have we returned. At least in the Vietnamese-American community in New Orleans East, our recovery 

rate at this point is between 84 to 89 percent returned. Our businesses have returned at 85 percent more than 6 months ago, and 

we are expecting within 2 to 3 months we can say: It’s done, it’s 

over. So that started early on, within 3 or 4 weeks. Our church attendance was already at 1,600 per weekend. 

Now, in the midst of the bustling recovery and return and unbeknownst to our community the Chef Menteur landfill was created. 

And so that you will understand how the landfill is situated. It is 

separated from Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, the largest urban wildlife refuge in the continental U.S., by an 80-foot 

canal by the name of the Maxent Canal. That Maxent Canal is connected to the Maxent Lagoon directly that runs through the heart 

of our community and from those, both the canal and the lagoon. 

Our people have been fishing. Our people have been using water 

to water their gardens for the last 30 years, 31 years. And not only 

for their own consumption but also for the wider community where 

they sell the surplus at the farmer’s market for the last 31 years. 

And when the water came in and breached the intracoastal levee, 

it flooded the landfill area for 2 months and remained there for 2 

months. And then unable to overtop Chef Menteur landfill, it went 

through the canal, through the lagoon and flooded us. 

Now, we were told that we should feel safe because DEQ had already determined that it’s C&D that they are going to put in there. 

Well, we found out later it was enhanced C&D that included treated wood, drywalls that when in touch with water would create hydrogen sulfide, all of these things. And we ourselves, as we gutted 

our homes, and saw how things were being picked up, debris were 

being picked up, we can’t trust that assurance from DEQ. But our 

concerns were dismissed. We asked for a lined landfill with leachate monitor. We were dismissed, all of that, all together. 
73 

1Cotton, Deborah. 26 Jan 2006 From the Ground Up: ‘‘We are already back’’: Vietnamese 

Church forges Ahead to Rebuild New Orleans East. Katrina Help Center. 

But what we have learned in this process is that we were not the 

only community that experienced that. Oakville, this historic African-American community, has the same type of landfill but for the 

last 18 years 50 feet from their yards and at times the landfill collapsed and fell into people’s yards. 

And so with all of these concerns in mind, if I may present some 

recommendations that the citizens of Louisiana request the establishment of and participation in a multi-stakeholder committee 

which will include environmental experts and community leaders. 

The committee will also act as a Federal advisory committee to address problems brought forth in today’s hearing in disaster debris 

issues. It will also identify solutions towards creating a comprehensive waste management plan that includes regional waste planning 

for flood-prone communities and a plan that promotes recycling, 

reusing and reducing technology. 

We ask that the Senate ask the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ Inspector Generals for Federal investigation into an evaluation of Federal and Federally-related responses to debris removal 

in emergency siting issues. 

There are several other recommendations that I presented in 

writing, but may I add also that we request the full closure and 

cleanup of waste deposited at the Chef Menteur landfill, any of its 

environmental releases and its contaminated soil and waters. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Reverend, you’re very eloquent. 

Ms. Subra. 

[The prepared statement of Reverand Nguyen follows:] 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND VIEN THE NGUYEN, PASTOR OF THE MARY QUEEN OF

VIET NAM CHURCH

Ms. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

submit this written testimony on Hurricane Katrina debris removal and related 

matters. My name is Reverend Vien The Nguyen, pastor of the Mary Queen of Viet 

Nam Church in New Orleans East. I am also speaking on behalf of the Citizens for 

a Strong New Orleans East (CSNOE), a coalition that includes 32 local homeowner 

associations originally established to respond to the dumping of Katrina debris in 

New Orleans East. Henceforth, the Vietnamese-American community in New Orleans East, the Mary Queen of Viet Nam Church, and the Citizens for a Strong New 

Orleans East will be referred to collectively as the community. 

I. BACKGROUND

Taking root after the fall of South Viet Nam in 1975, the Vietnamese community 

in New Orleans East centers on the Mary Queen of Viet Nam Church in an area 

known as Village de L’Est. Given that more than 60 percent of Vietnamese Americans in New Orleans pre-Katrina were Catholic, the Catholic churches serving them 

have long been the center of these communities and their activities. This is evident 

in Village de L’Est where, before Katrina, over 90 percent of more than four thousand Vietnamese Americans residing within a one-mile radius were Catholic. 

After Hurricane Katrina, the Mary Queen of Viet Nam Church became the center 

of return and recovery from which supplies and food were distributed to all families. 

Red Cross provided daily hot lunches on the church grounds, and medical mobile 

units provided healthcare to returnees. FEMA, Catholic Charities and other entities 

also used the church grounds to provide their services.1 The church became the 

main source for information, job postings, and temporary shelter for returnees while 

they rebuilt their homes. In addition, the church provided shelter for and coordinated more than 1000 volunteers from across the country to help with the postKatrina cleanup of New Orleans East and parts of St. Bernard Parish. The church 
74 

2LaRose, Greg. 02 Oct 2006 Asian businesses drive eastern N.O. recovery. New Orleans 

CityBusiness. 3Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. April 2006. Justification for Utilization of 

Chef Menteur C&D Disposal Facility for the Disposal of Hurricane-Generated debris Facility. 

p. 7-8 4Pardue, John. ‘‘Anticipating environmental problems facing hurricane debris landfills in New 

Orleans East’’. Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute, Louisiana State University.Obtained July 2006 from the World Wide Web: http://lwrri.lsu.edu/downloads/white— 

paper2006/white%20paper.final.draft2.pdf 5Kemp, G. Paul. ‘‘Geological Analysis of Chef Menteur Landfill Site, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. School of Coast & the Environment.’’ 

was also the center of the region-wide coalition Citizens for a Strong New Orleans 

East. 

The church engaged in political intervention and advocacy. As a result, the community was able to successfully oppose the Bring New Orleans Back Commission’s 

proposal to convert most of New Orleans East into green space. Furthermore, the 

church and FEMA reached an agreement to house 199 trailers on church grounds 

for free, and the church asked residents to sign a petition to request that Energy 

reinstate electricity in Village de L’Est. By the first weekend of November 2005, 

electricity, water and sewer services had returned. By that time, the number of returnees attending Sunday Mass had reached 1,600. At present, 84 percent-89 percent of Vietnamese American residents have returned, and 85 percent of Vietnamese-owned businesses have reopened.2 The Vietnamese-American community 

was the first community in New Orleans to unveil its comprehensive Development 

Plan on February 3, 2006. This plan has since been fully incorporated into the New 

Orleans East Development Plan. It has also been integrated into the Unified New 

Orleans Plan. 

II. ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS

In the midst of a bustling recovery and unbeknownst to the community, the Chef 

Menteur Landfill was created. This landfill is located in wetlands approximately 1.2 

miles from the edge of the community (Exhibit A). It is separated from the Bayou 

Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, the largest urban wildlife refuge in the continental United States, by the 80-foot wide Maxent Canal (Exhibit B, picture E). This 

canal is directly connected to the Maxent Lagoon that runs through the heart of Village de L’Est. When Katrina waters breached the levee along the Intra-coastal waterway, it completely flooded the area. The area remained inundated for 2 months. 

After flooding the landfill area and Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, the 

water was unable to overtop the Chef Menteur Highway ridge. Instead, it traveled 

up the Maxent Canal into the Maxent Lagoon, flooding Village de L’Est. Vietnamese-American residents have been fishing from the Maxent Canal and use the 

water from it to water their gardens. The vegetables from these gardens have been 

a source of food for families as well as the entire community: residents sell their 

surplus produce at the weekly farmer’s market established in the neighborhood over 

thirty years ago. 

Despite the fact that the community was already bustling with returnees and recovery work, residents learned about the establishment of the Chef Menteur landfill 

through the local newspaper, the Times Picayune. At the time, the community was 

told that the debris consisted of construction and demolition materials (C & D). It 

was later on that the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) and the Sierra Club informed residents that the LDEQ had changed the definition of C & D 

to include household furniture, treated wood, asbestos-containing materials, and 

drywall wallboards.3 Research indicates that when gypsum from drywall boards 

comes in contact with water, it creates hydrogen sulfide in the process of deteriorating. Moreover, treated wood can produce arsenic when mixed with water.4 Research conducted by Dr. Paul Kemp has shown that the soil surrounding the Chef 

Menteur landfill is permeable—groundwater can seep up, mix with the waste, and 

potentially migrate off-site.5

The community worked through their city council representative, Cynthia Willard-Lewis, to arrange a meeting with LDEQ and the representatives of Waste Management Incorporation (WMI). In these meetings, the community implored whether 

it was necessary to deposit debris at 16600 Chef Menteur Highway. They then requested the following protective measures: 

A. The facility be equipped with a synthetic liner and a system be established to 

monitor leachate; 

B. A process to be established to segregate debris in order to identify recyclable 

and reusable materials; 
75 

6Louisiana Environmental Action Network vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. District 

Court. Apr 2006. No. 06-2020. 7Nagin, Ray. 14 Feb 2006. Executive Order CRN-06-03 

8The community experts present at this preliminary investigation included Dr. John Pardue, 

the Director of the Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute and Professor at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University; Dr. Paul Templet, 

former Director of LDEQ and Professor at the Department of the Coast and Environmental 

Studies, Schools of Coast and Environment, Louisiana State University; and Wilma A. Subra, 

a microbiologist and chemist, and President of the Subra Company, Inc. 

C. Serious efforts to be made for reducing the waste stream so that what is deposited at the landfill would be minor and benign C & D debris; 

D. The footprint and profile of the waste pile be reduced to minimize the environmental, social, and health impacts on the community. 

The community’s requests were dismissed. Both LDEQ and WMI continued to insist that it was necessary to deposit debris at the site, and that it was unnecessary 

to recycle or fear adverse effects due to the C & D designation. Because residents 

had already witnessed the removal of debris from their neighborhoods without efforts to segregate materials, residents refused to accept LDEQ and WMI’s assurances. Temporarily suspending its recovery efforts, the Vietnamese American community came together with the Citizens for a Strong New Orleans East and LEAN 

to request an injunctive relief against the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ 

authorization for WMI to work on the designated landfill at the United States Federal Court.6 The court ruled against the community, stating that it had not proved 

irreparable damage. 

After filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court, we brought our case to the New 

Orleans City Council. The City Council unanimously decided to call on Mayor Ray 

Nagin of New Orleans to withdraw his Executive Order, which had suspended zoning ordinances and permitted the Chef Menteur dumpsite.7 With this resolution, we 

approached Mayor Nagin and the Director of Environmental Justice of the Environmental Protection Agency—Region 6, the Environmental Justice officer of the Department of Justice, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The Mayor 

agreed to suspend dumping at the site for 72 hours to allow experts from the city’s 

Sanitation Department, WMI, and the community to test the waste pile. He promised to withdraw the Executive Order should toxic materials be found there. 

After engaging in negotiations with Waste Management to access the site, community experts8 and representatives were allowed to walk on the surface of the 

waste pile and take photographs. However, they were not allowed to touch any of 

the materials, as supervised by the Director of New Orleans Department of Sanitation, LDEQ and WMI employees. Although WMI employees reported they had 

combed the surface of the waste pile and placed a layer of dirt over the waste, community experts and representatives found medical waste, carpets, bedding materials, electronic equipment, treated wood, a full bottle of copy machine toner, a full 

bottle of automotive oil, paint cans that were either full or partially filled, and other 

unidentifiable liquid containers. In early May 2006, New Orleans was experiencing 

one of its worst droughts in a century but a constant flow of dark and filmy water 

was found at the bottom of the waste pile (Exhibit B, picture C). This water flowed 

into a trench leading to a pump that constantly discharged water to two earthen 

holding tanks, which later discharged into the Maxent Canal. 

Returning to the negotiating table, WMI and LDEQ required community experts 

to provide a written protocol within 72 hours. The experts complied. Their protocol 

demanded a true characterization of the waste pile, which involved digging a 

50’x18’x3’ trench, cataloguing the materials found, and dividing the materials equally between different teams of experts for independent testing. As an alternative to 

testing, WMI suggested taking an enclosed bus ride to observe two designated 

curbside debris removal sites and following the debris truck to observe its dumping 

at the landfill. Community members were not allowed to ride on the bus and filming 

was not permitted. LDEQ signed on to WMI’s testing protocol. Community experts 

refused to participate. The issue became deadlocked. 

The community then brought its case to the Louisiana State Senate during a 

hearing by the Senate Environmental Committee in which a resolution calling for 

a true characterization and testing of the waste pile was approved. The resolution 

was forwarded to the Louisiana State House of Representatives Environmental 

Committee for a vote on whether the matter would be brought to the full floor. The 

Environmental Committee of the Louisiana House of Representatives voted to defer 

the matter to another time. It was the final pending item in the legislative session. 

New Orleans Senators and Representatives then introduced a resolution calling 

for a true testing of the Chef Menteur Highway landfill. With more than 500 phone 
76 

9Duplessis, Ann. Senate Concurrent Resolution 138 

10Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC vs. LDEQ. 19th Judicial Court District Court. Parish 

of East Baton Rouge 11The latest fire burned for days after Katrina. 11 Apr 2006. Growing Landfill Fuels Feud 

in Plaquemines Community; Residents Cry Foul; ‘‘Dump Defends Moves,’’ Times-Picayune 

calls placed by community members, the resolution passed unanimously in both the 

Louisiana State Senate and House of Representatives.9

The community and WMI agreed to mediation performed by the Environmental 

Justice of EPA Region 6 and the representative of the Whitehouse Initiative for 

Asian American and Pacific Islander Affairs. At the mediation, WMI refused to conduct meaningful testing and true characterization of the waste pile, even after the 

EPA offered to provide funding and have the testing conducted by independent experts. As of today, neither a meaningful testing nor a true characterization of the 

waste pile has been completed. 

After mediation failed, the community asked Mayor Nagin not to renew his Executive Order set to expire midnight on Monday, August 14, 2006. Mayor Nagin indicated that he would not renew the order. In response to the Mayor’s decision, and 

with much hesitation, LDEQ withdrew the authorization granted to WMI to operate 

the site. WMI later filed a lawsuit against LDEQ in Louisiana State Court. The 

hearing took place on Friday, August 11, 2006.10 At the hearing, LDEQ submitted 

a letter from the New Orleans City Attorney written on behalf of the Mayor indicating that the Mayor would not object if LDEQ were to continue its authorization. 

Using this letter as local clearance, LDEQ reversed its initial decision and declared 

that it would not terminate the authorization granted to WMI. On Saturday, August 

12, 2006, Mayor Nagin publicly announced that he would not extend the Executive 

Order beyond the six month period and would instead issue a cease-and-desist order 

at midnight on Monday, August 14, 2006. WMI insisted that it would continue operating the site while seeking an injunctive relief against the Mayor’s decision. In 

order to prevent WMI from continuing to dump, community members engaged in 

direct action by blocking the entrance to the landfill on the morning of August 15, 

2006. On that same morning, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court ruled 

against WMI’s injunctive relief plea. The 16600 Chef Menteur Highway landfill had 

been closed since that day. 

III. CONCLUSION

During our struggle against the Chef Menteur Highway landfill, the community 

has learned populations throughout the region are dealing with the same issues 

with Hurricane Katrina debris. These materials legally forbidden from being 

dumped directly into the ground were allowed to be so according to LDEQ’s expanded definition of C & D debris. Furthermore, landfills have usually been created 

near minority communities which neither have the organization, the voice, nor the 

resources to fight for their rights to an equal, healthy environment. The Industrial 

Pipe Landfill in Oakville, Louisiana is a blatant example of this environmental injustice. The waste pile at this landfill is only fifty feet away from the edge of an 

historic African American community (Exhibit B, picture I). Flocks of seagulls constantly hover over the waste pile and fire has broken out more than once even 

though it supposedly only contains inert matters11 (Exhibit B, picture K). The 40’ 

waste pile has occasionally collapsed and fallen into Oakville residents’ backyards. 

The community has been fighting against this landfill for seventeen years to no 

avail. After Katrina, the Industrial Pipe Landfill took in storm debris which included rotten freezers and refrigerators (Exhibit B, picture J). Now, a horrible 

stench fills the air. Industrial Pipe’s latest violation documents a fish kill of 5,000 

by an illegal discharge of water. LDEQ has given no opportunity for a public hearing on the settlement of this issue (Exhibit F). 

LDEQ’s database reports that there are over 200 illegal dumpsites throughout the 

state. In addition to three major landfills in New Orleans East, there are also twenty-three illegal dumpsites and thirteen illegal automobile junkyards—all in the middle of the wetlands and many within sight of the official Old Gentilly Landfill (Exhibit B, picture A). The majority of these wastes documented range from commercial, household, and C&D waste. One illegal dumpsite, an old composting facility, 

has been burning for more than a year (Exhibit C). Throughout this 7,000 acre area 

of New Orleans East, landowners are rarely found onsite. The state agency thus at 

its best issues compliance orders and civil actions, but often has to reinvestigate and 

turn in another compliance order if the landowner has been evicted or has passed 

away. 

Although the Army Corps of Engineers has confirmed wetland violations and have 

taken recent actions to cease-and-desist operations, dumping still continues (Exhibit 
77 

D). Just this past August, a hauling truck of CERES, a major contractor for debris 

removal under the Corps of Engineers, was found at an illegal dumpsite (Exhibit 

E). Before and after Katrina, the lack of enforcement by state agencies, local entities 

and the lack of a comprehensive solid waste management policy which strongly focuses on recycling, reusing, and reducing before dumping into landfills; and the absence of meaningful venues for community participation have all contributed to the 

grave environmental problems Louisiana has been facing and that hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita brought to the surface today. 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were natural catastrophes which wreaked a lot of 

unavoidable havocs. They become tragedies when people create additional avoidable 

harms to their communities and the environment. We believe that the U.S. Congress, beginning with the United States Senate Committee on Environmental & 

Public Works, can assist in reversing some of the avoidable harm caused. 

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

With the above issues in mind, the community requests the following recommendations to move forward in disaster planning and to protect the quality of 

life for all residents in Louisiana: 

Recommendation 1: Citizens of Louisiana request the establishment of and participation in a multi-stakeholder committee which will include environmental experts and community leaders. The committee will also act as a Federal Advisory 

Committee to address problems brought forth in today’s hearing on disaster debris 

issues. It will also identify solutions towards creating a comprehensive waste management plan that includes regional based planning for flood-prone communities 

and a plan that promotes recycling, reusing and reducing technologies. 

Recommendation 2: Citizens of Louisiana request that the Senate ask the EPA 

and the Army Corps of Engineers’ Inspector Generals for a federal investigation into 

and evaluation of federal and federally-related responses to debris removal and 

emergency siting issues of enhanced construction & demolition debris landfills. The 

Inspector General should also evaluate full compliance of the related laws regarding 

debris removal and disposal activities such as the Resource Conservation Recovery 

Act (RCRA), Clean Water Act (CWA) and protection of the wetlands. A multi-stakeholder committee should be established to review and evaluate this environmental 

compliance. 

Recommendation 3: Citizens of Louisiana request that the Senate ask the EPA 

and the Army Corps of Engineers’ Inspector Generals for a federal investigation into 

and evaluation of federal and federally-related responses to debris removal activities 

in illegal dumpsite operations that may violate the RCRA Act, CWA, protection of 

wetlands or other federal laws. It is our belief that contractors hired by the Army 

Corps of Engineers may have hauled debris to illegal dumpsites. A multi-stakeholder committee should be established to review and evaluate this environmental 

compliance. 

Recommendation 4: We request support from the EPA or USACE to work with 

the state to investigate the contents of illegal dumpsites, to help state agencies enforce and identify methods for remediation, and to prosecute, to the fullest extent 

under the law, parties responsible for illegal dumpsite operations, particularly those 

in New Orleans East. 

Recommendation 5: Citizens of Louisiana request Congress to do whatever is necessary to reimburse debris removal activities that focus first on reducing, recycling 

and reusing technologies. For example, Congress shall look into the reimbursement 

of deconstruction as a viable activity, and the reuse of clean wood. 

Recommendation 6: Citizens of Louisiana request the full closure and cleanup of 

waste deposited in the Chef Menteur landfill, any of its environmental releases, and 

its contaminated soil and waters. 

These recommendations are supported by the following organizations: All Congregations Together (ACT) of New Orleans, Louisiana Interfaith Together, Oakville 

Community Action Group, PICO National Network, National Alliance of Vietnamese 

American Service Agencies, MQVN CDC, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), the Sierra Club and National CAPACD. 

Thank you Senator Boxer, Senator Vitter, Senator Landrieu and distinguished 

members of the Committee. The community looks forward to working with all of you 

to create a safe and healthy Louisiana. 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

STATEMENT OF WILMA SUBRA, SUBRA COMPANY 

Ms. SUBRA. Thank you for inviting me today. My name is Wilma 

Subra. I’m speaking on behalf of Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network, Subra Company and the Delta chapter of the Sierra Club. 

Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita the Louisiana DEQ used 

their emergency authority to allow for the disposal of hurricane debris mixed with household hazardous waste, residential waste, industrial waste, commercial waste and hazardous waste in type 

three construction and demolition debris landfills. The type three 

landfills are not required to be lined and do not have leachate collection systems. LADEQ has stated that the hurricane debris waste 

streams disposed of the C&D landfills are relatively benign. However, the waste streams have been documented by scientific experts 

as being toxic and hazardous, not benign. 

The disposal of these various waste streams in the C&D landfills 

in the greater New Orleans area have resulted in environmental 

and human health impacts. The EPA has primary authority over 

air emissions and water discharges from the C&D landfill and the 

illegal dumps along the Almonaster corridor. The DEQ has delegated authority for air and water, but the EPA has the primary authority under the Clean Water and Air Acts. EPA has also authorized under RCRA, which this committee also has jurisdiction over, 

and these are the wastes that make up the major part of the C&D 

demolition debris waste that is being disposed of in both the C&D 

landfills and in the illegal dumps for those of you who flew over 

the area. 

EPA also has authority over Superfund which can be utilized to 

address the waste in the illegal dump sites along Almonaster. 

FEMA and the corps have exercised their jurisdiction, as you 

heard in the earlier panel, over collection contractors’ disposal locations, quantity of waste and a whole host of other hurricane debris 

issues. Therefore, the hurricane debris issue falls under the jurisdiction of Federal agencies. The Federal agencies could be held responsible for inappropriate action on the part of the State agencies 

and should not be allowed to allow the State agencies to sidestep 

the Federal regulatory authority that results in negative impacts 

to human health in the environment. 

We would like to put forth these recommendations. The waste 

stream must be characterized and must be addressed in handling 

and disposal as it is characterized. It is necessary and crucial that 

all of those waste streams be characterized. They should also be required to be appropriately disposed of based on the characteristics, 

such as disposal in Subtitle D and Subtitle C landfills and not in 

the C&D landfills. 

EPA should develop more stringent siting requirements for debris management and disposal facilities that consider, as you have 

heard, flood plane, impact on flood protection systems, protection of 

water and air resources, protection of human health and the environment. 

We would like to propose this recommendation for debris management: Establish a regional based integrative waste management 

plan that provides for sufficient disposal capacity and waste management options on a regional basis in advance of natural disas-
93 

ters. The plan should comply with all regulatory requirements and 

not allow for the default to waivers. 

The current waste that is being handled at this time needs to be 

addressed in an increased monitoring of the debris for toxicity and 

hazardous components and proper disposal. You should also look at 

requiring DEQ to remove the authority to blend all those wastes 

together. The landfills and illegal dumps being used in the greater 

New Orleans area are hydraulically connected to the groundwater 

and surface water resources that you saw as you flew over the 

area. Gentilly landfill presented to you in figures 1 through 3 in 

your packet is currently accepting hurricane debris. The recommendation is that it be isolated, all of the waste in the Gentilly 

landfill be isolated from surrounding wetlands, surface and groundwater without negatively impacting the adjacent flood protection 

levels. 

At Chef Menteur that it accepted waste from April to August of 

2006 and that a clean closure occur at the Chef Menteur, which is 

the one near Father Vien’s community and that the evaluation of 

surrounding surface water and sediment. Industrial pipe, some of 

the members are here today as an African-American community of 

Oakville right up against the site, we recommend isolation of the 

waste and stop the impacts on human health and the environment 

in their community. 

And then the large number of illegal dump sites along 

Almonaster. 7,000 acres of wetlands is being dumped on. Industrial, commercial and hazardous waste are going in all of those 

dumps. And it’s crucial for—— 

Senator BOXER. I’m sorry. I going to have to ask to you wrap up. 

Ms. SUBRA. It’s crucial for the committee to look at the authority 

of Superfund that the Environmental Protection Agency has to do 

assessments and use the Superfund regulatory process to remediate those locations. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Subra follows:] 

STATEMENT OF WILMA SUBRA, SUBRA COMPANY

INTRODUCTION

My name is Wilma Subra and I am testifying on behalf of Subra Company, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), and the Delta chapter of the Sierra 

Club. The organizations listed above want to give a special thanks to Joel Waltzer 

and Robert Wiygul of Waltzer and Associates for their assistance in preparing this 

testimony. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the issues associated with the waste 

management of hurricane debris resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I have 

been involved with solid and hazardous waste issues for more that 30 years and 

serve as a technical advisor to community groups on the issues of solid and hazardous waste, oilfield waste and superfund. I have served as Chair of the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ) Solid Waste Advisors Subcommittee, Chair of the LADEQ Rules and Regulations Committee on Solid Waste 

Reduction and Recycling, Chair of the LADEQ Review Committee on Proposed Solid 

Waste Regulations, a member of the LADEQ Recycling and Solid Waste Reduction 

Committee, member of the EPA RCRA Remedial Waste Policy Advisory Committee, 

member of the EPA Permit Reform Committee, Vice-Chair of the State Review of 

Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, Technical Advisor to the National 

Committee on Superfund, Vice-Chair of the EPA National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) and a member of the NACEPT 

Superfund Sub-committee, member of the EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and Chair of the NEJAC Gulf Coast Hurricanes Work 

Group. 
94 

HURRICANE DEBRIS WASTE FROM HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA

The hurricane debris generated by the gutting of flooded homes through-out the 

impact zone contained sheetrock and insulation, furniture, treated and untreated 

lumber, municipal solid waste, household hazardous waste, electronic waste, asbestos and many other components. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

allowed the waste to be disposed of in Type III Construction and Demolition Landfills. Type III landfills, unlike more protective Type II municipal waste landfills, do 

not have synthetic liners, collection systems for contaminated leachate, and systems 

for the collection of landfill gas (methane and hydrogen sulfide). Allowing disposal 

of C & D waste in unlined landfills has been based on the theory that this waste 

would not produce toxic leachate or gas emissions. This theory, as explained later 

in this testimony, has proven to be incorrect even with respect to ordinary C & D 

waste. It is certainly not true with respect to mixed hurricane waste. 

LAC 33:VII.721(C) provides the operational requirements and limitations for a 

Type III, or construction and demolition, landfill. LAC 33:VII.115 de-fines construction/demolition debris as ‘‘nonhazardous waste generally considered not water-soluble, including but not limited to metal, concrete, brick, asphalt, roofing materials 

(shingles, sheet rock, plaster), or lumber from a construction or demolition project, 

but excluding asbestos-contaminated waste, white goods, furniture, trash, or treated 

lumber. The admixture of construction and demolition debris with more than five 

percent by volume of paper associated with such debris or any other type of solid 

waste. . . will cause it to be classified as other than construction/demolition debris.’’ 

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality used its authority to allow this banned materials to be placed in Type III 

landfills. The Declaration provided in section 2.c. that ‘‘Construction and demolition 

emergency debris that is mixed with other Hurricane-generated debris need not be 

segregated from other solid waste prior to disposal in a permitted landfill.’’ An accompanying, ‘‘Hurricane Katrina Debris Management Plan’’ states that, ‘‘[m]aterials 

approved for receipt at [Type III] sites include roof shingles, roofing materials, carpet, insulation, wallboard, treated and painted lumber, etc.’’ These definitions allow 

virtually any kind of hurricane debris to be placed at Type III landfills such as the 

Gentilly or Chef Menteur landfills, as long as they are mixed with C & D waste. 

A Second Amended Declaration of Emergency and Administrative Order issued by 

LADEQ on November 2, 2005, further changed the definition of the waste that could 

be deposited in a type III landfill such as Gentilly or Chef Menteur. Section 2.d. 

of this Declaration-which has been carried forward in each of the Amended Declaration of Emergency that have followed-provides that ‘‘[u]ncontaminated construction 

and demolition debris may be disposed of in a permitted type III landfill or a site 

that has been authorized by the Department for such disposal. For purposes of this 

Or-der, construction and demolition debris shall be the materials indicated in Appendix D of this Declaration.’’ Appendix D to the November 2, 2005-which again has 

been carried forward in each subsequent Declaration of Emergency-provides as follows: 

The following hurricane generated materials shall be allowed for disposal at a permitted construction and demolition debris (C&D) landfill or a Department authorized site: 

• Nonhazardous waste generally considered not water-soluble, including but not 

limited to metal, concrete, brick, asphalt, roofing materials, sheet rock, plaster, lumber from a construction or demolition project, and other building or structural materials; 

• Furniture, carpet, and painted or stained lumber contained in the demolished 

buildings; 

• The incidental admixture of construction and demolition debris with asbestoscontaminated waste. (i.e., incidental asbestos-contaminated debris that cannot be 

extracted from the demolition debris); and 

• Yard waste and other vegetative matter. 

The following materials shall not be disposed in a construction and demolition debris landfill, but segregated and transported to a Department approved staging area 

for eventual management, recycling and/or disposal at a permitted Type II Landfill, 

unless segregation is not practicable: 

• White goods 

• Putrescible Waste 

(Emphasis supplied) 
95 

HURRICANE DEBRIS CHARACHTERISTICS

As noted above, even materials ordinarily classified as C & D waste can result 

in substantial environmental impacts. A study contracted by the US EPA Office of 

Solid Waste, conducted a review of the characteristics of leachate generated by construction and demolition (C & D) waste landfills (ICF, Inc., 1994). This report found 

that C & D landfill leachate contained potentially significant concentrations, compared to drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of 1 ,2- 

dichloroethane, methylene chloride, cadmium, iron, lead, manganese and total dissolved solids (TDS). 

Studies performed in the hurricane Katrina and Rita impacted areas have confirmed the findings of the ICF study as well as expanded the areas of concern and 

toxic treats. In the study performed by Dr. John Pardue, Anticipating Environmental Problems Facing Hurricane Debris Landfills in New Orleans East (October 

24, 2006-attached), the disposal of hurricane debris in the Gentilly and Chef 

Menteur landfills will cause three significant environmental impacts: toxic landfill 

leachate from the presence of house-hold hazardous waste in the hurricane debris 

stream, the potential for emissions of toxic reduced sulfur gases from the degradation of sheetrock and wall board, and the potential for leaching of arsenic from 

treated wood disposed of in the landfills. The disposal of house hold hazardous 

waste in unlined C & D landfills creates leachate that enters the groundwater and 

threatens the health and safety of the environment and those who live in the area. 

Household hazardous waste has been documented as being present in the hurricane 

debris disposed of in the Gentilly and Chef Menteur landfills. The degradation of 

sheetrock and wall board disposed of in C & D landfills will degrade and release 

hydrogen sulfide which will generate odors and cause toxic human health impacts. 

Large quantities of sheetrock and wall board have been disposed of as hurricane debris in the Gentilly and Chef Menteur landfills. Treated lumber has been documented as a significant component of the hurricane debris and that debris disposed 

of at the Gentilly and Chef Menteur landfills. The stormwater and landfill waters 

leach the arsenic from the treated wood and the contaminated waters create leachate that enters the groundwater. 

A recent study of hurricane debris in New Orleans performed by the University 

of Florida and published in Science News, February 3, 2007, Quantities of ArsenicTreated Wood in Demolition Debris Generated by Hurricane Katrina (copy attached) 

confirmed the threat from arsenic treated wood waste. The study calculated that the 

chromate copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood disposed of as hurricane debris in 

Louisiana and Mississippi contained 1,740 metric tons of arsenic. The Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 banned the use of CCA as a treatment chemical 

in residential projects due to its toxicity. The disposal of CCA treated wood as hurricane debris in unlined landfills allows the arsenic to be leached from the treated 

wood and impact the landfill leachate and contaminate groundwater re-sources. 

FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER DISPOSAL OF HURRICANE DEBRIS STREAMS

The hurricane debris waste streams with all of the non-C & D components were 

and continue to be disposed of in unlined Type III C & D land-fills (permitted and 

non-permitted) as authorized by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. A substantial quantity of hurricane debris containing unknown amounts of hazardous materials are also being disposed of in illegal disposal (dump) areas along 

the Almonaster corridor in New Orleans East. 

The inappropriate disposal of toxic and hazardous chemicals in the Hurricane debris pose a threat to surface water and groundwater resources, air quality, and 

human health in the areas of disposal and ignores and is contrary to Federal regulations. Such inappropriate disposal can also result in sites that fall under Federal 

authority such as Superfund, CERCLA, and RCRA and will need to be addressed 

in the future with Federal funds. 

Solid waste collection, storage, treatment and disposal activities are regulated by 

State environmental agencies. The water quality and air pollution issues associated 

with solid waste storage, treatment, and disposal fall under the jurisdiction of the 

Federal Environmental Protection Agency. That authority is frequently delegated to 

the State environmental agencies with the EPA retaining oversight. In the case of 

the management of hurricane debris, a number of Federal agencies were responsible 

for making decisions that directly impacted the methods of debris collection, handling, and disposal locations that were used to dispose of the Hurricane debris. 

These Federal Agencies are FEMA, Army Corps of Engineers (404 Wet-land Permits, Collection Contractors and designated disposal locations), and the Environmental Protection Agency (incident commander directing response activities and 

monitoring hurricane debris issues). 
96 

State agency activities that do not comply with Federally approved State regulations sidestep Federal regulatory authority, and results in a lack of consideration 

of human health and environmental impacts. The lack of monitoring and enforcement activities, and lack of consideration of long term impacts will lead to substantial detrimental impacts and establish in-appropriate precedence for debris management in future natural and man made disasters. In order to prevent the continuation of such activities by Federal agencies that are not in compliance with their 

regulatory authority and not protective of human health and the environment, a 

number of changes must be immediately implemented. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL 

WASTE STREAM CHARACTERIZATION AND PROPER DISPOSAL

Based on the experiences gained in disaster debris collection and disposal postKatrina and academic studies concerning the hurricane debris characteristics, the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works should use its authority over 

RCRA and Superfund to work to re-quire waste stream characterization to enable 

proper management and disposal of disaster debris based on waste characteristics. 

Based on debris characteristics, require the debris to be disposed of in fully protective RCRA Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Subtitle C Hazardous 

Waste facilities in order to be protective of human health and the environment and 

prevent the generation of additional contaminated sites that will require the commitment of Federal resources in the future. 

DEBRIS MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITY SITING REQUIREMENTS

Require the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations with 

more stringent siting requirements for debris management and disposal facilities 

that take into account floodplains, impacts on flood protection systems, protection 

of water and air resources, protection of human health and the environment and 

environmental justice concerns. 

Regional Based Integrated Waste Management Plans with Sufficient Disposal Options Require the establishment of regional based integrated waste management 

plans that protect the environment and vulnerable communities in advance of natural disasters. The plans must provide for sufficient disposal options and appropriate disposal capacity on a regional basis that will pre-vent inappropriate disposal 

of debris in inadequate disposal facilities and in flood prone and vulnerable areas. 

The disposal options must comply with all regulatory requirements and not default 

to waivers. 

Planning requirements on a regional basis must also include the establishment 

and implementation of an integrated waste management approach which includes 

the utilization of the waste management hierarchy methods of reduction, recycling, 

and reuse prior to disposal in facilities that meet all regulatory requirements. Require all disposal facilities accepting disaster debris to be lined with impermeable 

liners and have appropriate monitoring systems to insure isolation of the waste 

from the environment. State environmental agencies must be prohibited from using 

emergency authorities that allow waste to be inappropriately handled and disposed 

of in violation of Federal statutes during and following disaster situations. 

CURRENT HURRICANE DEBRIS MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS

For the remainder of the hurricane recovery and rebuilding activities, re-quire increased monitoring of the hurricane debris for toxic and hazardous waste constituents and require disposal of the debris in appropriate locations consistent with the 

chemical characteristics. Require the agencies to work towards the elimination of 

disposal of hurricane debris in Type III landfills. Use only RCRA compliant Type 

ii municipal solid waste landfills that contain synthetic liners, leachate collection 

systems and landfill gas collection systems. Require the LADEQ to remove the authority to blend the hazardous waste and toxic waste streams with the construction 

and demolition debris prior to disposal. 

For the reconstruction, deconstruction and new construction debris, re-quire separation of waste constituents with proper disposal of toxic waste streams, re-use and 

recycling of uncontaminated construction debris, and proper disposal in an appropriately permitted and constructed landfill, not a landfill with an exemption or 

emergency authority. All of the waste streams not included under the C & D authority should be required to be disposed of separately in permitted landfills authorized 

and permitted to accept such waste streams. 
97 

EPA NEJAC RECOMMENDATIONS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) issued a report on The 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes and Vulnerable Populations: Recommendations for Future Disaster Preparedness/Response 

in August 2006. The report recommended the establishment of guidelines on handling and disposing of contaminated sediments and associated hazardous materials. 

In addition, the report recommended a process to insure that appropriate planning 

is in place to identify disposal facilities that can handle waste debris and sediment 

in an environmentally acceptable manner. These recommendations support the recommendations that have been made herein. 

SPECIFIC DISPOSAL SITES

In the greater New Orleans area a number of disposal locations have been used 

for hurricane debris dumping and disposal and have resulted in environmental and 

human health impacts to vulnerable and environmental justice communities. These 

locations and their associated inappropriate debris disposal activities have created 

environmental impacts that deserve individual specific recommendations in order to 

protect the surrounding environment and reduce the impacts on human health. 

GENTILLY LANDFILL - NEW ORLEANS EAST

The Gentilly Landfill was opened in approximately 1960 in the wetlands of eastern New Orleans, off Almonaster Boulevard. It lies directly adjacent to the levees 

of the Intracoastal Waterway (the same levees that were over-topped during Hurricane Katrina) and except for the area that has been filled with waste, the landfill 

site is still largely surrounded by wetlands and standing water. The water table ‘‘is 

at or near the elevation of the natural ground surface.’’ Although the Gentilly dump 

was ordered closed in 1982, the site continued to accept waste until 1986, by which 

time it covered approximately 230 acres. 

Although the Gentilly Landfill remained in part unclosed and therefore in violation of Federal law, in 2002 the City of New Orleans sought to have a permit issued 

which would allow the Gentilly Landfill to be used as a site to receive construction 

and demolition debris and wood waste. The facility never met all the requirements 

for a Type III landfill, and therefore never opened. 

On September 29, 2005, following Hurricane Katrina, LADEQ issued a final decision entitled, ‘‘Order Authorizing Commencement of Operations’’ (the, ‘‘September 

29 Order’’), which authorized Gentilly Landfill to allow disposal of hurricane debris. 

Millions of cubic yards of debris was disposed there post Katrina. As much as 

100,000 cubic yards (one hundred million pounds) was disposed in one day, well 

past the amount the LADEQ now states is the maximum amount that can be safely 

disposed. 

The Louisiana Environmental Action Network sued to require LADEQ to safely 

dispose of this waste. The case settled with LADEQ agreeing to limit the amount 

of daily debris entering the facility and to implement more monitoring and safety 

precautions. In March 2006 FEMA instructed the USACE and Corps contractors to 

limit the amount of debris they deliver to the Gentilly Landfill for disposal to 5,000 

cubic yards per day, primarily out of concern for the integrity of the adjacent levee 

(experts suggest a one in three probability that the placement of this much debris 

about one hundred feet from the toe of the levee will undermine the levee itself. 

See attached report by Dr. Robert Bea of the University of California, Berkeley, October 2006). 

GENTILLY LANDFILL RECOMMENDATION

The waste contained in the Gentilly Landfill must be isolated from the surrounding wetlands environment to prevent further migration of chemicals and contaminants from the landfill into the surface waters, wetlands and shallow groundwater surrounding the landfill. The isolation system must not negatively impact the 

integrity of the flood protection levee adjacent to the Gentilly Landfill. The integrity 

of the isolation system must be monitored and effectiveness demonstrated on an ongoing bases over the long term. A cap must be required to be constructed over the 

landfill and keyed into the isolation system to prevent surface water and storm 

water from entering the landfill and contaminated waste water and landfill gases 

from leaving the landfill and entering the environment. A prohibition on construction on top of the Gentilly Landfill cap any time in the future must be included as 

institutional controls. 
98 

CHEF MENTEUR LANDFILL - NEW ORLEANS EAST

The Chef Menteur site consists of approximately 100 acres of land that, immediately prior to construction of the landfill, housed, ‘‘a complex of open-water impounds created as a result of previous borrow-excavation activities on the Maxent 

Ridge.’’ In 1991 the city rejected a zoning request to site a landfill across the highway from the site. In 1997 the city rejected another zoning request to place a construction and demolition landfill at the site. 

In a particularly compelling letter dated May 19, 2006, the U.S. Department of 

The Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), described the significance of the ecosystem surrounding Chef Menteur: ‘‘[T]the coastal wet-lands. . . adjacent to the 

proposed Chef Menteur Landfill’’ as ‘‘key remaining marsh areas’’ that provide important habitat for numerous fishes, shell-fishes, birds and other species. According 

to FWS, ‘‘[a]pproximately 340 species of birds (including many migratory species) 

use the [Bayou Sauvage Refuge] throughout the year. The refuge supports at least 

one wading bird rookery, and roughly 30,000 to 50,000 waterfowl inhabit the refuge’s wetlands during the fall, winter, and early spring months.’’ FWS Let-ter at 

1-2. FWS also explained its concerns about the Chef Menteur land-fill: 

‘‘Given the scope and nature of the flooding events and the age of many of the 

buildings to be demolished and deposited in the proposed landfill, we believe that 

the delivery of materials containing numerous environmental contaminants, such 

as: lead based paint, asbestos, creosote, arsenic-based wood treatment chemicals, 

various petroleum products, and a variety of pesticides and household cleaning 

chemicals would be unavoidable. Placement of such materials in an un-lined landfill, 

particularly within coastal wetlands, could potentially result in leaching and resultant persistent contamination of ground water, surface water, and adjacent wetland 

habitats.’’ 

Following Hurricane Katrina, Waste Management again began efforts to have the 

site permitted as an emergency landfill. On February 9, 2006, concurrent with 

Waste Managements efforts to gain LADEQs emergency approval of the Chef 

Menteur site, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin signed an Executive Order suspending 

the Orleans Parish zoning ordinance for the site. See Executive Order CRN-0603. 

LADEQ granted Waste Managements request for an emergency authorization on 

Thursday, April 13, 2006. Aside from the emergency authorization, LADEQ had not 

taken any action to initiate proceedings to issue a permit for operation of the Chef 

Menteur landfill. Thus, the emergency approval embodied the only authority under 

State environmental regulations for the facility to operate. The Chef Menteur landfill operated under this emergency authority until July 13, 2006, when Mayor Nagin 

announced that he would not extend the emergency suspension of the comprehensive zoning ordinance for Chef Menteur beyond its original 6 month period of effectiveness, thus allowing the temporary land use approval for the landfill to lapse on 

August 14, 2006. 

The Chef Menteur landfill is hydraulically connected to the ground water and surface water resources in the area of the landfill. The potential for impacting the environment and human health due to Hurricane waste disposal activities in the unlined cell is sufficient basis for requiring removal and off site disposal of all Hurricane debris disposed of in the landfill. 

CHEF MENTEUR LANDFILL RECOMMENDATION

The Chef Menteur Landfill disposal cell must be clean closed. The hurricane debris disposed of in the Chef Menteur Landfill cell must be removed and properly 

disposed of according to its chemical characteristics. After waste removal, the contaminated soils remaining in the disposal cell must be excavated and properly disposed of. The disposal cell must be certified as clean. Monitoring wells must be installed and sampled to evaluate the current and future status of groundwater impacts due to the disposal of hurricane debris waste during 2006. The surface water 

and water bottom sediments in the area potentially impacted by the disposal of hurricane debris at the Chef Menteur Landfill must be sampled and appropriate actions 

taken to remediate contamination. 

INDUSTRIAL PIPE LANDFILL - OAKVILLE, PLAQUEMINES PARISH

The Industrial Pipe Construction and Demolition Debris landfill is located off 

Highway 23 immediately adjacent to the historic African American community of 

Oakville in Plaquemines Parish. A forested fresh water swamp and the Hero Canal 

surround the remainder of the site. The C & D landfill began operating before there 

were promulgated regulations for C & D land-fills. The Industrial Pipe facility was 

granted permission to accept hurricane related construction/demolition debris for 
99 

disposal in the C & D Landfill and white goods for recycling. The operation of the 

Industrial Pipe facility has caused negative impacts to the adjacent environmental 

justice community of Oakville over the operating life of the facility. When the facility began accepting hurricane debris the negative impacts experienced by the adjacent community became extremely severe. The facility has experienced two fires 

since accepting hurricane debris. One of the fires occurred on March 9, 2006 and 

burned the wood waste pile and part of the C & D landfill. The fire burned for several weeks and resulted in noxious odors and smoke and the unpermitted discharge 

of runoff from the fire. The unpermitted discharge caused a fish kill near the Hero 

Canal. Hurricane debris was dumped in and adjacent to the Oakville community 

and wind blown debris was dispersed through out the Oakville community. 

The debris waste streams disposed of in the Industrial Pipe landfill consist of 

demolition debris, municipal solid waste, toxic and industrial waste as well as hazardous components. The lack of separation of waste components prior to disposal 

have resulted in an added toxic burden to the environment and the health of the 

adjacent community. 

INDUSTRIAL PIPE LANDFILL - RECOMMENDATION

The toxic and hazardous hurricane debris waste disposed of in the Industrial Pipe 

Landfill must be isolated from the surrounding residential area and wetlands environment to prevent further impacts to public health and to prevent further migration of chemicals and contaminants from the landfill into the surface waters, wetlands and shallow groundwater. The effectiveness of the isolation system must be 

monitored on an ongoing basis and over the long term. The surface water resources 

and bottom sediments in the water bodies adjacent to the landfill must be sampled 

and remediated to address the contaminants originating from the hurricane debris. 

The soils in the residential area must be sampled to identify the extend of hurricane debris impacts on the residential area. The residential areas impacted must 

be remediated. 

The C & D landfill must be prohibited from expanding and work to phase out and 

close the existing landfill. The landfill location in close proximity to the residential 

area, has and continues to severely impact the health and quality of life of the community members and negatively impact the aquatic and terrestrial environment 

surrounding the landfill. 

INDISCRIMINATE DISPOSAL OF HURRICANE DEBRIS IN THE WETLANDS ALONG THE

ALMONASTER CORRIDOR IN NEW ORLEANS EAST. 

An area of more than 7,000 acres of wetlands along the Almonaster corridor in 

New Orleans East have been used to illegally dump hazardous, commercial, and industrial waste, municipal solid waste and construction and demolition debris from 

hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Gentilly land-fill is also located in this corridor 

area and is surrounded on three sides by these illegal dumps. The waste dumped 

at the illegal dump sites have the potential to severely impact the surrounding environment and associated aquatic environments. 

Federal agencies (EPA and Corps) have authority over these illegal dumps due 

to their locations in wetlands and disposal of hazardous waste. Minimal enforcement 

efforts have resulted in little to no reduction in dumping activities. A number of operators of the illegal dump sites have been referred by Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to the US Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands violations. 

The Corps has issued a few cease and desist orders to the operators of the dumps. 

Dumping continues. 

ILLEGAL DUMPS IN NEW ORLEANS - RECOMMENDATION

The Corps must take appropriate action to stop disposal in the wetland areas and 

require restoration to pre project conditions. The EPA must perform site assessment 

evaluations under CERCLA and require site re-mediation activities funded by the 

dump operators, waste haulers and waste generators. The EPA should also determine if the sites qualify for designation as Superfund and address under the agencies Superfund authority. 

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

These comments and recommendations are supported by the following local, regional and national organizations that have been involved in hurricane debris issues 

since the land fall of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. 

Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) 

Mary Queen of Vietnam Church 
100 

Citizens for a Strong New Orleans East (CSNOE) 

National Alliance of Vietnamese American Service Agencies Delta Chapter of the 

Sierra Club 

All Congregations Together 

Catholic Charities 

Asian Law Caucus 

Asian American Justice Center 

Korean American Resource and Cultural Center 

National CAPACD 

Vietnamese American Young Leaders Association of New Orleans 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I want to thank the panel. I’m going 

to start off right now with 3 minutes and I’m going to be tough on 

this because we need to move along. 

Dr. McDaniel, the EPA says right here that they are doing everything they can to stop illegal dumping. They have testified to that. 

I asked them: Are you doing everything? Yes, I am. And yet in your 

testimony you identified an urgent need for Federal help with 

physical security, apparently including armed Federal agents to 

help your staff stop illegal dumping, especially at night. Please tell 

us why that’s needed, and have you directly asked for that kind of 

help from the EPA or other Federal authorities and what has their 

response been? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. I agree with a lot of the statements that have 

been made about illegal dumping. It has virtually exploded in the 

aftermath of the storms. 

Senator BOXER. I’m more interested in EPA because that’s what 

we have jurisdiction over. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Okay. 

Senator BOXER. Have they done everything they can in your estimation to stop it. That’s what they testified to and that’s what they 

believe. Are they correct in making that statement? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. I think they are with the exception we have 

asked for security assistance. And I understand they feel that that 

is not within their purview. We do have—we have launched an 

issue. We are working with local officials and sheriff associations 

and EPA has provided us with both equipment and additional resources to help in oversight. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. So you don’t have any requests from them 

at this time? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. No. 

Senator BOXER. Okay. That’s very good. 

And my last question. I think, Reverend, I don’t have any questions for you because you were so eloquent and you made the case 

so beautifully I thought. 

So I guess I would say to Ms. Subra, you have recommended that 

the waste of the Gentilly and the Industrial Pipe landfill should be 

isolated and the Chef Menteur landfill should be clean closed. Do 

you believe EPA—I get from your testimony you believe EPA 

should take the lead on that; am I correct on this? You believe this 

is a Federal responsibility and in terms of who would pay for it, 

do you feel it’s a Federal responsibility? 

Ms. SUBRA. I do think it’s an EPA responsibility, because such 

a large portion of that waste stream was hazardous waste which 

EPA has the primary jurisdiction over. And by the Department of 

Environmental Quality allowing all those wastes to be blended and 

then appropriately, in their mind, disposed of in the landfill, they 

have created basically a hazardous waste landfill. And because the 

landfill waste is hydraulically connected to the surface water and 

the groundwater, if it’s not removed and clean closed, it’s going to 

serve as a source of contamination for generations to come. 

Senator BOXER. I hear you. So what I get from this panel, then, 

is that EPA is doing everything to your satisfaction in terms of 

helping you police illegal dumping, but they are not doing enough 

to really clean close this particular facility. Thank you. 
138 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madame Chair. First of all, illegal 

dumping. It has exploded. It is not being controlled in any meaningful way and I would reurge all the folks involved to find a solution that does something about that. Here is just one picture of an 

illegal dump, active operation, right next to wetlands. I mean, you 

can see what is occurring. 

Second issue, Chef Menteur landfill. There are no operations 

there now. I think that’s progress, but I do think there needs to 

be testing and possible clean closure. I believe EPA at some point 

offered to pay for the testing, but as I understand it, that’s never 

occurred. I would urge us to move forward with that toward appropriate clean closure. 

Third, I wanted to focus my questions on the old Gentilly landfill. 

Mr. McDaniel, as I understand it, that site was allowed to get 

material under an emergency order of LDEQ that waived certain 

normal rules or normal requirements; is that correct? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. That’s correct. It had gone through the permitting process. It had been granted a permit, but the order to commence had not—was actually waiting on completion of a few details 

and we opened the site because of the need after the hurricane. 

Senator VITTER. So one of the things it essentially waived is the 

fact that some of the site hasn’t been capped. Another thing that 

is essentially waived is that there aren’t berms, as I understand it, 

on two sides of the site. And another thing that the emergency 

order did is it expanded the normal definition of C&D to include 

things outside what would normally be considered C&D, like asbestos-containing material. Is anything I said incorrect? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Let me expand on the asbestos-containing material. We have in all cases handled asbestos-containing material, 

regulated asbestos-containing material as such and it has gone to 

NESHAP compliant landfills. Type one and two, the non-regulated 

asbestos material and non-friable can go to other C&D landfills, 

and that’s a common practice. In fact, it’s one of the safest disposal 

methods for asbestos. 

Senator VITTER. But is the not correct that your emergency orders expanded the normal definition of C&D material? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. To the extent it backed it up to the Federal definitions of C&D material. 

Senator VITTER. So it did expand your normal definition? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Our State definition. 

Senator VITTER. Okay. There are lined landfills in the area which 

could take all of this and not be out of capacity; isn’t that correct? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. There is in that immediate vicinity one lined 

landfill. 

Senator VITTER. And it has the capacity to take it? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Long-term capacity, it has. 

Senator VITTER. So what is the basic rationale for cutting corners 

at old Gentilly when there are other lined alternatives? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. I would argue we cut no corners at Gentilly. The 

issue—— 

Senator VITTER. Again, just—— 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Let me explain. 

Senator VITTER. Sure. 
139 

Mr. MCDANIEL. The issue is not capacity. It never has been. It’s 

rate of processing. It’s cleaning up, getting the material out of the 

reach of public—public safety issues and cleaning up so that we 

can get on to recovery. And that has been something that we have 

worked very diligently on. 

Senator VITTER. If you didn’t cut corners at Gentilly, why did you 

have to issue an emergency order that changed some of the rules? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. To accommodate the amount and kinds and complexity of materials that we had to deal with. At no time did we 

make any decisions, and they are all very transparent. They were 

done in collaboration with scientists of both our agency, EPA, working with the Corps, and they are all documented in decisional documents. And the facts are stubborn things and you are welcome to 

look and see what those decision are based on. 

Senator VITTER. Well, I have. I guess it’s semantics. When I say, 

‘‘cut corners,’’ I include emergency orders which waive normal requirements. 

Final set of questions, because I honestly think this gets to the 

heart of the matter. Aren’t there legal requirements in State law 

that require people who come to you for a permit to disclose all of 

the operators and all of the owners of the site? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. That’s correct. 

Senator VITTER. Wasn’t that requirement ignored, not complied 

with at old Gentilly as evidenced by records that were recently disclosed in a Federal criminal investigation? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. That information was unavailable to us until it 

became available just recently. I think we are still dealing with a 

little bit of news and not so much facts on that. We have taken 

comments on it. Our legal folks are looking at it and it will be done 

appropriately, I will assure you. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. McDaniel, I don’t think this is disputed. 

There were hidden partners in that operation. They are now disclosed. They weren’t disclosed to you when you gave out the permit. 

They are now disclosed. One of them is going to jail for a similar 

contractual deal, not this, but something else. The other is an 

unindicted co-conspirator in that other contractual deal. 

Now that you know that, now that you know they broke the law 

in not disclosing closing themselves to you, what are you going to 

do about it? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Well, we will have to accommodate that in our 

decision making on the permit. 

Senator VITTER. Does that mean you’re going to revoke—— 

Mr. MCDANIEL. If they broke the law they will not get the permit. 

Senator VITTER. Does that mean—— 

Mr. MCDANIEL. That needs to be established, sir. 

Senator VITTER. Well, read today’s paper. They admit it. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. I have to work with a little more than that, sir. 

Senator VITTER. Well, they admit it themselves so I suggest 

that—— 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Well, there were other sides too, but I understand and I hope you understand, we are not going to do anything 

illegal. 
140 

Senator VITTER. Let me just end by saying if, in fact, what I laid 

out is correct and they broke the law with this nondisclosure, I believe the only appropriate remedy is to revoke the permit, not to 

fix the paperwork and move on. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. I can’t argue that, but I would want the advice 

of my legal staff. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, I was happy to give you an additional 

two minutes. You went an additional three minutes. My democrats 

have said that they would give their time to Senator Landrieu, so 

they are not going to question. 

So, Senator Landrieu, you have 3 minutes plus the 3 minutes to 

match what Senator Vitter took, so go for it. 

Senator LANDRIEU. The line of questioning has been very good on 

all sides because it is a very significant issue. 

Let me start with Father Vien. Thank you for your leadership 

and for the leadership of all the community groups that are very 

concerned like communities everywhere about what is happening 

in the neighborhoods? What is this debris? Where is it going? Are 

there contamination? And thank you. 

Secondly, I will most certainly support your call for an integrated 

task force that would push us to do a better job as a State as testified itself on coming to terms with some of these issues, so I thank 

you for that very good proposal and I will support that as well as 

IGs, investigative generals to look into the situation, because I do 

think getting to the bottom of this is very, very important. 

But No. 2, I would make the point, again, the tons of material 

that had to be moved out of all neighborhoods and communities so 

that the rebuilding could begin was a paramount issue, and obviously, from what you, Mr. McDaniel, have testified, there were lots 

of procedures that had not been worked out, lots of problems. 

Would you just testify to the one or two major issues that you 

would recommend this committee look at for the disposal of waste, 

which goes from things that are not hazardous at all to things that 

are very hazardous in a catastrophe like this region suffered. Just 

one or two things for the record that we could look at and help 

solve this problem. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. The first would 

be, I think, reconciling the authority, FEMA and EPA, who has the 

primary responsibility for making decisions on environmental 

issues. That has to be confusing. It diverted a lot of your attention 

and took us off our mission. 

Secondly, would be it took 6 months to iron out the asbestos protocol with the EPA. We need to have memorialized a lot of the decisions that have been made that are good decisions, collaboratively 

agreed upon, and put them in some kind of——I call it a playbook, 

you can call it guidance, but something so that the next time this 

happens people will know how to deal with CCA treated wood, 

what asbestos materials go where, what can be burned, what can’t 

be burned, what is the proper way to dispose of certain materials. 

Look at——we had six different interventions where we looked to 

remove prohibited materials from these C&D landfills. I think it’s 

a good process. 
141 

Senator LANDRIEU. And you are testifying that that protocol, to 

the best of your knowledge, was not worked out at the Federal and 

State level prior to Katrina or Rita? 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Senator, we have never been confronted with 

that kind of disaster in the past. It was just a lot of new ground 

that had to be covered and it just took time. And it’s not that any 

one was reticent or slow. It just took time to work through those 

issues. 

Senator LANDRIEU. That’s one of the reasons that it’s important 

for this committee to be here. 

Father Vien, the proposal that you have made that is in your testimony that you spoke about today, have you gotten that generally 

approved by the State and the City, as well as Jefferson Parish? 

Because if the landfills are closed in Orleans, the waste is going 

to have to go to Jefferson Parish or to the landfills around the City. 

Has Jefferson Parish agreed to this plan and has Orleans Parish, 

generally the City Council, the Mayor and the Governor, do they 

support what you are proposing? Or have given you any indication 

that they may be supportive? 

Mr. NGYUEN. Senator, it’s going to be an uphill battle for us, but 

from the citizens’ level in Jefferson because I remember, they called 

me up and said: You don’t want your trash, we don’t want your 

trash. So I went over and met with the leaders of two civic associations. And actually what we need to look at, and I hope this committee could begin it, is the overall regional way of handling, managing this that would include recycling, reduce, reuse. So if there’s 

a place where there is a landfill, then all of that should take place 

before. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But right now do you have approval from Jefferson Parish that if we close the landfills in Orleans that they 

would take the waste in Jefferson? 

Mr. NGYUEN. Not officially, no. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Not officially. Okay. Mr. McDaniel, would you 

just speak about what some of your recommendations might be on 

the recycling side? I only have a minute left. Because there is a tremendous amount of interest from both the Republican and Democratic Party about the fact that we really missed an opportunity 

here to really go green, to recycle, to really step up the box here. 

And I know you have been so tied down with just the regular processing, but could you just testify one or two things that have come 

across your desk that we might focus on in the future? Because I 

think we could all make some progress in that area. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Senator, I will agree that I think we need to pay 

more attention to recycling, but I would also like the record to 

show, and it is in our written record, this was one of the largest 

recycling jobs that has ever been undertaken. A hundred percent 

of the wood waste was converted to mulch used for cover, for fuel, 

a million refrigerators, 956,000 E goods, four million orphan containers, quarter of a million small engines. We are processing hundreds of thousands of vehicles right now that are being remediated 

and sent for recycling. So there was a huge amount of recycling, 

26 million pounds of hazardous waste has been taken out of the 

waste stream and disposed of properly. 

Senator ISAKSON. One State. 
142 

Mr. MCDANIEL. So a lot was learned and I hope that will be 

shared with the future in this playbook as well. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Isakson, I understand you have one 

question. 

Senator ISAKSON. Not even a question, just respecting the Chairman’s request. I would like for to you follow up on your request at 

the beginning of your testimony. You probably more than anybody 

in this country could write an evaluation plan to help all of us as 

to what you do in a catastrophe of this type and I’d personally appreciate it if you’d submit to the committee your recommendation 

and your advice, because obviously, that would be critical to learn 

from the mistakes and the smart decisions that were made in the 

aftermath of Katrina. 

Mr. MCDANIEL. Thank you, sir. I would be delighted to do that. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, I think that’s an excellent idea. We 

want to thank the panel very much for your very clear testimony. 

We will follow up on this issue. And Panel 3, Sidney Coffee, Chair 

of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority; Dr. 

Robert Twilley, Director and Wetland Biogeochemistry Professor at 

the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Science at Louisiana 

State University; Randy Roach, Mayor of Lake Charles, Louisiana; 

Thomas Jackson, President, Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection 

Authority-East. 

And I’m going to ask our witnesses if they can try to go 4 minutes. The reason I’m pushing the time is we need to clear out of 

this room. And so, we have very wonderful hosts but they do need 

to have their real estate back. So we’re going to have to go quickly. 

And then I’m going to ask all of us non-Louisianians to just take 

a minute of questions, including myself, and we will give 3 minutes 

to the Senators from Louisiana and that should keep us moving on 

time. 

So if there is no disagreement, I will start from this corner and 

move across, if that’s all right with everybody. 

Ms. Coffee, Chair of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF SIDNEY COFFEE, CHAIR, LOUISIANA COASTAL 

PROTECTION & RESTORATION AUTHORITY 

Ms. COFFEE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and members of the 

committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. 

Our future obviously is inextricably linked to the unique landscape of our coast, both nationally and here in our State. It’s not 

only ecologically world significant but it’s critically important to the 

energy and economic security of this nation. And it’s vanishing. 

Even before the hurricanes we were losing more than 24 square 

miles a year of our coastline. In the two days of Katrina and Rita 

alone, we lost 217 square miles. That’s hard for me to grasp and 

I deal with it all the time. That’s an incredible amount of land to 

be lost. 

Our coast may represent a unique crisis right now, but it’s a harbinger of what is to come for the rest of America’s coastline, vulnerable to extreme storms and the effects of global climate change and 

sea level rise. Louisiana is taking aggressive action and the good 
143 

news is we do have a plan. The State has a plan. And it’s going 

to be finished in about six weeks. 

After the hurricanes, the two hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, our 

legislature did establish the CPRA, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, and for the first time in our State’s history, we now 

speak with one voice on the integration of coastal restoration and 

hurricane protection. Our primary mission is to develop, implement 

and enforce a comprehensive coastal protection and restoration 

master plan and to give oversight to the levee districts in south 

Louisiana. 

While our plan will be finalized this spring, our partnership with 

the Corps is very critical and it remains fundamental to our success. In late 2002, at the same time that CPRA directed us to create a master plan, the Congress directed the Corps to do the same, 

to develop and present a full range of coastal restoration and hurricane protection measures exclusive of normal Corps policy. The law 

directed the Corps to conduct this analysis in close coordination 

with the State. The Corps’ plan is due to Congress at the end of 

this year and that schedule, from what we understand, has already 

slipped about 6 months. 

Our two teams, though, are working very closely together on the 

technical issues, but we remain concerned that the Corps will be 

more influenced by top down policy rather than relying solely on 

sound science and engineering because it’s happened before. So we 

feel it’s very essential that Congress consider the State’s plan as 

well as the Corps’ plan. 

The credibility of our plan is key. We have worked hard to establish a very high level of national scientific review and public participation, and our goal is to provide a comprehensive, credible and 

honest approach to restoration and protection here in Louisiana. 

We seek to balance four objectives: Sustain the ecosystem, restore 

sustainability to the ecosystem, reduce the risk to economic assets, 

maintain a diverse array of fish and wildlife habitat, and sustain 

Louisiana’s heritage and culture. The master plan acknowledges 

that tough choices must be made in how we live and work in south 

Louisiana. 

Our plan also includes early urgent actions: Close Mississippi 

River Gulf Outlet, reconnect the lower Mississippi River to its 

delta, restore our barrier islands and shorelines, modify existing 

water resource projects so we can better achieve our goals, and advance the projects that protect strategic assets in concentrated populations. Adaptive management is fundamental to this plan. It allows us to build vital projects now, but continue to plan and design 

the more ambitious components. 

We estimate the State’s plan will cost tens of billions of dollars 

over several decades and we are committed to see that through. As 

you know, we passed overwhelmingly a constitutional amendment 

that dedicates any and all Federal offshore revenues to this purpose and this purpose alone. And the State has already dedicated 

a portion of its proceeds from the tobacco lawsuit settlement, could 

mean 300 million in one-time money this year. 

Senator BOXER. Could you sum up at this point? 

Ms. COFFEE. Yes. We are up against tremendous challenges in 

circumstance, scale and urgency. We ask that we work with Con-
144 

gress, that you work with us, to find more creative and programmatic approaches so that an average project will not take 25 

years from beginning to end. 

Senator BOXER. I’m going to have to stop you at that point. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coffee follows:] 

SIDNEY COFFEE, CHAIR, LOUISIANA COASTAL

PROTECTION & RESTORATION AUTHORITY

Chairman Boxer and Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing in Louisiana and giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. I would 

like to give special thanks to Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter and to our entire 

Louisiana Congressional Delegation. They have led our state through some very difficult times since the fall of 2005. 

My name is Sidney Coffee. I serve as the Chairman of the Coastal Protection and 

Restoration Authority of Louisiana. On behalf of the authority, I am pleased to 

share with you both the urgent challenges we face and the comprehensive plan we 

have underway to create a sustainable and safe coastal Louisiana. 

It has taken thousands of years for the Mississippi River to create the seventh 

largest river delta on earth and we call that delta America’s WETLAND. More than 

forty percent of our nation drains into this massive river system and through Louisiana to the Gulf of Mexico. The river’s course, both past and present, is inextricably linked to the destiny of our people and the future of our state and nation. 

Coastal Louisiana is not only ecologically significant for the world, but is a place 

of critical importance for the energy and economic security of the United States. It 

is also one of the few places in our nation where the people remain tied to the land 

economically, emotionally and spiritually, through a culture and heritage as unique 

as any you will find on the planet. 

What happens on Louisiana’s coast is vital to the United States. Almost ninety 

percent of the nation’s offshore oil and gas comes from offshore Louisiana. A third 

of all the oil and gas consumed in our country is produced or transported through 

Louisiana, connecting to nearly half of America’s crude oil refining capacity. South 

Louisiana’s port system is first in the world in tonnage. We are second only to Alaska in annual volume of domestic seafood landings, serve as the nursery ground for 

marine life in the Gulf of Mexico and as habitat for the second largest migratory 

bird flyway in North America. 

This incredible, organic, coastal landscape protects these national assets, as well 

as the two-million people who live in coastal Louisiana, many who serve as the support for national energy production, fisheries and navigation. But we are losing this 

vital part of America’s coast. Even before the hurricanes of 2005, we were losing 

more than 24 square miles of our coast every year. In the 2 days of Katrina and 

Rita, we lost 217 square miles. 

In great measure, this ongoing land loss crisis can be attributed to the unintended 

consequences of Federal actions. The construction of levees along the Mississippi 

River for navigation and flood control cut the wetlands off from the fresh water and 

sediment of the river’s annual overflow. Oil and gas canals and navigation channels, 

dredged to support the nation’s domestic energy production and distribution, have 

exacerbated salt water intrusion and accelerated wetland degradation. 

Unless we harness the significant resources of the Mississippi River more wisely 

in the future, the ecology and economy of coastal Louisiana will collapse. If we do 

not adopt a more integrated and comprehensive approach to ecosystem management 

at the Federal level, our nation will suffer as well. 

Louisiana’s coast is in a constant state of emergency. It represents a unique crisis 

now, but is a harbinger of what is to come for the rest of our nation’s coastal areas 

which are all vulnerable to unavoidable, extreme storms and the effects of global 

climate change and sea level rise. More than forty-two percent of the Nation’s population live in coastal areas and these will be challenges that many people face. 

How we carry out coastal restoration and hurricane protection here in Louisiana 

will influence all of our rebuilding activities, from insurance and business development to personal decisions on where and how to rebuild. It should also be a model 

for the nation. 

Louisiana has taken aggressive action. In the wake of hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, the state legislature established the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. For the first time in our State’s history, this single state authority is integrating coastal restoration and hurricane protection and is speaking with one voice 
145 

for the future of Louisiana’s coast. The CPRA’s primary mission is to develop, implement and enforce a comprehensive coastal protection and restoration master plan, 

which includes oversight of the levee districts of south Louisiana. We must also ensure the consistency of the Federal and State water resource programs in which 

state participates, such as the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA), the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) authorized by 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the work authorized by the Water Resources Development Act. 

While Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast will be finalized and submitted to the Louisiana Legislature for approval in April, our partnership with the Corps will remain fundamental for our success. In the third supplemental appropriations bill, which became law (P.L. 109-148) on December 30, 

2005, the Congress directed the Corps to conduct a comprehensive hurricane protection analysis and, at full Federal expense, design, develop and present a full range 

of flood control, coastal restoration, and hurricane protection measures exclusive of 

normal policy considerations. The law further directed the Corps to conduct this 

analysis in close coordination with the State of Louisiana and its appropriate agencies. 

Our State team and the Corps team are working closely together on technical 

issues, but the State remains concerned that the Corps will be more influenced by 

top-down policy rather than relying solely on sound science and engineering. This 

has happened before, most recently in 2004 when the Corps was directed to pare 

down a comprehensive coastal restoration program to fit a $2 billion price tag and 

a ten year implementation window. Therefore, it is essential that the Congress consider the State’s plan as well as the congressionally mandated protection plan for 

south Louisiana that it is expecting to receive from the Corps. 

This Committee should have confidence that the State of Louisiana has worked 

diligently to ensure the highest level of credibility in the creation of this plan. An 

open planning process, involving nearly 50 stakeholder meetings and 9 public meetings to date, with 4 public meetings being held this week, has provided the public 

and stakeholders every opportunity to participate meaningfully in the process. 

Through ongoing national and international scientific review, the CPRA has strived 

to provide State and federal decision makers, as well as the public, with a comprehensive, credible and honest approach to coastal restoration and protection in 

Louisiana. 

The State’s master plan seeks to balance four objectives: to restore sustainability 

to the coastal ecosystem; to reduce risk to economic assets; to maintain a diverse 

array of habitats for fish and wildlife; and to sustain Louisiana’s unique heritage 

and culture. The Master Plan acknowledges that tough choices must be made in 

how we live and work in coastal Louisiana, and relies on an aggressive program of 

ecosystem restoration; non-structural measures such as comprehensive land-use 

planning, elevating homes and businesses, and fully-implementing emergency evacuation procedures; and substantially improved hurricane protection projects—levees—to sustain the way of life that has become so important to the people of Louisiana and the rest of the nation. 

Our plan will also include urgent early actions that must move on a faster track: 

closure of Mississippi River Gulf Outlet canal; reconnecting the lower Mississippi 

River to its delta plain; restoring barrier islands and shorelines; modifying existing 

water resources projects to better achieve our objectives; and advancing projects 

that protect strategic assets and concentrated population areas. 

We estimate the Master Plan will cost tens of billions of dollars over several decades. Last September, 82 percent of Louisiana voters approved a constitutional 

amendment to dedicate all Federal offshore oil and gas revenues shared with the 

State for the purposes of coastal restoration and protection. In addition, the State 

dedicated a portion of its proceeds from the tobacco lawsuit settlement, which could 

mean a one time deposit of more than $300 million for coastal protection and restoration. 

Adaptive management is a cornerstone of our approach. This will allow us to build 

vital projects as we continue to plan and design the more ambitious components of 

the Master Plan—similar to the approach taken in building the interstate highway 

system and the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. We are also committed 

to building science and engineering capacity in Louisiana to guide the design and 

construction of projects, as well as to resolve uncertainties. Louisiana can lead the 

way for others as we literally re-write the textbooks in coastal engineering. 

Louisiana’s effort is not comparable to traditional water resource development efforts. The ecosystem restoration and hurricane protection challenges we face are 

unique in circumstance, scale and urgency. We don’t have time for business as 

usual. To achieve our objectives, we must have a strong commitment from Congress 
146 

to find more creative approaches to large scale ecosystem restoration efforts, with 

an expedited process for designing and building projects. It is our only chance in 

this race against time and against the forces of nature to save these national assets. 

As a State, we are faced with tough decisions and trade-offs. Change is inevitable 

whether we take action or not. Everyone will be affected, so everyone has a stake 

in working toward a balanced outcome. We are faced with the hard decisions of 

prioritizing the components of the plan. We suggest that national priorities must be 

set as well; that a process that takes an average of 25 years to move a single project 

from planning to completion must be expedited. Areas such as coastal Louisiana 

that benefit and impact the Nation so profoundly should be treated in a manner 

that considers the unique circumstances they face and the urgency they demand. 

We are at an historic crossroad—one that presents us with a stark choice: make 

bold and difficult decisions that will preserve this State’s future and the national 

assets hosted here or cling to the status quo and allow coastal Louisiana to vanish. 

We in Louisiana have chosen to address this challenge aggressively, and we offer 

you our expertise in this area, our creativity and our determination to help resolve 

the challenges we face together. Thank you so much for your time today. 

Senator BOXER. Dr. Twilley. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT TWILLEY, DIRECTOR AND WETLAND 

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHY AND COASTAL SCIENCE, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. TWILLEY. Thank you very much. As most of the committee 

knows, water is probably one of the most important resources that 

will define the economic, public health and environmental issues in 

the next century, certainly by 2050. The Committee on Environment and Public Works should not only consider issues associated 

with present or near-term water resource project portfolios, but 

must also look at a longer term prospective of how the nation will 

prioritize this finite resource to achieve a more sustainable future 

given the challenges of a changing climate. And this is particularly 

true for coastal resources that are becoming increasingly more vulnerable to risk requiring new approaches by providing community 

resiliency, by integrating both protection and restoration. 

As an example, coastal Louisiana has long been a landscape of 

rich natural resources and extensive human settlements that have 

tried to manage the risk of occupying an extremely dynamic coastal 

environment. It is the eighth largest delta in the world. Over the 

last 100 years reducing the risk to human settlements and the economic infrastructure has been done at increased risk to ecological 

systems and natural resource capital. Public work projects for the 

public good with unintended consequences. 

This is a working coast. Provides goods and services of tremendous national importance. At the same time we have natural resources that also provide goods and services of equal national significance, such as storm protection, fisheries, critical waterfowl 

habitat, and good water quality conditions. This certainly is a region where corporate sustainability is so codependent on environmental sustainability. 

Science and engineering and public policy must resolve the following three questions in a cooperative manner: What is at stake? 

What processes will work? And what can be done to sustain economic and natural resources? 

What is at stake? You know those statistics very well. Fisheries, 

navigation, commerce, those have been cited. What processes are at 

work? It’s a river dominated delta. Without the river this delta will 
147 

not survive. It is a fact that the 6 million acres that we have we 

can we no longer sustain without the sediment and freshwater resources to empty into our wetland flood planes. It is very important 

that we provide critical resources to this delta to reduce the continued degradation of our landscape. 

So what can be done? And I want to make one other quick point. 

You know, so many times the point is made related to people moving toward the coast. What I say a lot to people is that, it’s the 

coast that’s moving toward our communities and our economic infrastructure. 

And so what can be done? And I want to lay this out in three 

points. First, planning. Planning has to include effective ecosystem 

restoration that will promote synergies with protection systems and 

limit conflict. This is a challenge. We are doing both restoration 

and protection. That means we are looking at structural infrastructure, structural features and non-structural features and how we 

engineer this landscape is going to set the trajectory for the future. 

The present river resources pass this city every day. It’s not finding 

the resources. It’s managing the resources we have. And that requires a comprehensive system level analysis of what we do with 

the river. 

Senator BOXER. Sir, if you could tell us the next two things very 

quickly. 

Mr. TWILLEY. I will. I’ve got two right here. No. 2 is urgency. We 

have to do this now. This is a critical system that if we do not act 

and we do not get large-scale projects moving presently it’s going 

to become more costly and tougher to rebuild this delta. 

Second and third, funding streams. We have to be very careful 

how you authorize funding streams because you end up with stove 

pipes, you end up with inability to do adaptive management and 

assessment, so the authorizations and the funding streams can’t be 

recompeted every year. You have to have funding streams that 

complete the project. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT TWILLEY, DIRECTOR AND WETLAND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY PRO- FESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHY AND COASTAL SCIENCE, LOUISIANA STATE

UNIVERSITY

Water is probably one of the most important resources that will define the economic, public health and environmental issues in the next century, certainly by 

2050. Today, water resource quantity and quality across well-defined regional basins 

are largely defined by highly engineered landscapes linked to a changing global hydrologic cycle that will challenge our political will to provide for national priorities. 

Thus water resource planning through the development of public policy is arguably 

one of the most important features of our national security, sustainable natural resources, public health, and economic development. Ecosystem services derived from 

healthy natural resources support our national wealth, and our society will profit 

from policies that sustain the finite water resources of our continent, and our globe. 

Thus our national priorities and portfolio of water resource projects need to have 

a long-term perspective of providing for a safer, healthier and more sustainable society. And this is particularly true for our coastal resources that are inexplicably 

linked to our river basins. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has evolved into one of the most important 

federal agencies affecting the characteristics of our national water resources system. 

Thus the policies and priorities within the USACE planning and authorization 

guidelines define our future water resources capacity. Based on the assumptions of 

the significance of this agency responsibilities to future water conditions, the Committee on Environment and Public Works should not only consider issues associated 

with present or near-term water resource project portfolios, but must also look at 

the longer-term perspective of how the nation will prioritize this finite resource to 
148 

achieve a more sustainable future giving the challenges of a changing climate. And 

these river resources must be factored into a priority system that properly accounts 

for the value that coastal resources provide our nation. 

These fundamental principles of water resource planning and public work projects 

are very important to policies that address problems within coastal boundaries including: (1) wetland loss, (2) eutrophication (dead zones), and (3) coastal hazards. 

With 80 percent of the coastal land loss of the entire US, the largest seasonal 

hypoxic zone (nearly the size of New Jersey), and now two devastating hurricanes 

in a single month during 2005, the Gulf Coast is a harbinger of what coastal communities throughout the U.S. will face in the future. The issues and policies, by both 

federal and state entities, associated with rebuilding the Gulf Coast are those of national importance, which will require strong leadership in managing risks by more 

properly integrating engineering solutions with natural processes that more properly account for ecosystem goods and services—how do we build both structural and 

natural infrastructure in our coastal regions. 

Coastal Louisiana has long been a landscape of rich natural resources and extensive human settlements that have tried to manage the risks of occupying an extremely dynamic coastal environment—the eight largest river delta in the world. 

Both environmental and social systems have tried to adapt to sea level, subsidence 

and hurricanes to accommodate sustainable development. Now the stakes are higher 

as we in Louisiana struggle with not only rebuilding our natural resources, America’s Wetlands’ of the Mississippi River delta, but also the social and business systems that have been devastated by two hurricanes, Katrina and Rita. So we are 

dealing with the challenge of promoting the resiliency of both natural and social systems by providing necessary natural and human resources. If restored properly, the 

Gulf Region will develop new paradigms as to how coastal communities deal with 

risks and hazards of the coastal zone. But we are developing this rebuilding process 

in a political environment of great urgency, which I advocate requires even greater 

commitment to a few fundamental principles of how to integrate protection and restoration of the ecological-social landscape within our coastal boundaries. 

The loss of wetland resources in Louisiana has been occurring for over one hundred years, estimated at 1.2 million acres of coastal wetlands since the 1900’s, and 

prior to Katrina was projected to lose another 300,000 acres by 2050. These wetlands relied on the distribution of water and sediment resources from the Mississippi River to keep the coastal landscape intact, to support a state known as 

sportsman paradise’. The underlying causes of losing America’s Wetlands’ include 

public work projects in navigation and flood control that reduced risks to social systems by controlling’ river resources, fertile sediments and freshwater; causing them 

to be lost to the Gulf of Mexico rather than emptying into the deltaic floodplain. 

In addition, energy related industries built various canals and waterways through 

marsh landscapes that not only promoted access for oil and gas rigs, but also provided conduits for saltwater intrusion and storm surges. These artificial changes to 

the landscape to protect local communities and support a national economy worked 

against the coastal processes of the river delta causing risks to wetland vegetation. 

So while reducing the risks to human settlements and coastal infrastructure over 

the last 50 years has been very effective; it has been done at increased risks to ecosystems that rely upon river resources for survival. 

The coastal wetland landscape has been degrading for nearly 100 years, while the 

entire social system and industrial infrastructure along the coast was devastated in 

a month by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. There is an urgency to promote the resiliency of economic infrastructure that will rebuild social systems and provide protection and jobs to 

communities along the coast. This has to be done while we validate models and 

their 

assumptions as to the proper combination of wetland resources and levee systems 

that are needed to secure and protect sustainable economic development. This validation process, with intense data collection and proper scientific review, will be instrumental in planning for risks in the future. This planning needs a science and 

engineering program that integrates the theories and practices of natural and social 

sciences to establish guidelines for engineering solutions that promote a sustainable 

and safe coastal landscape. This will require these three sciences (physical, social 

and engineering) to resolve the following three questions in a cooperative environment. What is at stake? What processes are at work? What can be done to sustain 

economic and natural resources? The continued isolation of these three issues by 

these three disciplines among existing institutions will amplify the continued increased risks of living in coastal communities of Louisiana and throughout the US. 

From now on, the public will demand accountability to the long-standing paradigm 

of public work projects with unintended consequences’. 
149 

So what is at stake if we do not properly rebuild both the social and natural capital of coastal Louisiana. More than 30 percent of the nation’s fisheries catch comes 

from America’s Wetland, and it provides one of the largest habitats in the world for 

migratory waterfowl. More than 25 percent of all the oil and gas used in the United 

States either originates from or passes through this working wetland, the distribution point for energy supplies to the entire eastern U.S. Louisiana’s port system, including New Orleans, Port Fourchon, Baton Rouge, and related smaller ports connected by the Intracoastal Waterway, is the largest in the world, including greater 

tonnage that Rotterdam or Singapore, the next largest port systems. The coastal 

area currently provides a buffer from hurricane storm effects to approximately 2 

million residents who live within the 19 coastal parishes (counties). Roughly half of 

the Louisiana coastal population resides outside of New Orleans and depends on the 

wetlands either directly or indirectly for employment in fisheries and the oil and gas 

industry. 

So we cannot abandon either the economic or the natural resources of this region—this is a working coast that provides goods and services of tremendous national importance. At the same time, we have natural resources that also provide 

goods and services of equally national importance. The challenge is to find engineering solutions to risks and sustainability that consider the goods and services of both 

economic and natural resources of coastal regions. 

So what are the processes at work in the Gulf coastal zone that can sustain a 

productive landscape (Boesch et al. 1994). Understanding the fundamental processes 

of the delta cycle is prerequisite to any policy that deals with geomorphic and 

ecologic features of this coastal system (Fig. 1). Transgressional sequences at the 

province and basin scales of coastal Louisiana govern smaller scale successional 

changes at the habitat scale of the marsh. The proximity of fluvial processes to 

marshes shift as distributaries of the Mississippi River migrate along the coast, 

changing the distribution of sediment, nutrients, and salt that control the type of 

habitat that colonizes the emergent zones of the basin. Thus there are continued 

changes not only from emergent to open water as part of the transgressional sequences, but the community composition of the emergent lands changes among fresh 

water, intermediate, brackish, and salt marsh vegetation (Fig. 2). 

As fluvial processes decrease, there is a lack of fresh water discharge to control 

sea water encroachment, causing salt and brackish marshes to migrate landward, 

either replacing fresh water marshes or converting marshes to open water (Fig. 2). 

During active delta formation, such as observed in the Atchafalaya River basin, 

there is a migration of fresh water and intermediate vegetation toward the coast 

as salinity regimes decrease in the coastal zone. Processes at all three spatial scales 

including province, basin and habitat levels are coupled to produce a spatial mosaic 

of changes in wetland cover and composition that form very complex and dynamic 

patterns of coastal barrier system. The result of these processes across the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain is 6,177,610 acres (2,500,000 ha) of marshes that account for 60 percent of the coastal wetlands in the lower 48 states. These patterns 

of coastal processes have to be incorporated in any perspective of coastal restoration 

and rehabilitation. 

The fundamental processes that the natural, social and engineering sciences will 

have to consider include a very dynamic landscape—which requires policies that 

promote adaptation rather than a philosophy of control. New Orleans, Louisiana’s 

port and many coastal communities exist within a changing mosaic of barrier islands, salt marshes and freshwater swamps. Rebuilding after Katrina and Rita 

must address the ongoing and dynamic changes in this landscape—just as coastal 

restoration efforts did before these storms inflicted their damage, as described in our 

November 2004 LCA (Louisiana Coastal Area) report. For the last several thousand 

years, the land building or deltaic processes resulted in a net increase of more than 

4 million acres of coastal wetlands, even with the occurrence of sea level rise, subsidence, and hurricanes. 

Wetland loss is caused by soil accumulation insufficient to offset sinking of the 

land and rising sea levels. Human activities (canals, hydrologic modifications, failed 

reclamation, flood control measures) have caused wetland loss to accelerate; and 

prevented the natural processes to rebuild landscape features elsewhere along the 

coast. Without an aggressive ecosystem restoration effort, high rates of wetland loss 

will continue. The relative rise in sea level is an issue in coastal Louisiana; as it 

is in the Everglades, coastal Carolinas, Delmarva Peninsula, and New Jersey-New 

York coast. Given the high subsidence rates (land sinking) along with the seas rising, New Orleans is seeing now what many of these other coastal communities will 

see in about 4-5 decades. Given this condition, many proponents argue that we 

should give up on New Orleans. If that is the case, then we should also begin the 

systematic retreat of every coastal community in the U.S. Or we can reflect and 
150 

think about a better partnership with nature; rather than viewing these situations 

as some sort of war with nature. This river delta experienced sea level rise three 

times it present level nearly 5000 years ago; and still was able to build wetland 

landscape given ample river resources. 

As for nearly all river deltas in the world, to give up on the landscape and cultural heritage of an ecosystem that has such potential for ecosystem resilience’ is 

a major statement in our political will to rehabilitate natural resources in this country. It is a statement of our stewardship of natural resources without a fight to overcome business as usual. I have personally been involved in reconnecting sediment 

and freshwater resources from the Magdalena River in Colombia to a wetland floodplain consisting of 

one the largest mangrove areas in the Caribbean Sea. Reconnecting these coastal 

processes, while maintaining several of the economic activities of the region, resulted in immediate and extensive response of wetland ecosystems. And in Louisiana, projects such as Caernarvon freshwater diversion, with the Caernarvon 

Interagency Advisory Committee, has effectively resolved conflict in ecosystem needs 

and stakeholder opportunities by developing ideas around the natural pulsing of 

this landscape. Again, finding solutions by managing natural processes to sustain 

wetland resources that consider stakeholder use of coastal systems. There are trade 

offs, and realities of consequences must be clearly stated. But business as usual can 

be corrected to include partnerships among natural, social and engineering sciences 

to build more sustainable systems in such dynamic coastal landscapes. But the challenges of a changing climate means that such trade offs must consider 50 and 100 

year conditions of project landscapes, which will require even more river resources 

today to protect the future. 

So what can be done to provide proper guidelines that balance the risks to social 

and natural resources to promote a more integrated restoration and protection of 

coastal resources along the Gulf coast (Fig. 3)? The key is to understand how to deal 

with uncertainty in such a dynamic landscape—and how that is factored into risk 

management. First, effective ecosystem restoration that will sustain coastal wetlands is to manage and use the natural resources that created the coastal area. The 

present waste of river resources each day is sufficient to mount a very aggressive, 

albeit energy intensive, campaign to artificially distribute sediments to recover some 

of the geomorphic features of this degrading landscape. This may take 5-10 years 

of aggressive use of long-distance conveyance of sediment slurries connected to 

present and proposed dredging activities. Then freshwater diversions, which are 

concrete structures in levees that allow river flow through gates to adjacent wetland 

floodplains, will sustain the landscape over longer several decades. These river resources are important to sustain wetland resources facing natural disturbances from 

relative rise in sea levels, storms, and subsidence. Along with rebuilding the deltaic 

floodplain, there must be an aggressive effort to restore shoreline protection and 

barrier islands. Many of these features will have to evaluate the negative effects of 

existing artificial features of the landscape, and think about reauthorizations and 

land-use practices that can provide opportunity of distributing water resources 

across the coast. Inventory of coastal barrier resources systems features, the coastal 

processes that sustain those features, and the free goods and services they provide 

are key elements of any restoration program. 

The process of rebuilding coastal ecosystems as part of the social landscape will 

require new approaches to adaptive management strategies shared by natural, social and engineering sciences. And this new thinking will have to be adopted into 

our national priorities in public work projects. These strategies will have to deal 

with uncertainties, and establish methodologies to evaluate how services from both 

natural and social resources reduce risks to communities along the coast. There has 

to be conflict resolution in securing resources to support rebuilding the infrastructure of both ecosystems, urban, and industrial sectors of the coast. As restoration 

alternatives are developed to change the ecosystem and rebuild human settlements, 

system response must be monitored to incorporate learning as part of the process. 

We have to accept that not all the answers are 

apparent in the initial investments in this joint enterprise of science and engineering, but there must be institutional commitment that financial resources will 

be held accountable to an adaptive management framework. It is the only way to 

deal with such uncertainties in a dynamic coastal setting. The only worst-case scenario is no action at all. 

Large-scale ecosystem restoration programs must begin immediately, in concert 

with the urgency to rebuild the urban and industrial infrastructure following major 

disturbances. Many coastal wetland landscapes, such as Louisiana, are reaching 

critical points and will become technically more challenging and certainly more costly to rebuild unless actions to stabilize them occur immediately. Following major 
151 

disturbances, the rebuilding process has to look at opportunities that exist to improve protection of social systems—with stronger emphasis on how restoring natural 

resources can provide service to coastal communities. Coastal resources represent 

some of the most impacted and altered ecosystems worldwide and are sensitive to 

many hazards and risks, from floods to cyclones to disease epidemics (Adger et al. 

2005, Science 309:1036-1039). Thus, management agencies need to explore linkages 

between ecosystems and human societies to help reduce vulnerability and enhance 

resiliency of these linked systems in coastal areas. 

Footnote: 

‘‘Every phenomenon and apparent eccentricity of the river is controlled by law as 

immutable as the Creator, and the engineer need only to be insured that he does 

not ignore the existence of any of these laws, to feel positively certain of the results 

that he aims at.’’ 

‘‘If the profession of an engineer were not based upon exact science, I might tremble for the result, in view of the immensity of the interest dependent on my success.’’ 

From James B. Eads, USACE, taken from The Control of Nature by John 

McPhee, 1989. 
152 
153 
154 
155 

Senator BOXER. That’s perfect. Mayor, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY ROACH, MAYOR, 

LAKE CHARLES, LA 

Mr. ROACH. Thank you. Madame Chairman, I also want to add 

my words of welcome to the committee just as a small town mayor. 

I want you to know that your presence here in Louisiana is a great 

source of encouragement to all of us. Southwestern Louisiana is 

home to one of the most diverse wetlands in the United States. 

Within this area the Chenier Plain zone of Louisiana extends from 

Vermilion Bay to southwest Louisiana to Galveston Bay in southeast Texas. Because of the topography, including extensive marshes 

and cheniers, the Chenier Plain enjoys a unique diversity of animal 

and wildlife habitat. It is also habitat for one of the largest concentrations of neotropical birds along the entire Gulf Coast. This 

Gulf Coastal region is shared by Cameron Parish and Vermilion 

Parish. Cameron is home to four wildlife refuges, three Federal, 

one State. Immediately to the north of this area approximately 

150,000 people live in or around the City of Lake Charles. The local 

economy is based on a major industrial complex consisting of two 

large oil refineries, one LNG terminal facilities and 22 petrochemical plants. The ship channel, which travels through the wetlands of Cameron Parish, has evolved into one of the most critically 

important energy corridors in the country. There are two LNG facilities planned along the ship channel. One is currently under construction. A fourth facility is currently being constructed in the 

lower Cameron Parish near the community of Johnson’s Bayou. 

Once completed it is estimated that these facilities will supply up 

to 25 percent of our nation’s natural gas. 

If time permitted I could spend my allotted time describing to 

you the difficulties that we have had in getting Federal funding to 

adequately maintain the ship channel and the resulting concerns 

that this situation creates with regard to the viability and the security of this industrial complex. But we are here to talk primarily 

about wetland restoration. 

The area of southwest Louisiana was hit hard by Hurricane Rita. 

The hardest hit area was Cameron Parish. The damage caused 

along our coast was catastrophic. The towns of Cameron, Holly 

Beach, Creole and Grand Chenier were practically obliterated by a 

20-foot storm surge and many other Coastal communities were 

heavily damaged by high winds and flooding. Thousands of acres 

of marshlands were inundated by seawater killing livestock, ruining crops and doing indeterminate damage to the soil and the environment. Virtually the entire coast of Louisiana, including New Orleans, was affected by the storm surge of Hurricane Rita. It extended all the way to Lake Charles, 30 miles inland, just to the 

north of Cameron Parish. Some areas around the city were inundated by a surge of up to eight to ten feet. 

Over the years we have had several successful wetland restoration and protection projects completed in our area, but these 

projects have been affected by the storm. 

The Cameron-Creole Watershed Project is one of the largest hydrologic restoration areas along the entire Gulf Coast. Before Hurricane Rita it consisted of over 15 miles of protection levee and five 
156 

major state-of-the-art water control structures. It protected over 

100,000 acres of incredibly diverse wetlands owned by private and 

public entities including the Sabine Wildlife Refuge. Unfortunately, 

the system has been damaged by the storm and we are still waiting 

for the system to be restored. 

Other projects are also awaiting repair. They are projects that 

were funded by Federal and State dollars. All of these projects are 

being evaluated by FEMA for eligibility for assistance. 

There are also several water control structures and levees on private lands that have been damaged, but these have been deemed 

ineligible by FEMA. 

My purpose here today is not to blame any Federal agency, not 

FEMA or the people who work for FEMA. What I’m suggesting to 

you is that our problem is in part the result of well-intentioned 

Federal regulations which were not designed to deal with the variety, magnitude and combination of socio-economic and environmental problem created along the coast of Louisiana as a result of 

the hurricane season of 2005. 

But I am here to tell you that as one person who has gone 

through this for the last 17 months that my presence here today 

is a commitment on the part of the State of Louisiana and other 

mayors and other individual local leaders to work with this Congress to solve it and have a sensible solution. 

I think the playbook idea is great. We need to expand it beyond 

wetland restoration to all areas affecting hurricane recovery. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roach follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANDY ROACH, MAYOR, LAKE CHARLES, LA 

Southwestern Louisiana is home to some of the most diverse wetlands in the 

United States. Within this area is the Chenier Plain zone of Louisiana, which extends from Vermilion Bay in Southwest Louisiana to Galveston Bay in Southeast 

Texas. Because of its topography, including extensive marshes and cheniers, the 

Chenier Plain enjoys a unique diversity of animal and wetland habitat. It is home 

to wintering waterfowl, multitudes of species of wildlife, freshwater fisheries and estuarine fisheries and is the stopover habitat for one of the largest concentrations 

of neotropical birds along the Gulf Coast. 

This coastal region is shared by Cameron and Vermillion Parish. It is dotted by 

small communities where the main economic activity is fishing, shrimping, cattle 

farming and servicing the offshore oil industry. Marshlands extend 30 to 40 miles 

inland where farmers grow rice and sugar cane and ranchers raise horses and cattle. 

Immediately to the north of this area, approximately 150,000 people live in or 

around the City of Lake Charles. The local economy is based on a major industrial 

complex consisting of two large oil refineries, one operating liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) terminal facility and 22 petrochemical plants. The Calcasieu Ship Channel, 

which travels through the wetlands of Cameron Parish, has evolved into one of the 

most critically important energy corridors in the country. There are two more LNG 

facilities planned along the ship channel—one is currently under construction. A 

fourth LNG facility is currently being constructed in lower Cameron Parish near the 

community of Johnson’s Bayou. 

In March of 2006, there were five LNG facilities operating in the United States. 

Southwest Louisiana will eventually have four such facilities within a 20 mile radius of each another. Once operational, it is estimated that these facilities will supply 25 percent of our nation’s natural gas. 

If time permitted I could spend my 5 minutes describing the difficulties we have 

had getting Federal funding to adequately maintain the ship channel and the resulting concerns this situation raises with regard to the viability and security of the industrial complex it supports, but we are here to talk primarily about wetland restoration. 
157 

The area of Southwest Louisiana hardest hit by Hurricane Rita was Cameron 

Parish. It is the largest parish in the State geographically but one of the smallest 

in terms of population. It is home to four wildlife refuges—three Federal and one 

State. 

The damage caused by Hurricane Rita along the coast was catastrophic: the towns 

of Cameron, Holly Beach and Grand Chenier were practically obliterated by a 20- 

foot storm surge and many other coastal communities were heavily damaged by 

high winds and flooding. Thousands of acres of marshlands were inundated by sea 

water, killing livestock, ruining crops, and doing indeterminate damage to the soil 

and the environment. 

The seafood industry was also affected. Sixty to eighty percent of the shrimp fleet 

was damaged, destroyed or displaced. Fishermen along the entire Louisiana coast 

have suffered from the one, two blow of Katrina and Rita. 

Virtually the entire coast of Louisiana, including New Orleans, was affected by 

the storm surge of Hurricane Rita. It extended all the way to Lake Charles, 30 

miles inland and just to the north of Cameron Parish. Some areas around the city 

were subjected to a surge of up to eight to ten feet. 

Like other areas of the Gulf Coast, the hydrology of Southwestern Louisiana has 

been altered by man and these changes have contributed to the erosion of our coastal wetlands. Canals and deep water channels connected to Gulf of Mexico shipping 

lanes were dug to support oil exploration and to ship raw materials to petrochemical 

industries located in and adjacent to the coastal Chenier Plain. 

Over the years, wetland restoration and protection measures have been implemented by large and small scale projects throughout Southwest Louisiana. The infrastructure consists of various size levees and water control structures ranging in 

size from small pipes to one-hundred-ten foot wide by one-thousand foot long navigation locks. Virtually all of these structures, whether owned by private entities, the 

State Government or Federal Government, were damaged by Hurricane Rita. 

After the devastation of Hurricane Rita, the coastal wetlands suffered through an 

unprecedented drought. The combination of salt water from the storm surge and 

lack of rain resulted in salinities in freshwater marshes which were comparable to 

that of the Gulf of Mexico. These excessive salinities remained in the coastal 

marshes for a year after Hurricane Rita’s landfall. Remnant areas still exist today. 

Salinity means salt. And salt destroys marshlands. 

The Cameron-Creole Watershed Project is one of the largest hydrologic wetland 

restoration areas along the entire Gulf Coast. Before Rita, it consisted of over 15 

miles of protection levee and five major State of the art water control structures. 

It protected over 100,000 acres of incredibly diverse wetlands owned by private and 

public entities including the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. 

Unfortunately, large sections of the levee system for this project were destroyed 

by Hurricane Rita re-exposing the restored wetlands to the ravages of salt water 

intrusion. 

The Cameron-Creole repair project has been divided into three phases. The estimated cost to fix this system is approximately eight (8) million dollars. FEMA has 

yet to qualify this project under its guidelines. Because of the urgency of these repairs, the Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection and Restoration Task Force 

(CWPPRA) has agreed to fund phases one and two and is proceeding with the bid 

process. 

Other projects constructed with State and Federal wetland funds were also seriously damaged by Rita and have not been repaired-the East Mud Lake Project, the 

East Sabine Lake Project, and the Humble Canal Project. 

The Holly Beach Sand Nourishment Project also needs to be reworked. It protects 

Highway 82 which is the only barrier between the saline waters of the Gulf of Mexico and almost nine thousand acres of marsh along the southern boundary of Sabine 

National Wildlife Refuge (SNWR). Repairs to this public project are needed to restore the beaches. 

All of these projects are still being evaluated as to eligibility by FEMA. 

Water control structures and levees on private lands were also damaged by the 

hurricane. Many of the private landowners and small public entities (e.g. local 

drainage boards) that have applied for assistance through FEMA have been deemed 

ineligible. 

I am not here to lay blame at the doorstep of any Federal agency. Not on FEMA 

or on the people who work for FEMA. The problem is our dependence on well-intentioned Federal regulations, which were not designed to deal with the variety, magnitude and combination of socio-economic and environmental problems created along 

the coast of Louisiana as a result of the hurricane season of 2005. 

The residents of the City of Lake Charles and Calcasieu Parish depend on the 

coastal wetlands of Cameron Parish to support our local economy and protect us 
158 

from future hurricanes. The marshes of Southwest Louisiana are resilient and can 

be restored. If the coastal restoration projects outlined are funded and completed in 

the near future this would go a long way towards helping the restoration process. 

If these projects are delayed much longer, the wetlands in our area will mirror the 

devastation currently plaguing those in the southeast part of the State both in 

terms of urgency and severity. 

We in Southwest Louisiana recognize the importance of the Morganza to the Gulf 

project and the people of Terrebonne and the need for levee elevation after years 

of settling in the LaRose to Golden Meadow project in Lafourche Parish. These matters are important and need to be addressed, just as the damage Hurricane Rita 

brought to Southwest Louisiana needs to be addressed. 

The culture of coastal Louisiana is unique. Its survival depends upon the restoration of our vast, diverse wetland resources and associated productivity. The people 

who live there are strong and resilient. They will recover and prosper if they are 

supported- not restricted - by rules and regulations designed to get the work done 

quickly, ethically and at a reasonable cost. 

The good news is that this is happening in a place called America, a country established by people of great vision; governed by the people and for the people. And 

you are among the leaders entrusted with the legacy of that vision. On behalf of 

Southwest Louisiana, I am here to commit to you that we will do our part to help 

resolve the pressing issues I have presented to you today. 

Thank you for your time. We appreciate your efforts in trying to remedy the 

present dilemmas facing America’s coastal wetlands of Louisiana. 

Senator. BOXER. Mr. Jackson. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. JACKSON, PRESIDENT, SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD PROTECTION AUTHORITY-EAST 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I appear before 

the committee today as the president of the newly formed Southeast Louisiana Flood Control—Flood Protection Authority-East. I 

am a registered professional engineer with a specialty certification 

in water resources engineering. I’m also a lifelong resident of New 

Orleans and Jefferson Parish, so I’m very familiar with the problems that we have had over the years with hurricane protection. 

My report to you today will focus on the current conditions of our 

hurricane protection system as we have analyzed it within the 

SLFPA-East. 

Our authority is over the New Orleans, Orleans Levee Board, the 

East Jefferson Levee Board, I mean districts, and the Lake Borgne 

Levee District in St. Bernard Parish. I would like to address the 

hurricane protection system as it relates to the pre-Katrina authorized levels, i.e. those levels that were authorized back in the ’60s 

by the Congress under the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan and not necessarily the hundred-year plan 

that we have been talking about more today. 

The Lake Borgne Levee District, which encompasses primarily 

St. Bernard Parish, had a disastrous impact during Hurricane 

Katrina. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet levee was virtually destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. It has since been rebuilt by the 

Corps of Engineers to a height two feet above the pre-Katrina authorized levels. However, there has been no discussions relative to 

armoring this levee, which is very vulnerable to Lake Borgne and 

tidal surges, let alone overflows and erosion on the back side of the 

levee. 

The St. Bernard Parish District is also responsible for the internal canals as well as pumping stations. The internal canals within 

St. Bernard Parish, as Senator Isakson stated recently, is clogged 

with sea grass that floated in, virtually floated in during the tidal 
159 

surge inundation of St. Bernard Parish. The sea grass ended up in 

homes and it ended up in the canal system. And the pumping operation through that canal system has been virtually impacted by 

breaking equipment, by clogging canals to flow, and we have been 

unable through our executive director to get the help we need. 

Other parishes have had subsurface drainage cleaned by FEMA 

and FEMA contractors, however St. Bernard is still struggling to 

get these major canals cleaned. 

The lock projects of the locks in the MRGO levees are up to two 

feet below grade and need to be raised and need to be raised very 

quickly. The East Jefferson Levee District was less impacted by 

this storm as were the other two. They are still—the lakefront levees are up to 2 feet below grade. They are in the process of being 

raised at this time under Task Force Hope of the Corps of Engineers. The western divider flood wall between Jefferson Parish and 

St. Charles Parish is up two feet below grade. The Corps wants to 

raise this to 100-year event protection as opposed to raising it 

twice. 

Orleans Parish, the lakefront levees all the way from Jefferson 

Parish all the way out to New Orleans East are again several feet 

below grade as well as the levee that turns south and comes back 

into the Intracoastal Canal. All of the structures on railroad crossings, highway crossings and other critical spots are as well below 

grade and need to be raised immediately. We have a hurricane season coming upon us very soon. 

The Industrial Canal card is the most vulnerable. There is a lot 

of talk about closing the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the GIWW, 

however, these are long-term projects and this must be done immediately. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. JACKSON, PRESIDENT, SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA FLOOD

PROTECTION AUTHORITY-EAST

Good Morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Thomas 

Jackson. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

I appear before the committee today on behalf of the Southeast Louisiana Flood 

Protection Authority—East recently convened Board on January 10, 2007. At the 

first meeting of the new Authority East Board, I was elected President and have 

been serving in that capacity since. I am also Past National President of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and have served for the past year and one 

half on the ASCE External Review Panel (ERP) providing external review of the 

Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce (IPET) investigation of the New Orleans area hurricane protection system performance during Hurricane Katrina. I am 

a registered Professional civil engineer in several Gulf States and a Diplomate with 

specialty certification in water resources engineering. I am recently retired from 

DMJM Harris as Senior Vice President and Chief Engineer of the firm. I might add 

parenthetically I am also a lifelong resident of New Orleans and Jefferson Parish 

so I am very familiar with this area and the problems in storm protection that we 

have had over the years. 

My report to you today will focus on the current status of hurricane protection 

within the jurisdiction of the SLFPA—East, including the East Jefferson Levee District, the Orleans Levee District, and the Lake Borgne Basin Levee District. 

My discussion will focus on the condition of our hurricane protection system with 

respect to the pre-Katrina authorized level of protection rather than the 100 year 

storm level of protection needed for the FEMA flood insurance program. 

I will begin with the Lake Borgne Levee District which encompasses St. Bernard 

Parish. This District was severely impacted by Katrina with the virtual destruction 

of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) levee. This levee has been rebuilt by 

Task Force Guardian to approximately 2 feet above pre-Katrina authorized levels 
160 

to account for subsidence of this newly built levee. However, no specifics have been 

given by the Corps regarding armoring this levee to protect it from wave action, or 

overtopping and erosion on the protected side. 

The Bayou Dupre Control Structure on the MRGO levee must be raised approximately 2.5 feet to the pre-Katrina authorized elevation. This project is being analyzed by the Corps to determine the feasibility of implementing this interim fix or 

proceeding directly to the 100 year elevation. 

Raising Highway 46 crossing and Bayou Road floodgate. The elevation of Highway 

46 as it crosses the federal levee in Verret is about 3 feet below the pre-Katrina 

authorized elevation. The Floodgate and associated floodwalls are also too low. 

The eight miles of the Verret to Caernarvon Levee must be raised to get it back 

up to pre-Katrina authorized elevation. 

All of this work is supposed to be funded with the 3rd Supplemental Appropriation. It should be noted, however, that the Corps has informed the District that not 

enough money is left in this category of funds to complete these projects. As proposed by the President’s 2008 budget, transfer of $1.3 billion to the west bank 

projects without additional funding, many of these east bank projects will go unfunded. 

The Lake Borgne Basin Levee District is unusual in that the District has the responsibility for construction, operation and maintenance of the major canals and 

pumping system in St. Bernard Parish. 

St. Bernard Parish was included in the Corps Pump Station Storm Proofing 

Project which has provided projects for the storm protection of pumping stations in 

Orleans and Jefferson parishes, but no work has been done in St. Bernard. We have 

been told that there were limitations on the total funds provided for this work and 

under the law the authorization and appropriations go hand in hand and when 

funds ran out so did the Corps authority to storm proof pumps. Additional funds 

and authorization will be required. These stations are very vulnerable and provide 

very little protection for the operators during a storm. 

The drainage canals throughout St. Bernard Parish are clogged with swamp grass 

that floated into homes and drainage canals by hurricane Katrina. This grass is 

blocking drainage in the canals and breaking trash rakes and pumping equipment 

and needs to be removed as soon as possible. Continuous pleas from our Executive 

Director to the Corps and FEMA have gone unanswered on this issue. 

The East Jefferson Levee District suffered the least damage from Hurricane 

Katrina of the three Districts under the SLFPA-E. However I-walls found to be of 

questionable stability are located as transitions on each side of the lakefront pumping stations, and have only been temporarily repaired. In addition, I-walls at the 

north-west corner of the District have only been temporarily shored with steel sheet 

piles. 

The 10 mile lakefront levees in East Jefferson are 2 to 4 feet below pre-Katrina 

authorized grade and are in the process of being raised to the pre-Katrina authorized levels. 

On the West Return Floodwall along the St. Charles/Jefferson Parish line from 

Armstrong Airport north to the Lakefront the I-wall sections of this floodwall have 

been or are in the process of being improved with interim protection only. This entire section of floodwall is approximately two feet below the pre-Katrina authorized 

levels. It is our understanding that the Corps plans to raise this floodwall only once 

to the 100 year level. In the meantime this long section of protection is two feet 

below pre-Katrina authorized levels during the coming storm season. 

The levee along the 17th Street Canal from the temporary gates and pumps at 

the lakefront to Pumping Station number 6 is constructed of I-wall and has been 

declared to be safe only up to a maximum water level of 6.0. This flood wall is still 

of concern during the operation of Pumping Station 6 and the lakefront temporary 

pumps during hurricane tidal surge. 

In Orleans Parish, the outfall canal levee and I-walls along 17th Street Canal, 

and the London Ave. Canal were breached during Katrina. Temporary closures are 

in place and temporary floodgates built at the lakefront to prevent hurricane tidal 

surges from entering these canals. However, pumping operations during storm 

surges will raise these canal levels at or near the maximum water levels against 

these floodwalls that are considered safe with a factor of safety of $1.3 billion. Permanent pumping stations and floodwalls are needed to alleviate this temporary fix. 

This project has been postponed pending the decision on the President’s request to 

transfer $1.3 billion to the west bank projects. Planning and construction of these 

projects at the three outfall canals is vital to the ultimate protection of the community, and funding must be restored or replaced as soon as possible. 

The 5.2 miles of lakefront levees in Orleans parish west of the IHNC are approximately 1 to 2 feet below pre-Katrina authorized levels. The 12 mile lakefront levee 
161 

from the Lakefront Airport to South Point also needs to be raised 1 to 2 feet to bring 

it to pre-Katrina authorized levels. 

In addition, the 13 mile levee south of South Point along Bayou Sauvage and then 

back west along the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway (GIWW) to the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (IHNC) needs to be raised 1 to 2 feet to bring it up to the pre-Katrina 

authorized level. Highway 11, highway 90 and the CSX railroad floodgates all need 

to be raised as much as 5 feet. 

The Corps is completing the last of three earthen levee raisings on the IHNC to 

meet pre-Katrina authorized level. There are sections of I-walls that have subsided 

on the IHNC, but weren’t damaged by the storms. TFG replaced breeched floodwalls 

on the IHNC with new T-walls which are designed to hold water all the way to the 

top of the wall. The older remaining I-walls were only designed to hold water with 

a 2 foot free board at the top. The new T-wall was built to the new datum, which 

was up to 2 feet higher than the old datum, so in the end we have a new T-wall 

next to an old I-wall with the T-wall able to hold back 4 to 5 feet more water than 

the older I-wall. Should we have another storm there is a potential that the older 

lower I-wall could fail or be over topped during the next storm. 

The IHNC corridor must be closed from hurricane tidal surges to provide preKatrina authorized level of protection. The Corps has developed plans to accomplish 

this with gate closures across the GIWW and MRGO and the IHNC at Lake Pontchartrain. These gates are still in the planning stages with construction starts 

scheduled for the fall of 2008, providing funding is available. Meanwhile, the protection along this corridor is spotty at best. 

While this report paints a rather bleak picture, the Corps is proceeding to complete pre-Katrina authorized protection under the Task Force Hope program. Funding has now become an issue because of the inflated costs of construction in the 

area, post Katrina. 

It is urgent that the congress provide additional funding for completing the preKatrina authorized level of protection this year. Funding for the 100 year event 

must be approved and that program started immediately. The Corps must be given 

flexibility in spending within the jurisdiction of the SLFPA-E so that sufficient protection can be constructed as soon as possible. 

Many floodwalls should not be raised twice, once to pre-Katrina and then to 100 

year levels. They must be raised immediately to the 100 year level as soon as that 

elevation is established by the IPET scientists. Until then, the protection for the 

New Orleans East Bank area is less than Congress authorized with the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection Plan in the 1960’s. The people of this 

community deserve better. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this report on the status of the hurricane protection system for the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority— 

East. I will be happy to answer any questions at the proper time. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. Here is what we are going 

to do. I’m going to pass and I hope and I urge all non-Louisianians 

to pass this around so we can give five minutes apiece to our Louisiana Senators who are just dying to ask questions. And then each 

of us will have 30 seconds to make a closing comment so that’s how 

we are going to do this. All right? 

So, Senator Vitter, 5 minutes. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madame Chair, and I will be brief, 

in less than 5 minutes. 

Mayor Roach, nationally when we talk about coastal erosion, 

there is a tendency to focus in Louisiana, on southeast Louisiana 

where perhaps the rates of erosio are higher, but explain to us the 

very significant impact it’s having and that growing impact on 

southwest Louisiana. 

Mr. ROACH. Senator Vitter, for years we have been supporting 

the efforts of the State to focus on southeast Louisiana. As a result 

of Hurricane Rita I’m concerned that we ar not going to be able to 

sit quiet much longer, because of the storm surge of Hurricane 

Rita, the saltwater that came into the marshes and has stayed 

there over a year and in some areas it’s still present. The deterioration of the marshes is now getting to a critical level and that’s why 
162 

the projects that I tried to outline to the committee earlier are so 

important to get funded, because those projects were protecting 

areas, those projects have been destroyed and now we are having 

an accelerated rate of deterioration in those marshes which will 

mirror what is happening in southeast Louisiana if we don’t get a 

handle on that pretty quick. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Jackson, do you share my and others very strong concerns with this administration proposal to shift $1.3 billion of funding between projects and not to immediately add new money to that ongoing work? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, I do, Senator. My board debated that issue for 

over three hours and passed a resolution that we strongly oppose 

that transfer of funds because there are many critical projects on 

the east bank of the river that this was dedicated to that will go 

uncompleted. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

And finally, Dr. Twilley, how would you rate the success of Davis 

Pond and Canarvon and what do we have to do different or better 

or bigger? 

Mr. TWILLEY. We could have a huge impact, I think, on coastal 

restoration in this State just by reauthorizing every water control 

structure that now exists. It wouldn’t cost a penny. And what you 

would have to put in that language to say that those water control 

structures are to effectively help sustain and stabilize this coastal 

landscape. 

If you look at the original legislation for Canarvon and I’m not 

certain about Davis Pond, but I think this is true, that they were 

for salinity control, not to build land. We have to reauthorize those 

so that whoever owns them and has a title is held accountable that 

they are operated to restore the landscape and then there is accountability to do what you are just recommending. Right now you 

can’t because authorization doesn’t require it. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Madame Chair, and I 

will yield my time, two minutes and 15 seconds under. 

Senator BOXER. All right. Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I would like to follow up, Dr. Twilley, with 

that, because there are many skeptics in Washington that we continue unfortunately to hear from that go along something like: It 

can’t be done. Why start a project that won’t have any hope? How 

are we going to restore the wetlands? So could you just give us one 

minute of your best why and how and what is working and the fact 

that the science shows that we have made a lot of progress in that 

area. 

Mr. TWILLEY. Well, my comments will have some fundamental 

assumptions that we are still working on, but one is, is that for 

4,000 years this coastline was sustainable. It was the human settlement and the misuse of the river that started the decline and 

degradation. During that 4,000 years there was subsidence. During 

this 4,000 years there were hurricanes. During this 4,000 years 

there was sea level rise. In fact, some scientists and some models 

say the sea level rise may have been three times higher than it is 

today. My point is, given the proper river resources, this coastline 

is sustainable even with those complications, but it’s going to re-
163 

quire a huge commitment and tradeoffs related to putting those 

river resources back into the flood planes of this State and maintain the economic viability that we all are also going to demand. 

But it’s not just coastal Louisiana. It’s coastal North Carolina. 

It’s the eastern shore of Maryland. It’s Rhode Island. It’s everywhere you are faced with infrastructure, engineering, economic resources and sustainability of natural landscape. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I would like to follow up with, as this committee knows well, that navigation was the driving force, channelization of rivers and navigation with some thought given to flood 

protection and virtually no thought given to the sustainment of the 

wetlands that in large measure by the nature of a port surround 

port infrastructure. Ports are not built on the tops of mountains, 

obviously. They are built close to the seashore. 

So Reauthorizing, Madame Chair, which this committee is tasked 

to do, could really move this country forward, not just for this coast 

but for all coasts in America that really depend on us to take a new 

look. 

Mr. Jackson, I wanted to ask you, you have been just new on 

board and your testimony was really music to our ears. Our members don’t realize it’s been a long time waiting for one person to 

walk to that table to speak for a group of levee boards now working 

together. But how are you being received by Orleans officials, Jefferson officials and St. Bernard officials to date? And I know it’s 

early, but would you describe the level of cooperation that you are 

experiencing from those three parishes as very good, moderate or 

not so good? 

Mr. JACKSON. Senator, I’m happy to report that I would classify 

it as excellent. I happen to have known a lot of these officials prior 

to taking on this position and their cooperation has been excellent: 

St. Bernard Parish and their parish president, as well as Jefferson 

Parish and their president. Our dealings with the City of New Orleans have been through the New Orleans Sewerage and Water 

Board, and I have got a long-term relationship, so perhaps my 

prior relationships have helped that cooperation. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mayor Roach, just finally, can you just give 

30 seconds on—you touched on this briefly, but the significance of 

this energy coast in southwest Louisiana? We think about it only 

out of central or southeast, but what is happening with these liquefied natural gas plants now and how is the lack of money for additional and appropriate dredging hampering our abilities to get natural gas into the country? 

Mr. ROACH. Madame Senator, the problem we are experiencing 

in southwest Louisiana, especially along the Ship Channel, has to 

do with the dredging and the maintenance of that ship channel. It 

is at critical levels—it was at critical levels before Hurricane Rita. 

It is now worse as a result of that. And what happens is not only 

the channel becomes shallower, it also becomes narrower. And if 

you know anything about LNG boats, you understand that those 

ships don’t move well under those conditions. And we are just 

going to have increased pressure as a result of not only LNG, but 

the two refineries that are being supported by that channel. 

So we have to balance the maintenance of that channel with the 

preservation of the wetlands. We were able to, I think, get that bal-
164 

ance before Rita, but as a result of the problems we are experiencing now with the Cameron-Creole Watershed Project in particular, we are going to, I think, risk a significant disruption of 

those wetlands. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I know the committee members know this, 

but I will finalize with this. That the whole country needs more 

natural gas now, today. We have ships coming into Louisiana because we permit these sites when others won’t. We want to get this 

natural gas into the country. 

But, Madame Chair, because there is not enough money in the 

Corps of Engineers’ budget for the appropriate kind of dredging 

and then support of the wetlands, we are light loading ships. 

Now, we have enough natural gas to keep the lights on. The 

question is: Does Maryland? Does Rhode Island? Does California? 

So these ships are trying to get to you all and we don’t have the 

resources here to manage this coast in a way that helps move these 

products, move these ships and keeps the people safe that happen 

to live on both sides of these canals. 

Mr. ROACH. And, Madame Senator, WRDA can help us in that 

regard. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Mr. ROACH. If the committee can help us with that, we’d appreciate it. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I will yield back my time. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

So we will come to 30-second closing statements. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Madame Chair, I just want to end where I 

began thanking you and the entire committee, particularly those 

folks here, for making the trip down and really seeing this firsthand, hearing about it firsthand, but seeing it outside of this building firsthand. I think it’s enormously important and I’m very hopeful that’s going to bear fruit this year, and I’m hopeful the first 

fruit it will bear is passing the WRDA bill. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator.Senator Landrieu. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Again a call to pass the WRDA 

bill as soon as we can, to move that bill which is critical. I believe 

the State has made tremendous progress in the consolidation of the 

levee boards, in the development of a master plan that recognizes 

all of the great strengths and challenges of this coast, but, Madame 

Chair, as this committee has pointed out, while the tragedy struck 

here in Katrina and Rita for Louisiana, it could strike and will 

strike somewhere else. So let’s get these lessons learned, learn how 

to move through the red tape to build a better levee system, better 

coastal system and prevent this from happening in the future so 

that we can encourage the community here in New Orleans and 

Louisiana. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator.Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you. I think what Dr. Twilley and 

Mayor Roach really said the challenge is to balance our economic 

interests and our environmental interests so that they can survive 

together and the first step in doing that is passing WRDA and I 

remain committed to doing to it so to see that we get it done. 

Thank you, Madame Chairman. 
165 

Senator BOXER. Thank you.Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madame Chair. First, I believe that 

the strength of the community starts with its neighborhoods and 

there are too many sparsely populated communities here in New 

Orleans. And there are multiple problems for people coming back, 

but it starts with safety. We want to make sure that it’s safe to 

bring your family back. That’s why it’s so important for us to get 

it right in regards to the levees, in regards to the canals and in regards to the buffer zones. I think it’s critically important that we 

do that. 

I will just make one final point. In Maryland we did Poplar Island for a dredge site that broke a lot of the rules because it cost 

more money, but provided for us to have a buffer zone, in addition 

to a site for dredge material as well as wetland preservation and 

coastland preservation. So I think we need to look at ways in which 

we can be creative in helping this community. 

And I just want to thank again Senator Landrieu and Senator 

Vitter. You are correct. We need to be here. We thank you for the 

invitation. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Madame Chair, and to our two 

host Senators for bringing us here. 

I think one of the most hopeful things I heard today was you, Dr. 

Twilley, talking about how we could save this coastline. But also, 

the other piece of what you talked about was how this has to be 

a collective effort as you referenced the other coastlines in the 

United States. I talked about earlier Minnesota and how we are integrally interrelated here. 

I also noted, Ms. Coffee, how you talked about in your testimony 

that this is a race against time and that it is all of our responsibility. And that’s what I will take away from this hearing. In Al 

Gore’s book he ends with a quote from Omar Bradley and he said: 

We need to stop steering our ships, not by the lights of each passing ship, but by the stars. And so I will come away from this knowing that we need an integrated plan, but that you are all devoted 

to that. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. One of the 

reasons I chose to come down was because I attended my first 

State of the Union address as a new U.S. Senator and I listened 

for two words that I did not hear in President Bush’s State of the 

Union address. I did not hear the word ‘‘Katrina’’ spoken and I did 

not here the word ‘‘New Orleans’’ spoken. And I’m concerned that 

that might lead people to conclude that we in Washington think 

that the need for Federal attention to this is over and that New 

Orleans can safely be forgotten. And I’m just here to say that we 

admire your courage and resiliency in dealing with this here a year 

and a half later, and still working so hard. We do not believe, at 

least in the Senate, that the need for Federal attention to New Orleans is over, and you are certainly not forgotten. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you Senator, for those statements. 

I want to close by saying I agree with the statements of all my 

colleagues and, of course, I will add a couple of more thank you. 
166 

Again, thank you to the Court for the beautiful room. I want to 

thank the Corps for the fine tour they gave us both last night and 

this morning. Very important to see these things and understand 

it better. 

Thank you to the witnesses. I know I was kind of forcing you to 

be quick. I’m sorry about that, but that’s just the way it goes. And 

you were succinct but you were understood. 

For me, this has been invaluable and very clearly Louisiana still 

needs us, still needs our help. And as long as I have the chairmanship—and one never knows from day to day because the Senate is 

so closely divided. Another day it could be Senator Inhofe. Today 

it’s Senator Boxer. As long as I have this gavel I will never forget 

what I saw here today and I know that I have work to do with your 

two Senators and with the members of this committee who I thank 

so much for coming. This was just a—just so you know, this is an 

unusually high turnout of Senators. As Senator Vitter said, seven 

percent of the Senate here with you today. 

But in addition to saying that I want to make the smart investments that we have to make, I want to be specific about what I’m 

going to do, because I think a lot of times it’s just rhetoric and I 

want to be clear. All of us have spoken for the need for the WRDA 

bill, the Water Resources Development Act. I commit to you it will 

be marked up by the end of March. That is a committment. I commit to you that I will work with your two Senators to get it brought 

up on the floor and get it done as soon as possible, so that’s one 

thing. 

I will work on this MRGO problem because I think we need to. 

I was saying, you know, when Mr. Woodley, my friend, said, we already know a lot of what we have to do. It reminded me of when 

they are testing a new drug to see if it really works, say, on cancer 

or something. Then after a certain time they say: Well, we know 

the answer, it works, so we are going to stop the testing and we 

are moving forward. It seems to me you know the answer, so let’s 

get on with it. 

I’m going to keep my eye on the $1.3 billion because I think 

that’s really in many ways to me a moral issue. If something was 

an emergency once, it’s still an emergency and we just can’t say we 

are doing something when we go to the regular budget process. 

And we are going to work on levees. We are going on work on 

pumps. We are going to work on gates. We are going to do all these 

things, and we are going to do it with your two Senators and the 

leadership that they have shown. 

And to all of you here, thank you for coming. I hope we have restored a sense of hope if you have lost any. As Senator Whitehouse 

said, believe me, your two Senators don’t let us forget you, not for 

5 minutes. Whether it’s in committees, whether it’s at lunch, 

whether it’s walking through the halls or meeting one of them in 

the elevator, believe me, they have you front and center. 

So with that I’m going to say thank you for your hospitality and 

this hearing is closing at this time. 

[Whereupon, the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.] 

[Note: Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana; 

Integrated Ecosystem Restoration and Hurricane Protection: Lou-
167 

isiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast can be 

found in Committee files.] 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 

Æ