Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks council for an update on water and sewer consent decree; staff to provide follow-up
Summary
At the Shreveport City Council meeting a resident, Mercer Clark, asked for a status update on the city’s consent decree obligations for the water and sewer system; council staff asked him to leave written questions and staff agreed to meet to provide answers.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water Sewer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mercer Clark asked the Shreveport City Council for a detailed update on the city’s obligations and progress under the federal consent decree governing the water and sewer system, including whether the city has completed inspections, repairs and a hydraulic model and whether required reports have been filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
Clark listed six areas of inquiry he wanted addressed: system-wide analysis and repair of sewer defects across multiple phases of the consent-decree work; reassessment and repair in later phases; development of a computerized hydraulic model; conveyance and treatment-plant improvements; implementation of capacity-management and preventive-maintenance programs (including FOG controls, root control, private lateral rehabilitation and overflow response); and compliance with reporting and civil-penalty obligations.
The clerk cut Clark’s time short and asked him to leave the written questions so the water and sewer department could respond. City staff arranged for an in-person follow-up: a city official asked Brandon to meet Clark after the meeting to get his questions answered and later told Clark that staff would provide written answers.
Why it matters: Clark framed the questions as ones that affect “thousands of water and sewer customers,” and he tied the consent-decree work back to previous bond propositions for utility financing. The transcript shows the council requested staff follow up by meeting with Clark and preparing written responses rather than answering the full set of technical questions during the public-comment period.
The meeting did not include a staff presentation of the consent-decree schedule or final written report; the clerk and staff agreed to collect Clark’s written questions and deliver a formal update.

