Calcasieu Parish jurors reject ordinance to require parish takeover of community sewer systems

On Jan. 9 the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury defeated an ordinance that would have required community sewer systems for new residential subdivisions and provided for their turnover to the police jury, voting 6 in favor and 8 against.

The ordinance, presented to the jury by a staff member, would have required community systems for all new major and minor residential subdivisions and included a six-month up to two‑year grace period for projects already in the development pipeline. Staff said it also removed a previously proposed transfer fee and language requiring parish SCADA monitoring from the draft while publishing a baseline spec for systems the parish would accept.

The measure drew more than a dozen public speakers and sustained debate among jurors about who should pay for infrastructure, whether the parish would be inheriting a “pig in a sack,” and whether a mandatory transfer without a repayment mechanism would amount to an uncompensated taking. Developer and business representatives told the jury that forcing turnover without a cooperative payback structure would be unfair; regulators and former state wastewater staff warned the jury that failing systems pose public-health and environmental risks.

Alan Wainwright, identified in the meeting as the presenter for staff, summarized the ordinance’s core provisions and the staff recommendations: “a, it requires a community systems be built for all new residential subdivisions, majors and minors. It requires that they be turned over to the police jury with the rest of the infrastructure that comes to the police jury as part of that development.” Wainwright said the draft included a path for existing systems and removal of some costly specifications, but warned that long-term management would be complicated: “it’s just gonna be hard for the future staffs of Calcasieu Parish to work through making managing that and doing it.”

Michael Williamson, who said he represents a group of business owners and developers, told jurors the proposal amounted to an uncompensated taking: “what the parish is proposing is that they pay to build it, and the parish takes it. And they don't pay for it. And in my world, that's called a taking.” Other developers urged a cooperative‑endeavor approach that separates repayment of capital from ongoing maintenance, arguing fees could be structured so developers are repaid over time from sewer user charges rather than being forced to surrender systems without compensation.

Robin Bisoni, identifying herself as a retiree from the Louisiana Department of Health with 35 years in wastewater regulation, cautioned that the ordinance was not the right tool to fix failing systems. She recommended pursuing grants for parish‑owned systems and said: “taking these new developments out of the hands of small contractors … is gonna be very detrimental to our residential development.”

Jurors who opposed the ordinance repeated concerns about cost and feasibility. Juror Judd Steli said the parish would be asked to pay for infrastructure “and I'm never gonna take tax money from somebody else that has nothing to do with that transaction to supplement that.” Juror Eddie Landry pressed that the ordinance would not fix existing, failing systems and that the county should focus on those current failures before mandating future transfers.

The record shows jurors debated alternatives: forming a committee of jurors, staff and stakeholders to craft an incentive or repayment mechanism, benchmarking what other parishes/counties have done, and studying escrow or bond options tied to monthly user bills. Staff and some jurors also warned that escrow or escrow‑style maintenance accounts raise practical questions—who decides necessary repairs, who covers shortfalls, and how to manage overlapping systems—that may complicate long-term administration.

After public comment and juror discussion the police jury voted on the ordinance. The roll call produced six votes in favor and eight against; the motion to adopt the ordinance failed.

Following the vote jurors who favored further work asked that a stakeholder committee be formed to pursue a collaborative approach and to explore cooperative‑endeavor agreements, bonding or other repayment mechanisms before the issue returns to the jury.