Lafourche residents and council spar over permit, sludge and a utility easement as water experts testify

Chair opened the Nov. 26 Lafourche Parish Council meeting and dozens of residents used the public-comment period to press officials over plans by the Consolidated Water District No. 1 of Terrebonne Parish to desludge retention ponds and move treated water or solids in the Bayou Lafourche watershed. Philip Gold, a Lockport resident, asked whether decades of sediments might be moved and said, “Sooner or later, Bayou Lafourche is gonna have to be dug out because of this all of the sludge coming from Mississippi as well as the water plants.”

Why it matters: Council members and residents said the question cuts to public-health and property risks, and to whether the parish government was given adequate legal advice and notice before an administrative letter of no objection was issued to Terrebonne. The council debated whether the parish should ask Parish President Archie Chasson to rescind that letter. The dispute culminated in a vote on a resolution to request rescission; the motion failed in open session.

What officials said: Wayne Goch, general manager of Water District No. 1 in Lockport, described how different permit options work. He said many water plants may return treated effluent directly to the source without additional TSS testing, while desludging on-site pits creates solids that must be managed separately (by land application, landfill, or other means). “When you take it out the body, you’re just putting it back,” Goch said, arguing the day’s treatment processes do not necessarily create a toxic waste stream, though he acknowledged older pond sediments raise questions.

Technical evidence and outstanding questions: Councilman Melvin summarized Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) sampling near Thibodaux’s Canal Street Bridge showing an eight-year average total suspended solids (TSS) of about 67 mg/L (DEQ permit daily maximum for water-plant discharge cited by staff is 45 mg/L), with observed historical values ranging from 18 to 232 mg/L. Aaron Gidrey, a resident, urged the council to seek wastewater experts and pointed to a recent onsite fluorosilicic-acid spill as an example of unaddressed chemical risks. Gidrey told the council, “I don’t think any of us in here should be talking about wastewater. I think we should have wastewater experts actually presenting to us and telling us what to do.”

Legal, transparency and governance dispute: Several council members said they had not received written legal advice or a copy of the letter of no objection that parish staff said Parish President Chasson issued; some members said they had only verbal assurances from the district attorney’s office. Councilman Daniel Lorraine repeatedly asked for written opinions and called for greater transparency. Kent Bouvier, representing Bouvier Properties, alleged earlier testimony before the council had been misleading and warned that a recorded easement and cooperative endeavor agreement could create effectively irreversible rights for a pipeline. Bouvier said he obtained the permit and that its language allows discharge to multiple bayous, contradicting prior oral assertions that material must be returned to the source.

Council action and outcome: The council considered Resolution 19, which would have asked Parish President Chasson to rescind any agreement or letter of no objection for the consolidated water district’s planned utility easement and related activities. After public comment and debate on technical and legal points, the resolution failed in the recorded vote (a mix of nays, abstentions and no-carried result). Several council members signaled they would seek written legal opinions and more technical evidence before taking further binding action.

What’s next: Council members and staff said they would continue discussions with regulatory agencies (DEQ and others) and with the water districts. Administration staff encouraged residents to bring specific technical questions to the regulatory agencies that enforce discharge permits; several council members asked for written legal advice before future council votes related to the easement or letter of no objection.

Ending: The meeting moved on to routine budget and administrative business after the resolution vote, with multiple change orders, grant awards and contracts approved in the latter portion of the agenda.