Dear Dr. McDaniel:
On behalf of the Gulf Restoration Network, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, Louisiana Audubon Council, Mississippi River Basin Alliance, and New Orleans Group of the Sierra Club, we are writing to inform you of our concerns regarding a public meeting held by the Water Quality Certification Division of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on Thursday, April 29, 2004 in Slidell, Louisiana (Linda Levy presiding). Although we were pleased to learn that the DEQ planned on holding a public hearing on such an important issue, because they are extremely rare, this one fell far below our expectations.
On March 27, 2004, a public notice went out announcing that a public hearing was scheduled to receive comments on the proposed water quality certification (MB030630-01) for a project proposed by Tammany Holding Corporation. Written comments were to be received by June 1, 2004. However, on April 15, 2004 a second public notice was issued announcing that the public hearing had been cancelled in favor of a public meeting. The comment period was also changed at that time to allow written comments to be received until May 3, 2004. The justification given by DEQ regarding the change from hearing to meeting was as follows:
The change in the type of event to be held was made to allow for a more open exchange of information and better interface with the public… the change from a public hearing to a public meeting will provide a better venue for a question and answer atmosphere, as opposed to the stricter, more formal format of a public hearing.
Although in general we favor public hearings over public meetings because of the stricter requirements in recording public comments, in this particular case we were heartened by the change. We believed, as DEQ put forth in the public notice, that the meeting format would allow us to hear from DEQ and the developer regarding project changes since the original public comment period last summer and get some of our questions and concerns addressed. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
Unlike many meetings hosted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that we have attended, there was no presentation by either the DEQ or the developer explaining the project and any changes that have occurred since the original public notice. When Dr. Barry Kohl asked about new developments involving mitigation, stormwater, and sewage treatment plans, DEQ officials were unable to provide him with details. They simply referred him to materials available at the local public library or the DEQ office. Given the short time period available for public comment after the meeting (1½ business days), there would not be sufficient time to visit either of these locations and incorporate any new info into written comments. Any changes to the project should have been presented, or at the very least been made available at this public meeting, given that the purpose of the meeting was to have “open exchange of information and better interface with the public.”
Furthermore, given some of the inadequate responses we received from DEQ personnel, we question whether Linda Levy and other DEQ staff in charge of this decision are fully informed of their responsibilities. In some cases they seemed less informed than the public. For example, when we asked if the DEQ was planning on performing an environmental assessment, staff did not appear to understand our question. They also did not seem to be aware of a recent court decision that impacted the Water Quality Certification program. We’ve enclosed a copy of the March 5, 2004 judgment.
For the lack of information we received from DEQ personnel at the meeting, it might as well have been a public hearing. At least in that case we would have had an additional month in which to submit comments after the hearing. Because of the change to a public meeting, we essentially only had 1½ business days to submit additional written comments. Since the meeting offered none of the benefits of a meeting as promised by the DEQ, we must conclude that a decision on whether to grant the WQC had already been made, and that the change from hearing to meeting was simply made to reduce the length of the comment period. Although that may not be true, the fact that the meeting was conducted in this manner erodes public confidence and makes it difficult for us to believe that our comments and concerns were sufficiently addressed prior to deciding whether to issue a WQC.
Although written comments were accepted by DEQ until May 3rd, the WQC was issued a mere four days later on May 7th. We also note that two other separate permits for this project -- the DNR Coastal Use Permit and the Corps Section 404 Permit -- were issued on the same day as the WQC (May 7, 2004). This reinforces our contention that there was a coordinated effort between the agencies and the applicant to push the issuance of the permits through. The reason the applicant refused to present any information at the meeting could have been because he knew the permits were ready for signature.
While we applaud DEQ’s efforts to seek public input on a WQC for such a potentially damaging development, we are discouraged by this particular meeting’s format and apparent intent. Therefore, we request that you investigate this problem and urge DEQ staff to work towards improving future meetings so that the public can be well informed and assured that their comments will be fully considered in the WQC decision making process.
With a new administration, we had hoped that there would be positive changes in Louisiana’s DEQ. Considering the approach and outcome of this WQC process, we are very disappointed. However, we are still hopeful that progress will be made in improving DEQ’s execution of its constitutional duty to act as the public trustee of Louisiana’s environment. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. We look forward to your response.
Respectfully submitted,
Vicki E. Murillo
Jill Mastrototaro
Dr. Barry Kohl
Doug Daigle
Harvey Stern
CC: Paul Bartels, St. Tammany Bureau of the Times-Picayune