The WaterMarks Interview

Sherrill Sagrera

Sherrill Sagrera, a longtime landowner in Vermilion Parish, serves on the Vermilion Parish Coastal Zone Management Committee and serves on the board of directors for the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana.

Q WaterMarks: Your family has lived and owned land in Vermilion Parish for over four generations. Tell us what’s happening in the coastal wetlands?

A Sagrera: I can tell you that we’re losing 20 feet of gulf shore every year. But everybody knows that. I can tell you that we made a terrible mistake when we dug up the oyster reefs to open navigation passes and build roads because those reefs are the key to slowing down current and capturing sediment moving west in the gulf current. But that’s something you’ve heard before. I can tell you that my father was in the Coast Guard, and when he patrolled this area Southwest Pass was nothing but a small reef-laden pass that could only be navigated by experienced pilots—now it’s three-fourths of a mile wide and 120 feet deep. But a good historical map will say the same thing. What I will tell you that maybe others won’t is that in spite of all the talk, all the programs and all the good intentions, we may be fighting a losing battle to save our wetlands unless we do something to change the process.

Q WaterMarks: By process, do you mean that there isn’t enough money to do what’s necessary?

A Sagrera: It’s true that we’re never going to slow coastal loss without a huge increase in dollars. For example, the Cheniere-au-Tigre to Southwest Pass Stabilization Project would create breakwaters that would protect an important stretch of coastline. The problem is that it would cost $20 to $25 million, which is most of the CWPPRA money that’s available for the entire coastal zone for a whole year. So a major increase in funding is crucial. But I’m also concerned about the process involved in getting projects on the ground. The fact is we’ve had trouble making good use of the little money we’ve had. It’s hard to believe, but it takes five years for a project to get through all the reviews and scrutiny required to put it in place—and that’s if you’re lucky. And while the analysis is going on, everyone’s crying about how we’re losing an acre of land every 30 minutes.

Q WaterMarks: And of course the wetlands are disappearing.

A Sagrera: Without a doubt. During the five years it takes to get a project operational, we lose another 100 to 150 feet of coast in Vermilion Parish. And that’s true all across the coastal zone. The process just takes too long.

Q WaterMarks: OK. So how do you speed it up?

A Sagrera: I respect the people in federal agencies because they are talented and work very hard to do the work they’re assigned. But we can’t wait for every step of every project to be scrutinized by every agency involved in coastal restoration. Right now there are just too many hands stirring the pot. Every project has a sponsoring agency. We need to give that agency the responsibility and authority to push the project through to completion without requiring every other federal agency to check and double-check what the sponsoring agency has already double-checked. I’ve got a flow chart that shows the steps that are supposed to take place during the course of a project. That flow chart is 20 feet long. No wonder it takes so long to get things done.

Q WaterMarks: But isn’t the process meant to make sure only good projects get implemented and that tax dollars aren’t wasted?

A Sagrera: Cost management is a tool that can work. But my biggest concern is that we study projects to death. We spend $1 million and use up a lot of precious time on an initial study. Then we spend another $2 million and more time on a second study, and when we’re done we still only have a study. If we would physically put the project on the ground, we’d have a real model, and we could start the monitoring and evaluation of results immediately. We need to prove to the nation that we can get things done with the available funds before we can expect additional dollars. Now I understand that you can’t do every project and that there has to be a process. What I’m saying is that we need to radically streamline that process and find ways to quickly get projects going.

Q WaterMarks: But isn’t there a great danger of spending a whole lot of money on projects that don’t live up to expectations or do damage to fisheries or wildlife in ways that weren’t anticipated?

A Sagrera: There are always dangers. And the last thing anyone in the coastal parishes wants to do is waste money or cause harm. But those of us living in and near the wetlands see the damage that’s being done day-by-day, everyday. The coast slipping away isn’t just a statistic—it’s often happening just beyond our backyard. I wonder what kind of restoration or protection project could have caused more harm to coastal Louisiana than has been caused by 10 years of too much studying and not enough doing?

Q WaterMarks: And the possibility of wasted dollars?

A Sagrera: We know it costs a lot more money to restore wetlands than it does to protect them. And each day that goes by, there’s a lot less of coastal Louisiana to protect and a lot more to restore. So we’re wasting far more on an inefficient process than we’d ever spend on the occasional project that doesn’t quite live up to expectations. But I see things from a local point of view. Cajuns like me work on these wetlands, sleep on them and die on them. What we have to offer isn’t science, but it’s real life experience. And as much as I respect it, I can’t help but think that science needs the sense of urgency that can only come from experiencing the collapse of our coastal wetlands firsthand.