The Connector And The Chicot Aquifer: A Threat Or A Ruse?

Now that it is more likely that the I-49 Connector freeway through Lafayette, if it is ultimately built, will be elevated through Lafayette, the battle lines are now more being more clearly drawn….especially by those who oppose the project and would rather it diverted east through the Teche Ridge Bypass.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the issue in which Connector opponents will hitch their battle on for defeating the project will be the possible impact on Lafayette’s Chicot Aquifer, which serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city.

After almost a year of inactivity, Michael Waldon’s Connector Comments blog in opposition to the project has revived itself in a fury of posts centered on the dire threat that the freeway project would pose to the drinking water supply of Lafayette.

The trigger for all this is a lawsuit currently ongoing in Federal court against the Union Pacific Railroad over their ownership of property in central Lafayette that used to serve for years by Southern Pacific Railroad as their main classification and distribution yard. The former site, which was abandoned in 1954 when the current rail classification yard was built west of Lafayette, used to house both maintenance facilities and reclassification for SP trains using the Lafayette Subdivision.

The lawsuit ostensively seeks to force the current owners of the property underlying the former rail yard, UPRR, to pay for a full environmental assessment and cleanup of the facility.

However, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit also have a second, more direct objective: to reveal the levels of contamination that the rail yard has caused, as a means to elevate concerns that construction of the Connector freeway would potentially threaten mass contamination of Lafayette’s water supply.

The prevailing theory is that pilings that would have to be dug to support an elevated freeway would threaten the protective layer of clay soils that overlay the aquifer, and possibly cause a breach that would allow hazardous materials into the water-bearing soils. In addition, there is the concern that driving pilings directly into the soils at the rail yard site would introduce a direct risk to the aquifer’s protection.

The Chicot Aquifer’s protective clay layer generally runs from 40 to 60 feet above the actual aquifer soils along the Connector’s stated route; the pilings that would be dropped to support the elevated structure would generally need 30 feet of depth. During the earlier Connector Environmental Impact study which led to the 2003 Record of Decision, it was noted that while there would be some potential weakening of protection for the aquifer, it could be managed through special design and construction techniques and outreach with state Department of Environmental Quality and local officials.

This latest lawsuit, however, has upped the ante a bit by citing that Lafayette’s water supply has recently been found to be breached with some marginal contamination from the railyard, including traces of arsenic, benzene, and other potential hazardous chemicals. The contamination was found to be below the levels of contamination set by the federal EPA, and mitigatable through treatment; nevertheless, the Lafayette Sierra Club (one of the plantiffs in the UPRR railyard suit) was inflamed enough to issue an open letter (warning, link is to PDF document via Google Drive) to Lafayette Consolidated Government officials calling for the following:

1) The shut off of all water wells drawing water from the Chicot Aquifer near the railyard site, pending a full assessment of the contamination;

2) The immediate closure and screening off of the railyard site as an official hazardous waste (“Superfund”) site;

3) A full assessment and cleanup of the site, paid for by the UPRR (in their capacity as the current owners of the SPRR).

Not surprisingly, since the Sierra Club is essentially the lead group for opponents to the Connector project, and Michael Waldon has also been one of their chief spokespeople as well as a long-time opponent of the project, he has exploited this issue to the fullest in brandishing the opposition. (In fact, the Connector Concepts blog notes that Waldon has been involved with the original plaintiffs in this lawsuit from the beginning; which include environmental attorney William Goddell, Jr. and original 2004 Connector lawsuit plaintiff Kim Goddell (William’s wife??); all of them spoke to a public anti-Connector meeting on January 19th sponsored by the Sierra Club’s Y-49 group.)

(Update 4-21-17: The previous paragraph has been corrected to reflect Michael Waldon’s role in support of the plaintiffs in the Goddell lawsuit; he is not, as I mistakenly noted originally, an actual plaintiff. My thanks to Mr. Waldon for noting the discrepancy of mine, and for his graciousness and congeniality, even as we are on opposite sides of this issue.)

Why this sudden shift in strategy by Connector opponents? Because the contamination issue is really the only issue that could potentially stop the Connector in its tracks. The last lawsuit in 2004 against the Connector ROD was based on the impacts to the Sterling Grove Historical District and the process not including any alternatives like the Teche Ridge Bypass; but that suit was totally rejected by US District Judge Tucker Melancon; and upheld on appeal.

It should be noted, of course, that the SPRR railyard has been inoperationable since the 1950’s, and that the property has been very much inactive save for the Consolidated Companies (“Conco”) distribution warehouse located at the intersection of the southbound Evangeline Thruway and Taft Street. There were earlier lawsuits that sought to mitigate the cleanup of the site by having Union Pacific pay for the full costs, but they were settled privately out of court.

In the meantime, the current consultants overseeing the current Conceptual Design Study and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) process for determining the final design for the Connector project are also reassessing what degree of impact the railyard site would have. Some advocates of the now rejected Partially Depressed/Covered design option have advocated that LADOTD, in addition to any direct mitigation for any ROW used over the rail site, should also foot the costs for a full Stage 2 Environmental Assessment for the site and perhaps even pay the full cost for remediation and cleanup. LADOTD’s stated policy is only to pay for remediation costs directly related to ROW takings such as pile driving or excavation.

In addition, the Evangeline Thruway Redevelopment Team (ETRT), endowed by the LCG with developing means to mitigate the footprint of the Connector on the surrounding neighborhood, has suggested the same approach, with an eye on future development of the former site property.

In response, LADOTD (through Transportation Secretary Shawn Wilson, who is on the Executive Committee overseeing the project design) has said that while DOTD would not pay for a full remediation, LCG would not have to either, since standard protocol is to bill the property owners responsible for the contamination to begin with (i.e., UPRR).

The environmental reevaluation and SEIS process for the Connector project does include an updated assessment of the railyard site and other potential hazardous properties. A Stage 1 Assessment was already done for the entire Connector corridor last year, which did mark the rail yard for future investigation. Further analysis will be undertaken with the SEIS process; although Waldon naturally still is miffed that he had to undergo a Freedom of Information Act request to release the current information; and that the assessment in his view deliberately undersold the risk by not including the information from the Goddell lawsuit regarding contamination of the water wells.

All in all, the concern with the Chicot Aquifer and the Southern Pacific Railroad site is legitimate enough that those of us who support the Connector freeway project should demand LADOTD take the full measure to maximize protection for the drinking supply of Lafayette. Whether all the fuss thrown up by the Goddell lawsuit and Y-49 turns out to be real or just another amplified ruse to divert I-49 through Teche Ridge? That remains to be seen.