$6 million buyout proposed

Advocate staff photo by RICHARD ALAN HANNON -- Avenue L resident Irma Miller looks out from her driveway Thursday toward the North Waste Water Treatment Plant that is near her North Baton Rouge home. The Metro Council will consider Thursday a proposal to settle a dispute between residents and the city--parish over the foul smelling wastewater plant. Show caption
Advocate staff photo by RICHARD ALAN HANNON -- Avenue L resident Irma Miller looks out from her driveway Thursday toward the North Waste Water Treatment Plant that is near her North Baton Rouge home. The Metro Council will consider Thursday a proposal to settle a dispute between residents and the city--parish over the foul smelling wastewater plant.

Odor buffer would be a round sewer plant

A long running dispute between Scotlandville residents living next to a foul-smelling, fly-invested wastewater treatment plant and the city-parish could be one step closer to resolution, officials said.

An item set to be introduced to the Metro Council on Wednesday would authorize the parish attorney to negotiate a $6 million settlement to buy out about 50 residents of University Place Subdivision in Scotlandville and to create a buffer zone between the subdivision and the North Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Residents living near the plant have long complained of odors and sewer flies and said the conditions were unsafe. In 2010, the city-parish won a lawsuit filed by area residents in which the court ruled the city-parish had no legal obligation to accommodate the hundreds of plaintiffs who sued. However, in April 2011, the Metro Council asked the city-parish to devise a buyout of some of the residents, Assistant Parish Attorney Bob Abbott said.

A year earlier, in 2010, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network filed a lawsuit against the parish, alleging problems at the plant. LEAN also intervened in the federal lawsuit that governs the city-parish’s Sanitary Sewer Overflow program, a $1.4 billion sewer system upgrade funded by a half-cent sales tax and sewer fees.

That intervention put on hold the buyout requested by the Metro Council in 2011, Abbott said.

Under the proposal before the Metro Council on Wednesday, the city-parish will allocate $6 million from the SSO project to fund the buyout and construction of a buffer zone around the plant, Abbott said.

In return, LEAN would agree to withdraw negative comments filed with the Environmental Protection Agency objecting to the city-parish receiving a four-year extension of the SSO program — from Dec. 2014 until Dec. 2018, Abbott said. The 2010 federal lawsuit against the city would be settled.

The settlement and revised consent decree is awaiting approval from the EPA and the Department of Justice, Abbott said.

Under the parameters of the proposed agreement, homes on avenues L, M and K in Scotlandville would be bought out, Abbott said.

The city would demolish the homes, rip up the streets and remove the utilities, Abbott said. That would create a buffer zone around the treatment plant, which would be ringed with trees and shrubs that would act as windbreakers and a barrier to sewer flies.

The buyout zone has been extended “about a half-block” further to the north from earlier plans, Abbott said. It would create a 300-foot area around the plant, he said.

The proposal is a welcome “first step,” said Greg Mitchell, president of the Concerned Citizens of University Place subdivision.

“There will still be some things that have to be addressed,” he said.

Mitchell said it remains to be seen whether the “evergreen barrier” would be enough to stop the odors and flies that have plagued residents outside the buy-out zone.

“There are still other people who are going to deal with the human waste odors that are left in the community,” he said.

Mitchell also said residents are going to be cautious after past buy-out plans did not materialize.

“We have been told certain things by the administration and the city-parish that haven’t panned out,” he said. “If we get down to it and find out that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be,” residents will pursue other legal remedies.

Resident Irma Miller said the settlement of the dispute has been a longtime coming.

“I was among some of the first to be in that area,” she said. “We have been in this battle for about 20 years.”

Miller said quality of life in the area has been greatly hampered by the plant.

“I would be so happy and relieved because we have been battling for a long time,” she said, adding that a settlement would be like “Christmas in November.”

The two councilmen who voted against a buyout last time — Scott Wilson and Joel Boé — said getting the extension for the SSO project made the idea more palatable.

“There have been times that (residents) had a chance to get out of there,” Wilson said. “I am not taking taxpayer dollars to get them out of there.”

Wilson said, however, getting a four-year extension to the SSO program could change his mind.

“I have to see why it’s tied together,” he said.

Boé agreed.

“Fundamentally, I have a significant problem with doing this buyout,” Boé said. “The city has spent numerous years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees and we won.”

Approving the settlement would be a good deal for the city-parish, said William Daniel, Mayor-President Kip Holden’s chief administrative officer.

“This has dragged on for a long time,” Daniel said. “We believe it’s in the parish’s best interest to have a buffer zone.”

The city-parish was able to build a buffer around the south treatment plant, Daniel said.

“In the operation of a plant, we would prefer a buffer zone,” he said.

A message left on the cellphone of Adam Babich, the attorney for LEAN, was not returned.

The measure will be introduced at the Metro Council Meeting on Wednesday. There will be a public hearing Nov. 28.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (6)


1) Comment by phil - 09/11/2012

Another possible issue - The plan now is to eliminate the Central treatment plant and pump all of that sewage to the South treatment plant and to increase the capacity of the South treatment plant. There are also possible plans to build new subdivisions near to the new casino which is very close to the South treatment plant. In the future when those new subdivisions/developments and the people at the new casino complain about the stink, please don't expect taxpayers to rush to bail them out with more tax dollars.

2) Comment by phil - 09/11/2012

Basically I feel that this really has NOTHING to do with the SSO sewer project that actually is about $1.6 billion now with the "extras". How can all of you support spending $1.6 billion on a project that was estimated to cost much less and have NOTHING to say about it???? Are you all sleeping or too busy with LSU football?? Why do property owners have to possibly pay for this property purchase out of sewer fees? I think this should come from the general fund if anything. By the way, check out how that sales tax is dedicated now and what that money actually has to be used for. Ever hear of bond swaps and hedges?

3) Comment by NewsReader - 09/11/2012

oops I meant to say "I don't think the plant was there first"

4) Comment by NewsReader - 09/11/2012

tradewinns, I think the plant was there first. But the dispute revolves around the amount offered in the first instance. I can see both sides here. Those who lived there before the plant should receive a greater compensation than those who moved in afterwards but before the issues became apparent. What it really boils down to is how do you adjust loss of value? Someone who purchased there decades ago would have had a reasonable expectation of their property maintaining its proportionate value to other areas. Those who moved in later should have known the price was low because of issues. I suspect the fact the offer was probably the same regardless of when one purchased is why many didn't take the offer.

5) Comment by tradewinns - 09/11/2012

who was there first, the plant or the people? and why not clean (correct) the plant instead of paying to reduce the taxrolls? and then of course, if they had the opportunity to sell but sued instead, they have had their bite of the apple. they took a sour bite, tough!

6) Comment by Cousin Dave - 09/11/2012

As I understand it, these people turned down previous buyout offers in order to pursue a lawsuit against the city. They lost the lawsuit, which cost us taxpayers big bucks. Why should we pay them a penny? Is anyone on the City Council going o repesent the taxpayers on this?