I-49 Connector Civil Right Violation Complaint Accepted for Investigation

FWHA Civil Rights Title VI

Connector Comments readers may recall that in November 2021 Lafayette resident Ann Burruss wrote a letter to Secretary Pete Buttigieg opposing the plan for the Lafayette I-49 Connector. A staff member assigned to respond to her letter told Ann that her letter appeared to be a civil rights complaint. With Ann's consent, her letter was then processed as a complaint. Ann followed up on this complaint providing evidence that the Connector's corridor was indeed selected to follow the historic line of racial segregation in our city. With Ann's permission, her letter submitting this evidence is reprinted below. 

On January 18, 2023, Ann received a letter via email saying "that the FHWA Office of Civil Rights has accepted for investigation your complaint of discrimination." The investigation will focus on "Whether the Lafayette I-49 Connector Project creates potential disparate, adverse impacts to residents based on race, color, or national origin." Readers may wish to send their own letters supporting this complaint or providing additional evidence. Comments or supplemental evidence should reference complaint number DOT# 2022-0093 and should be submitted to:

Erik Lacayo

Title VI Program Analyst

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Civil Rights

(202) 913-3926

erik.lacayo@dot.gov

If you do send a comment or document, please let us know about it in the comments section at the bottom of this article. 

________________________________________

Federal Highway Administration                                    March 31, 2022

Office of Civil Rights (Attention: Erik Lacayo)

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Reference: HCR-20

DOT# 2022-0093

Subject: Complaint #2022-0093

Mr. Lacayo,

Enclosed are documents that I hope you will find useful.

• Ordinance No. 127, City of Lafayette Louisiana, enacted October 22, 1923, 4 pages
• 1928 Sanborn Fire Map close up, 1923 segregation areas in blue
• 1928 Sanborn Fire Map reference
• 1928 Sanborn Fire Map blow up, segregation areas in blue (can piece together and tape) 8 pages
• I-49 Connector Alignment, overview
• I-49 Connector Alignment folded map, streets in 1923 segregation area identified for cross reference
• 1928 Sanborn Fire Map folded map, 1923 segregation area in orange, I-49 Connector alignment in pink

Again, I thank you and the department for investigating the I-49 Connector project for Civil Rights violations. To me, who has very little idea of how a Civil Rights violation is determined, the documents are a clear illustration that the 1-49 project as proposed is inherently unjust and in violation.

If there is any additional information I can provide, I will do my best. At this point this is what I have regarding the racially unjust impacts of the project. The path of this project follows a clearly defined racial segregation line from the past. Establishing that line in 1923 was all that was needed to etch in stone an economic and racial divide that exists in this city on these streets to this day. The ordinance was subsequently repealed because, I've been told, that white people lived within the zones designated as "negro communities" and did not want to move. Of course subsequent jurisprudence and federal law disallowed such ordinances, however, the damage was done. If this project is built through the center of our city this racist past will carry its racist impacts into our future.

Sincerely,

Ann Burruss

Data confirms (again) high concentrations of toxic railyard contaminants

 Newly released measurements of contaminants in soil and groundwater samples taken from Lafayette’s abandoned downtown railyard again confirm railyard contamination and further add to our concerns (Bray, 2021; Goodell, 2022). These measurements show that: 

• There are high concentrations of toxic contaminants in the soil and water beneath the downtown Lafayette abandoned railyard. 

• Contamination has spread down into the Chicot aquifer.

• High contaminant concentrations were measured up to the railyard property boundary.

• It is reasonable to assume that during the past century contamination has flowed past the railyard boundary and is impacting neighbors’ health and reducing the uses and value of their property.

These new measurements clearly show that renewed action by state LDEQ and US EPA is not only justified, but essential to limit further damage to the Chicot drinking water aquifer, to limit damage to property bordering the railyard, and to protect citizens on property near the railyard from exposure to toxic contaminants. Sampling has never been performed under neighboring homes, businesses, and public places just beyond the railyard property boundary.

The newly available measurements of railyard toxic contaminants were made available in a live update, press release, and court filing on January 4, 2022, by attorney Bill Goodell (2022), and in a related report by consulting geologist Brent Bray (2021). Goodell is prosecuting a public environmental  lawsuit to force the Union Pacific Railroad Company to conduct a comprehensive vertical and horizontal assessment and to remediate soil and groundwater so that the site meets all regulatory cleanup standards in lieu of state and federal agencies who have failed to exercise their authority to do so despite actual notice of the site contaminant levels and conditions. This new groundwater sampling was initiated by the Louisiana DOTD as they performed a decades-late site assessment on land proposed for the Lafayette I-49 Connector. 

The conclusions listed above are clear from the data despite the very limited sampling that was performed. The sampling was limited to a very small number of test borings, the sampling sites were spread over only a portion of the abandoned railyard, and no samples were drawn outside of the historic railroad property boundary. Additionally, only a limited number of contaminants were tested for. Despite these limitations, Bray’s report was able to estimate the horizontal spread of total petroleum hydrocarbons, TPH, over a portion of the former railyard property (Figure 1).

Contamination of the railyard property occurred over more than six decades. Our old railyard in downtown Lafayette serviced trains on the heavily trafficked line from Houston to New Orleans from the 1890’s until it was abandoned in the 1960’s. In 1880, before the rail line came to Lafayette, Lafayette’s  population was 817; by 1900 an influx of rail workers and their families along with families of workers in associated businesses swelled the population to 3000. For decades the railyard was our major employer. This facility provided many rail services beyond switching railcars. Lafayette was the divisional rail office. The railyard included a roundhouse, engine repair shop, boiler cleaning shed, machine shop, railcar repair shop, brake shop, lumber building with outdoor lumber piles, auto and truck repair shops, grease house, laundry, hotel, passenger and freight terminals, dynamite shed, blacksmith shop, and a power house. There was also at least one gasoline storage tank in the yard, and coal storage. Stock pens held animals for shipment. An oil/water separator and crude oil storage tank were provided for oil awaiting shipment. Fuel tanks stored heavy bottom oil for the original steam trains, and later there were tanks for the diesel fuel as engines transitioned to this newer technology. Both steam and diesel engines were fueled through overhead fuel lines that ran along the tracks. 

It is not surprising that our railyard, like many others around the world, was contaminated with spilled and leaked fuels, spilled and dumped machine cleaning solvents, and wood preservative. As at other old rail sites like ours, we have soil contamination from asbestos (from steam train boilers), and heavy metals including arsenic (herbicide/pesticide), mercury (steam manometers), and lead (batteries). In many other former railyards these hazards have been or are now being cleaned-up or extensively mitigated - but not ours. This is not acceptable.    

To sum up, newly available information confirms what was already known, that Lafayette’s abandoned railyard downtown is heavily contaminated. Measurements found contamination at levels far exceeding relevant LDEQ criteria. This contamination has flowed into our underlying drinking water aquifer, and has probably spread under neighboring residential, commercial, and public properties.

Now, we ask again that our local, state, and federal leaders act to safeguard the health and property of our citizens. 

For more information: 

• Follow this link to attorney Bill Goodell’s January 4, 2022, press release. 

• Geologist Brent Bray’s report dated March 18, 2021, which was cited in that press release is included in the amending petition filed  January 4, 2022. Mr. Bray’s report may be requested by emailing Erika Boehmer, Burns Charest LLP, eboehmer@burnscharest.com.  

Figure 1: Inside the white border, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) spread is estimated from the new measurements. This is overlaid on an aerial view of the surrounding community.

Drinking Water Supply in Lafayette: Early history to the mid-1950's

The Beginning
Some anthropologists and archaeologists believe that humans lived continuously in the region that we now call the Teche-Vermilion basin for at least five thousand years, and perhaps much longer (Cheramie, 2013). On the banks of Bayou Vermilion near Paul Breaux Middle School (originally Paul Breaux High School) there was a freshwater spring called Chargois Springs (Figure 1) which supported a large Native American settlement. Griffin (1959) reports that for a long time, students of Paul Breaux High School "turned in to the principal after every good rain arrowheads and pieces of pottery that were on the school grounds."

Findings strongly support the hypothesis that native Americans lived at the Chargois Springs in relatively large numbers for a very long time (Cheramie, 2013). The Chargois Spring was probably a Native American meeting place where trade of all kinds took place. The availability of clear cool fresh water, in combination with its location on a ridge between the Atchafalaya Basin to the east and the prairies to the west would have made this an ideal habitation site. Evidence of long-term habitation suggests that the Chargois Springs was fed by a stable free-flowing artesian aquifer, the Chicot Aquifer, for centuries if not millennia prior to the coming of European colonists.

The Chargois Springs were the location of many picnics reported in lafayette newspapers before 1900. Soon after the 1927 flood, Chargois Spring ceased to flow, and while some attributed this to river sediment sealing the spring, it is more likely that dredging of the Vermilion River next to the spring cut through the clay confining layer which maintained pressure within the Chicot Aquifer which fed the spring. The resulting loss of pressure would have caused the formerly free-flowing spring to stop flowing.  Griffin reports that in the 1950's the place still bore the name Chargois Springs and older Lafayette residents fondly recalled bathing there when the water still flowed.

Figure 1. Photo from Griffin (1959): "A Picnic at Chargois Springs about 1898. The back row: George Bailey, (2) Anita Hohorst (Mrs. J. Franklin Mouton), (3) J. Alfred Mouton, (4) Stella Raney, (5) Neveu, (6 ) Alix Judice (Mrs. J. Alfred Mouton) with guitar, (7) Ned Mouton (brother of Vavaseur), (8) Louise Judice (sister of Alix Judice), (9) Dr. Gabriel Salles (Josette Salles' brother), (10) Frank Moss.  Sitting: (1) Florian Cornay, (2) ?, (3) Albert Judice (brother of Louise and Alix Judice), (4) Martha Mouton (back), (5) Marie Revillion (front Mrs. Marsh), (6) Felix Salles (front), (7) Sidney Mouton (back), (8) Emily Moss (Mrs. George deBlanc), (9) Johnny LeBesque (end). "Souvnir offert a Stella Trahan (the daughter of Dr. Trahan) par un ami sincere et devoue, Sidney Mouton," is written on the back of this photograph."

Today, the combined impacts of pumping for irrigation and municipal uses, excavation, and dredging have reduced pressure within the aquifer from a state of positive pressure and free flow, to a negative pressure now measured as static well water elevation roughly 50 feet below surface in Lafayette (see, for example,  Figure 6, Waldon, 2017a). Chargois Spring now serves as a reminder of how failure to consider the consequences of our actions can lead to unanticipated destruction of what could have been a sustainable resource for ourselves and our children.

Figure 2. Ad from the Lafayette
Advertiser, Dec. 8, 1900.

Throughout most of the 19th century, Lafayette residents had to rely on either rain fed cisterns (Figure 2), surface water, local springs, or numerous individual wells to provide for their domestic water needs. Shallow domestic wells for drinking water were associated with risks to health because of contamination from the surface, and citizens preferred drinking water from cisterns (Lafayette Advertiser, 1897). Deep wells were considered a low health risk because water was purified by "natural filtration" through soil and sand. However, deep well water was considered less desirable in taste and clarity when compared to rainwater. The development of municipal treatment that filtered and clarified deep well water contributed to the demand by citizens for city water utilities providing drinking water and municipal fire protection.

1897-1954
The city-owned public water and electricity utility was created in 1897 (LUS, 1953, 1954), and both municipal electricity and water services have been continuously provided to the residents of Lafayette by the public utility since that time. The original plant had eight artesian wells placed ten feet apart with depths ranging from 150 to 200 feet (Lafayette Gazette, 1898). The City Engineer, Mr. R. R. Zell (1898), reported to the City Council that the original municipal artesian wells could produce over a million gallons of "good water" per day which exceeded the steam powered water pump capacity. However, by the fall of 1899 only two wells were used by the utility and these two wells had "dried up." The City Council then approved boring a new replacement artesian well to a depth of 200 feet.

Despite the establishment of a municipal water system, by 1900 many of the 3000 Lafayette City residents continued to rely on domestic wells and rainwater cisterns to meet their water needs (page 59, Griffin, 1959). Additionally, deep commercial wells are known to have existed at the railyard and the refinery prior to construction of the municipal water system (Lafayette Gazette, 1895). Based on this, it is reasonable to assert that there are numerous now abandoned domestic and commercial water wells from that early era which were never plugged in a manner that would be required today. These abandoned wells are a conduit that may today be allowing surface contaminants to be drawn into our drinking water aquifer.

Municipal water systems were not only important for providing domestic and commercial water service, but also significantly contributed to the city's fire protection. In 1902, 1919, and 1928, citizens voted for bond issues which extended the water system and also funded improvements in other municipal services (Griffin, 1959). The North Water Plant building (Municipal Filtration Plant) was constructed in 1929 (Figure 3) with funding from the 1928 bond issue and property taxes. Today that original building is a part of the Lafayette Utilities System (LUS) North Water Treatment Plant facility.

Figure 3. Plaque on the North Water Treatment Plant showing that 

it was initially erected in 1929. 

In 1949, the City of Lafayette Board of Trustees adopted a bond resolution for $7,000,000 which funded improvements and extensions to the waterworks plant and the water distribution system, as well as other utility improvement for the electric power and the sewer systems. By October 1952, numerous improvements and extensions were completed or underway (LUS, 1953). The extent of the water system owned and operated by the Utilities System at that time is shown in Figure 4. This map shows the entire water distribution system, including extensions constructed under the bond improvement program.  About half of the water distribution network shown in Figure 4 was newly constructed under the 1949 bond improvement program.

Construction of a major plant expansion was started in September, 1952 . This plant extension added two open-type filters, one new Accelator clarifier (Figure 7) in an existing settling basin, and a new aerator. This expansion also included an extension of the main building to the north for chemical storage and feeding for lime (Figures 5 and 6). Water plant treatment capacity was expanded by 1.5 mgd (million gallons per day) which increased the total treatment capacity of the water plant to 4.5 mgd.

Figure 4. The Lafayette water distribution system in 1952 is mapped in this graphic (LUS, 1953). The water treatment plant is highlighted in red. A 500,000 gallon elevated water tank is to the right of the treatment plant in this map. Fire hydrants are mapped as black dots, 12" mains are mapped as heavier black lines, 4-10" mains are the finer black lines.

In the early 1950s, water supply for the City of Lafayette was obtained from a system of wells averaging 245 feet in depth in the Upper Sand of the Chicot Aquifer. Part of the wells were located on  the filtration plant grounds and part on a nearby separate lot at the intersection of Simcoe and Chestnut Streets (LUS, 1953, 1954). Table 1 shows the location of the five water wells operating in 1952. Wells #1 and #2 were abandoned during that year because of unspecified "difficulties," and a new well was planned at the Simcoe & Chestnut site.

Unit #	Location
1	Simcoe & Chestnut
2	Simcoe & Chestnut
3	Filtration Plant Grounds
4	Filtration Plant Grounds
5	Filtration Plant Grounds

Table 1. LUS water wells in 1952 (LUS, 1953).

The LUS Comprehensive Engineer's Reports (CERs) tell us that the system's water wells drew water from a sand and gravel strata which requires extensive screening at the base of the wells (LUS, 1953, 1954). Operation and maintenance of the wells and pumping equipment was reported to always be somewhat of a problem. It appears that wells loosing productive capacity as the wells aged continued. It was reported that the wells were treated with Calgon and HTH (calcium hypochlorite) on an experimental basis resulting in some increase of production. In 1954, wells were constructed fairly close together on the System's properties. However, it was planned that the next new wells might be built on separate property, some 2,000 feet from the treatment plant, where it was expected to have less influence from any of the other wells (this new site may have referred to the site of today's Clark Field and Hebert Golf Course). Water treatment plant expansion in the early 1950s (Figures 5-7) increased capacity from 3.0 million gallons per day (mgd) to 4.5 mgd (LUS, 1954). Difficulties with wells in the Chicot Aquifer Upper Sand, a desire to have higher production, and the recognized need to further separate the well intakes from surface contamination may all have been considerations that led to most of our present day wells being drilled deeper into the Chicot Aquifer Lower Sand.

Figure 5. This photo from the 1953 CER shows an expansion of the water treatment 

plant building which expanded the original 1929 plant building.

Figure 6. The expanded water filtration plant (LUS, 1954).

Figure 7. Clarifier constructed as a part of plant expansion (LUS, 1954).

Summary and Conclusions
The Chicot Aquifer has provided a plentiful source of water for millennia, and, if protected, will continue to provide for the water needs of future generations. The Lafayette municipal water system began in the late 1800's. By 1953, Lafayette's municipal water system had expanded to serve 9,247 households and businesses and supplied 825 million gallons of water annually (LUS, 1954). This is 2.26 million gallons per day, or about 240 gallons per customer per day. At that time all of this water was being pumped from the upper sand of the Chicot Aquifer from wells located near the water treatment plant on Buchanan Street at Mudd Avenue.

When the utility began operation at the end of the 19th century, the Chicot Aquifer was a freely flowing artesian water source. This pressure within the aquifer had been protective of the quality of the groundwater from surface contamination because any connections with the surface through springs (Chargois Springs for example), sand inclusions, cracks, abandoned wells, or flow through the confining clay layer itself would flow from the aquifer toward the surface. However, pressure in the Chicot Aquifer has been falling for a century (Borrok, 2016; Borrok and Broussard, 2016).

By 1954 the artesian spring no longer flowed, and pressure had diminished from positive to negative in the Chicot Aquifer. Any hydraulic connection of the aquifer to surface water became a conduit for flow into the aquifer transporting whatever contaminants were present at the surface into our underground drinking water source. Groundwater moves very slowly, often a few feet to a few hundred feet per year. Still, this reversal of groundwater flow direction which took place many decades ago sets the stage for destruction.  Recent observations of man made contaminates in Lafayette's drinking water wells (Waldon, 2017a, 2017b) serves to heighten citizens' concerns, and have led to a call for action (Waldon, 2017c).


REFERENCES

Borrok, David M. (2016) At Your Service: Keeping the Chicot Sustainable, Interview on KPLC TV News, Lake Charles, Published on Dec 21, 2016.

Borrok, David M., and Whitney P. Broussard III (2016) Long-term geochemical evaluation of the coastal Chicot aquifer system,Louisiana, USA. Journal of Hydrology 533:320-331.

Cheramie, David (2013) The Legacy of Native Acadiana. Acadiana Profile, August-September 2013.

Griffin, Harry Lewis (1959) The Attakapas Country: A History of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. Pelican Publishing Company, Gretna, Louisiana,

Lafayette Advertiser (1897) Typhoid Fever and Water Supply. December 18, 1897, page 2.

Lafayette Advertiser (1999) New well. October 20, page 1

Lafayette Gazette (1895) Mr. Zell's visit. November 2, 1895, page 3.

Lafayette Gazette (1898) Water and Light: A model plant nearly completed - Everything works without a hitch. March 5, 1898, page 1.

Lafayette Gazette (1899) New artesian well. October 21, page 1.

LUS (1953) Comprehensive Engineering Report as of October 31, 1952. Prepared by R.W. Beck and Associates for the City of Lafayette Louisiana Utilities System.

LUS (1954) Comprehensive Engineering Report as of October 31, 1953. Prepared by R.W. Beck and Associates for the City of Lafayette Louisiana Utilities System.

Waldon, Michael G. (2017a) More Evidence of Chicot Aquifer Contamination: USGS Monitoring. ConnectorComments.org

Waldon, Michael G. (2017b) Contamination of our Chicot Aquifer.  What do we know? How do we know? What should be done? ConnectorComments.org

Waldon, Michael G. (2017c) Citizens seek action to protect our health, property, and drinking water supply. ConnectorComments.org

Zell, R.R. (1898) Report to the City Council on completion of the Waterworks and Electric Light Plant. Lafayette Gazette, April 16, 1898, page 1.

A manufactured gas plant in Lafayette? And why Lafayette needs a drinking water protection program?

You know the idiom "carrying coals to Newcastle." It refers to taking something to a place where it already exists in abundance. It seems that this would apply to manufacturing gas from coal and/or oil in Louisiana, so let me explain.

By 1900, Lafayette's residents had both water and electricity as residential utilities. However, in the early 1920's there was still no natural gas pipeline carrying gas to Lafayette, and no residential or industrial gas utility available. To respond to this demand, the Louisiana Public Service Company built a manufactured gas plant and ran pipes to service Lafayette residences in 1926 (Griffin, 1959).  The gas plant was located north of the railyard (Figure 1). In 1931, a natural gas pipeline reached Lafayette from Northern Louisiana, and operation of the manufactured gas plant was discontinued.

While this history is interesting, you may be wondering "how is a former manufactured gas plant site related to the I-49 Connector issues?" It is another likely source of contamination endangering the Chicot Aquifer which is designated as the sole-source of drinking water for Lafayette Parish. Before we design or construct this interstate over our water wells and sites of contamination we need to quantify the threat and plan how to deal with it for ourselves and our children.

Figure 1. Louisiana Public Utilities Company gas plant as mapped in 1928 (clipped from 1928 Sanborn map of Lafayette, Louisiana from electronic copy available through the Lafayette Public Library).

Figure 2. Contemporary view of the LPUC former gas plant location (red oval) mapped by Google Earth (saved on April 10, 2017). The LUS North Water Treatment Plant (blue rectangle) and LUS water well #16 (small blue oval) are also highlighted.

Throughout North America, high levels of soil and groundwater contamination have been discovered at former manufactured gas plant (FMGP) sites. The USEPA has listed former manufactured gas sites in its priority site list (Hathaway.net, undated), and this includes a site in Lake Charles, Louisiana (page 1004, Hathaway, A.W., 2011). Significant quantities of waste "tar" was produced during the gas manufacturing process, and this waste was often simply disposed of on-site in open pits. Waste products created by the manufacturing process that are now associated with FMGP sites include (Heritage Research Center, 2007):

2-methylnapthalene, Acenaphthylene, Ancenapthene, Anthracene, Arsenic., Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chromium, Chrysene, Cyanide, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Dibenzofuran, Ethylbenzene, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, Lead, Methylphenol, Napthalene, Phenanthrene, Phenols, Polynuclear / Polycyclical Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Pyrene, Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), Toluene, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Xylenes

The proximity of the FMGP site to our Lafayette drinking water wells (Figure 2) heightens the already existing  concern over contamination of our Chicot Aquifer. Monitoring has already clearly established that surface contaminants are finding their way into our wells (Connector Comments, 2017a, and 2017b).

In a letter proposing recommended actions to our local political leadership, the Acadiana Group of the Sierra Club and the WaterMark Alliance recommendation #10 was to draft and adopt ordinances based on LDEQ drinking water protection sample ordinances. The presence of yet another risk to our drinking water further demonstrates the need for a Lafayette drinking water protection plan, an ongoing program, and protective ordinances. The Chicot Aquifer beneath Lafayette is a plentiful source of water, but its quality can be compromised for present and future generations if we fail to protect it.

REFERENCES:

Connector Comments (2017a). Y-49 takes a turn: Public meeting summary and video, January 19, 2017. published 1/29/2017.

Connector Comments (2017b). Contamination of our Chicot Aquifer.  What do we know? How do we know? What should be done? published 4/3/2017.

Hathaway, Allen W. (2011). Remediation of Former Manufactured Gas Plants and Other Coal-Tar Sites. CRC Press, 1398 pages.

Hathaway.net, (undated) Former Manufactured Gas Plants. accessed April 2017.

Heritage Research Center (2007) Manufactured Gas - The Genie’s Legacy

Contamination of our Chicot Aquifer: April 3, 2017, CCGG Meeting

The Concerned Citizens for Good Government (CCGG) held its regular 1st meeting of the month on Monday, April 3, 2017 at Alesi’s Pizza House in Lafayette, LA.  Guest speaker was Michael Waldon, PhD, and retired licensed professional environmental engineer. The title of the presentation was: Contamination of our Chicot Aquifer.  What do we know? How do we know? What should be done? WaterMark Alliance spokesperson Kim Goodell also gave an update to pending litigation and the I-49 Project. As always, there was an opportunity to ask pertinent questions at the end of the presentation.

If you missed the meeting, you can still participate. Click the following links to learn more about the meeting"

• Michael Waldon's presentation slide show. 
• Full presentation video made available by CCGG .
• Read the Acadiana Group of the Sierra Club/WaterMark Alliance recommendation letter to our civic leaders.

Additionally, you can still participate by sharing to Facebook or other media using the share buttons below, and by adding your ideas and questions in the comments section. If you feel strongly about the issue, please contact our political leaders. Our local leaders' contact information is available by clicking HERE.

Why are there high levels of arsenic in some Acadiana soils?

Figure 1. "4 Sources of Arsenic You’d Never Expect"

Introduction - The issue of arsenic contamination may at first appear to fall outside the scope of I-49 Connector (The Con) questions. However, arsenic contamination of our soils is an issue that does intersect with The Con's issues. In this post I will give some background about how elevated arsenic came to be in our parish soil, how it can impact us, and what we need to do about it.

If you recall the periodic table from your school days, arsenic is chemical element number 33 with the symbol As. Arsenic falls in the table just below phosphorus in column 15, and this means that arsenic may react in ways that are similar to phosphorus and disrupt some chemical reactions that are essential to life.

Sources of arsenic contamination - Arsenic was used for many purposes in the past, but is much less widely used today. In the southern US, arsenic pesticides in the form of lead arsenate dust and other formulations were regularly used on cotton crops to control boll weevils prior to the development of organic pesticides like DDT in the middle of the 20th century (Figure 2).

Figure 2.  Dusting cotton from"A is for arsenic" Wired 6/19/2012

Figure 3. "Arsenic and Old Railyards" F. Harrison

Along side sugar cane and livestock, cultivation of cotton provided an economically important income for Lafayette farmers since the earliest days of our town then named Vermilionville (Griffin, 1959).  Cotton farming has now come to an end in Lafayette Parish (Soil Survey of Lafayette Parish, LA, 1916; Soil Survey of Lafayette Parish, LA, 1977; NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2017), but in many places the legacy of arsenic pesticide use remains in our soil. Today in Acadiana, many sugar cane and rice fields cover the ground where cotton once grew, and the legacy of arsenic contaminates our rice crops (C. Poterra, 2007; B. Goodman, 2011;  T. Greenaway, 2012; Consumer Reports, 2012). Recent spreading of suburban development on our former cotton fields may also lead to routine but unrecognized exposure of Acadiana families to arsenic.

Arsenic was also used routinely in railroad operations to preserve rail ties and other wood, and to kill weeds along the right-of-way (MADEP, undated) so that engineers had an unobstructed view ahead and along each side of the tracks. Planned "rails-to-trails" projects have been complicated or even blocked by by the discovery of elevated soil arsenic levels leading to unanticipated clean-up costs (Ciabotti et al, 2004). The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy has published a compilation of case studies and guidance related to understanding contamination issues (Ciabatti et al, 2004), and the State of Massachusetts has recognized that repurposing of abandoned railroad routes poses a risk, and have published guidance in the form of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the development of rail-trails (Massachusetts DEP, undated).

The railroad was completed to Vermilionville in 1880, and today continues to run through our city which is now named Lafayette. The arrival of the railroad connecting New Orleans and Houston brought jobs, growth, prosperity, and commerce to our city. Steam trains which burned bunker oil had limited range, and all trains passing through Lafayette had to stop for refueling and to take on water and sand. The Lafayette railyard grew to be a major facility employing up to 1000 workers and providing complete maintenance service for the early steam engines (Griffin, 1959). There is now concern that the downtown railyard which was abandoned in the mid 1960s (Louisiana DOTD Draft Phase I ESA, 2016) will contaminate the Chicot Aquifer and our municipal water wells (C. Taylor, 2016).

Arsenic contamination of old railyards and rail lines has been found across the US. The abandoned Union Pacific Railroad Ashland site in Oregon is likely typical (Harrison, 2008). This railyard has similarities in age and past uses to the abandoned Lafayette yard, but the Ashland site is roughly half its size and poses little risk to water supply wells or local groundwater below the surficial level. The UPRR-Ashland site operated as a locomotive maintenance and refueling station from 1887 until 1986. Also, in contrast to Lafayette, the UPRR is actively working to remediate the Ashland site.

Figure x. Cultural Thoughts

Health impacts of arsenic - Despite the fact that arsenic has been used as a poison for centuries, the more subtle chronic health impacts from long-term exposure were often not recognized in the past, to the extent that low doses of arsenic were often used as a medicine or tonic (Wikipedia-Arsenic Poisoning History). It is now recognized that chronic exposure to arsenic can cause many ailments including thickening of the skin, darker skin, abdominal pain, diarrhea, heart disease, numbness, stroke, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and cancers of the skin, lung liver, and kidney. There is no evidence based treatment for chronic exposure; therefore, management must be focused on reducing exposure (Ratnaike, 2003).

Arsenic standards, levels, and limits - The USEPA sets standards for allowable concentration of contaminants in drinking water. These are called Maximum Contaminant Levels or simply MCLs. In setting an MCL, EPA first determines what concentration of contaminant would cause no health effect, and terms this concentration the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal or MCLG. In setting the MCL, EPA considers the cost and practicality of treatment weighed against the public health risk for the specific contaminant. The MCLG for arsenic is zero, meaning that there is no minimum concentration below which there is no health risk. In 2000, the EPA initially proposed an MCL of 5 ug/L (micrograms of AS per liter), but considered other levels of 3, 5, 10, and 20. After comments were received and reviewed, the final and current MCL for arsenic was set at 10 ug/L with an MCLG of zero.

In the US, public water suppliers are required to test for arsenic and meet standards after treatment. However, many private wells may be untested and can be a significant risk to adults and especially to children. The short 10-minute film In Small Doses: Arsenic gives useful background information on the risks from arsenic and discusses the risk of arsenic exposure from private wells in New England.

Beyond the concern for exposure to arsenic through rice which was mentioned above, other foods can be a pathway for exposure and risk. A 2012 study by Consumer Reports provides much useful information. The FDA does not currently regulate the amount of arsenic that can be present in our food. However, Dartmouth University's Children's Health web site recommends that we should: (1) limit rice consumption, choose white rather than brown rice (2) limit apple juice consumption, drink other juices, or skip drinking fruit juice (3) read labels because rice sweetener in the form of brown rice syrup is used in many foods. Dartmouth also recommended always rinsing rice before cooking, but recent research reported by the FDA shows that rinsing rice before cooking results in very little arsenic reduction, but does reduce some valuable nutrients. Gardening on arsenic contaminated soil can present concerns. The Washington State Cooperative Extension has published guidelines for gardening on lead and contaminated soils (F. Peryea, 1999). One simple recommendation is to carefully wash garden fruits and vegetables to remove all traces of soil before eating.

In addition to arsenic exposure from food and drinking water, exposure from breathing contaminated air must be limited. For employees, OSHA sets exposure limits based on an 8-hour average concentration of arsenic in air. OSHA sets the arsenic action level at 5 micrograms of AS per cubic meter of air. Personnel working on the abandoned railyard property and along the rail line should take care to limit their exposure to contaminated soil and dust. Lawn mowing and weed control, for example, may produce dust contaminated with arsenic and other soil contaminants. And, it follows that the public needs to be assured that they are protected from dust blowing from these sites through careful management of all activities on the sites which may create dust leaving the property boundaries.

Degrading Acadiana's cultural treasure-Vermilionville

Figure 1. This view across the pond at Vermilionville will look directly 
up at the University/Thruway/I-49 interchange and elevated interstate 49.
This photo was taken roughly 600 feet from the proposed Con alignment.

Since opening in 1990, Vermilionville has provided a serene location on the bank of Bayou Vermilion for Acadiana citizens and tourists to learn about and share the history of the Cajun culture. Providing the illusion of an isolated rural village, Vermilionville is a major part of the educational and cultural experience that is passing our culture on to both children and adults who participate in hands-on activities and celebrations. Vermilionville is truly our premier Acadiana cultural attraction.

But, how will constructing the proposed Lafayette I-49 Connector interstate impact this cultural jewel?

To answer this question, let's look at some pictures. Figure 1 is a photo taken from the parking lot of Vermilionville overlooking one of the small lakes at the site. The Evangeline Thruway is just 600 feet away on the other side of this lake ( see camera icon in Figure 2), but it is hidden by trees which also dampen the sound of the urban traffic and add to the illusion of isolation. The plan for the I-49 Connector project (the Con) is to build an elevated interstate above the current ground level path of the Thruway (wide red line at the top of Figure 2).

Currently, traffic moves at speeds at or below 50 mph along the Thruway; after the Con is completed, traffic will move at interstate speeds along an elevated roadway. Figure 3 shows the roadway elevation as it approaches and passes Vermilionville. At speeds below 50 mph, current Thruway traffic noise is dominated by the sound of car and truck engines, but above 50 highway noise is dominated by the higher frequency roar from tires rolling along the pavement. This high speed scream of the interstate will be focused at Vermilionville by northbound traffic dropping from the 45 foot elevation University/Surrey/Frontage Road/I-49 three-level interchange, and then climbing to stay elevated above the hill just north of the Bayou Vermilion bridge (Figure 3). The Vermilionville visitor center entrance is just 1000 feet from the proposed Con roadway, and 2000 feet from the peak of the planned University-Surrey interchange. Noise levels within Vermilionville will destroy all illusion of isolation, and at times may even make normal conversation difficult.

In addition to interstate's traffic noise, cars and trucks topping the interchange will be clearly visible to Vermilionville visitors. At night, the aircraft warning lighting atop the interchange, roadway lighting, and headlights will further reduce Vermilionville's illusion of isolation and serenity.

Figure 2. This is a Google Earth view of the Thruway and Vermilionville.
The path of the Con is plotted at the top, location of the photo (Figure 1),
The Vermilionville Visitor Center, and National Park Service are shown.
Note that north is rotated to the right in this aerial photo.                         

Figure 3. This drawing is adapted from EIS Plate 2a. A side view along the proposed roadway
is drawn here plotting elevation versus roadway distance going north. The red arrow indicates 
the location of Vermilionville which is on the bank of Bayou Vermilion. The shaded area at 
the bottom is below the ground; the solid black line graphs the road elevation. The blue line 
is drawn at 40 ft elevation. The numbers along the  bottom axis (300 and 325) are distances 
along the roadway in hundreds of feet (30,000 and 32,500 feet). Note again that in this figure
north is rotated to the right in this drawing. Elevation on the vertical axis is (I assume) NGVD.

So, how does the Con's Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluate the impact to Vermilionville, and what does it propose as solutions? Answer: Not much!

EIS Section 3.2.6 describes legal requirements placed on DOTD and FHWA by a so-called "section 4(f) properties designation." The EIS states that

Under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act 49 USC 1653(f), the Federal Highway Administration cannot approve any program or project which requires the use of land from a significant public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic sites (on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) unless: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property from such use.

Speaking of Vermilionville, Beaver Park, and other impacted recreational areas, EIS Section 4.2.3 concludes "A slight noise increase would be expected at Beaver Park for the EA-1 and RR-4 alternatives." and "In general, recreation areas in the corridor would be positively impacted due to the improved accessibility, with increased usage possible once the project is complete." So, the answer is that no negative impact on Vermilionville is considered by the EIS, and nothing will be done to mitigate any impact.

Speaking solely of Beaver Park, section 4.2.3 of the EIS commits not to action, mitigation, or re-design, but rather it commits to the possibly needing to prepare more documents:

Should design details as subsequently developed cause impacts which are not currently apparent, 4(f) and 6(f) applicability would be reviewed by the FHWA and DOTD and statements prepared, if warranted.

So, what is the best alternative for Vermilionville, Beaver Park, all the other recreational, cultural, educational, and religious sites along the Con's alignment? Simply stated:

• Don't build the Con! 
• Build a bypass or complete loop!

The Evangeline Thruway did NOT split our neighborhoods!

Let's look at the actual history of Lafayette. The railroad has been an important part of our city's development. By 1885, Lafayette had a full fledged railroad, and significant freight was shipping from Lafayette by train in the 1890s.  New residences were constructed as the railroad developed. However, the presence of the rail yard limited the connection between communities on its two sides. It was not until 1964, after the rail yard was moved to its current location between Willow and Cameron Streets, that multiple connections between the east and west were established. It was not until the 1960s, for example, that Johnston Street was extended to meet Louisiana Avenue across the abandoned yard.

So, when paid Connector proponents tell you that they are reconnecting our city, remind them that currently more than 30 streets connect east to west across the Thruway. None of the plans for the urban interstate development maintain this level of connectivity, much less increase it.
 
Reference: C. Ray Brassieur, Lionel Lyles, Michael S. Martinc, Freetown: As it was and as it is, The Freetown History Project Final Report, November 30, 2013, available at http://www.crt.state.la.us/downloads/HP/freetown/FREETOWN%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.

Sanborn overview map, 1940-1949.

Foreshadowing the Lafayette Connector: 'The Monster' - Claiborne Avenue Before and After the Interstate

Photo: The Historic New Orleans Collection

George Santayana is credited with saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." With that in mind, look at the history of destruction left by the Louisiana DOTD as they developed urban interstates in the 1960's. In New Orleans they proposed the Riverfront Expressway through the French Quarter and along the Mississippi River. Thankfully, the public outcry prevailed to stop the French Quarter section of interstate, but the Expressway was built through the Treme neighborhood over Claiborne Avenue in 1968.

Read more about this history of loss in this WWNO post titled 'The Monster': Claiborne Avenue Before And After The Interstate.  http://wwno.org/post/monster-claiborne-avenue-and-after-interstate

Plans for the Lafayette Connector date back to this era of urban destruction and social injustice. How can DOTD prevent the same destruction and injustice in Lafayette today that they brought about nearly 50 years ago in New Orleans?

Loss of cultural venue the Feed N Seed

The Feen N Seed at 106 N. Grant Street has marked for removal
by the Louisiana DOTD. Photo - M Waldon, no rights reserved.

How can the DOTD mitigate the cultural loss to our community as they destroy the Feed N Seed (http://feednseedlafayette.com/) and other historic and cultural sites in our city? This venue provides the community with diverse offerings such as the performance and release party described in an article in The Advocate titled "Mike Dean to release new live album at Feed N Seed in Lafayette."

The article is available at:
http://theadvocate.com/entertainment/music/15690262-123/mike-dean-to-release-new-live-album-at-feed-n-seed-in-lafayette?fb_action_ids=10205025483350241&fb_action_types=og.comments

Earlier in 2016, a video recorded at the Feed N Seed appeared on NBC's Today Show:
http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/acadiana/2016/03/19/lafayette-featured-today-show/82012870/

To see more recent news, Google Lafayette Feed N Seed and click News, or use this link
https://www.google.com/search?q=Lafayette+%22Feed+N+Seed%22&rlz=1CALEAD_enUS617US618&oq=Lafayette+%22Feed+N+Seed%22&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.11996j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Lafayette+%22Feed+N+Seed%22&tbm=nws