Provides relative to construction of bulkheads on certain water bodies in St. Tammany Parish. (gov sig)
Summary
SB 145 creates a temporary prohibition on the issuance of permits for bulkhead construction in a narrowly defined area of St. Tammany Parish, including water bodies locally known as Lake Emfred and Suter Slip. From March 17, 2025, through January 1, 2030, no Class B permit may be issued under R.S. 41:1706 for bulkhead construction in that area, and no coastal use permit may be issued under R.S. 49:214.30 for the same purpose there.
The bill does not broadly change statewide permitting law; instead, it adds a location-specific exception to existing permit authority for a defined set of coordinates in St. Tammany Parish. It affects both the state permitting system and the parish’s approved local coastal program by removing discretion to approve bulkhead construction permits in the covered area during the stated period. The measure is effective upon gubernatorial signature or otherwise under the constitutionally prescribed default effective-date rules.
Impact
SB 145 amends Louisiana law by adding two new statutory subsections that carve out a five-year moratorium on bulkhead-related permitting in a specific part of St. Tammany Parish. It limits both Class B permits under the public lands/permits framework and coastal use permits under the coastal management law, binding the secretary and the approved local program. The practical effect is to block new bulkhead construction approvals in the identified water bodies and coordinates until January 1, 2030.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received favorably and without recorded opposition. It passed the Senate 38-0 and the House 96-0, indicating strong bipartisan support and little visible controversy in the recorded votes. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record suggests consensus rather than debate.
Contention
No formal points of contention are documented in the provided materials, but the bill’s targeted restriction could be of concern to property owners, developers, or others seeking shoreline stabilization or waterfront construction in the affected area. Supporters likely viewed it as a localized environmental or land-use control measure, while any opposition would likely center on limits to private development and permit availability. Because the vote was unanimous in both chambers, any disagreement was either minimal or resolved before final passage.