By Alton Wallace | The Center Square
(The Center Square) – Louisiana fishermen, local environmental groups and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit Friday in Cameron Parish challenging a coastal use permit for a proposed 44-mile pipeline, arguing state regulators failed to consider the project’s cumulative effects on climate change and coastal erosion.
The proposed Marais Pipeline would transport 1.9 billion cubic feet of methane gas per day to supply the Venture Global CP2 LNG export terminal, an approximately $33 billion project currently under construction along the Calcasieu Ship Channel near the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico.
Filed in the 38th Judicial District Court, the petition argues that the 48-inch diameter pipeline would fill or disturb more than 800 acres of coastal wetlands, directly violating a legal precedent set by the same court last October.
In that decision, which arose from a lawsuit challenging the coastal use permit for the Commonwealth LNG export terminal, Judge Penelope Richard ruled that state regulators must fully analyze cumulative climate change impacts before issuing coastal permits.
Fisherman Involved in Sustaining our Heritage or FISH, a group based in Cameron Parish, contend state officials are ignoring the economic and health impacts on local residents in favor of serving corporate interests.
“The Marais Pipeline is another reminder that our communities are expected to carry the risks while corporations collect the profits,” said Robyn Thigpen, executive director of FISH. “Southwest Louisiana is not a sacrifice zone, and we will continue fighting for the people, waters and fisheries that call this place home. We deserve leaders who protect people instead of fast-tracking projects that threaten our health, our environment and our future,” said Thigpen.
The lawsuit marks the second time in recent months that environmental advocates have accused the Louisiana Department of Conservation and Energy of rushing infrastructure approvals.
After the ruling in the 38th Judicial District in October required a stricter analysis of the environmental impacts of the Commonwealth export facility, the Louisiana regulatory agency reissued that coastal permit in November with a revised basis of decision. Although the Louisiana regulator’s staff disagreed with the court’s judgment, they chose to reapprove the permit to avoid further legal delays, concluding that the project’s economic benefits justified its environmental impact.
At the federal level, the nation’s top energy regulator announced last week that it will no longer conduct cumulative impact analyses when evaluating the environmental impacts of major infrastructure projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) finalized the decision at its monthly open meeting on June 18, when it issued the directive as part of an order approving the Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage Project.
In a separate concurrence to that decision, FERC Commissioner Judy Chang noted that the agency still has a binding legal obligation to evaluate how proposed infrastructure additions affect already existing pollution and industry in the region.
Local fishing and environmental advocates contend that the federal commission’s policy change places the burden of cumulative climate reviews squarely on state regulators and local parish courts.
“State officials rubber-stamped the coastal use permit for this pipeline without fully examining the toll it would take. Communities deserve a transparent, science-based review of the project’s true costs before permits are issued, not after the damage is done,” said Cathy Collentine, Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign.
“To make matters worse, this pipeline would supply the massive CP2 LNG export scheme that we know will worsen climate pollution, further threaten coastal wetlands, and drive up energy costs for families across the country,” Collentine said.
The advocacy groups opposing the pipeline have already filed three separate legal challenges at the federal level against the CP2 export facility itself. This broader litigation includes an August 2024 lawsuit contesting FERC’s initial approval, an August 2025 appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit seeking to overturn the project’s Clean Air Act permit, and a February 2026 petition filed against the export license issued by the Department of Energy.