Paco Alvarez: How did you initially learn about the relocation efforts on the Isle de Jean Charles? How did you begin reporting on the investigation?
Olga Loginova: So these two things happened at two different times. The Isle de Jean Charles resettlement has been well covered since 2016, and I was a journalist back then, but it was not my beat. However, when I was reporter at Columbia Journalism Investigations, I worked on a team that was looking into the lack of federal accountability in terms of communities that are seeking climate resettlement or climate relocation, or actually we were trying to create a database of communities that need to move because of climate change specifically and look into where the money is going. And of course, some work had been done by others, by NPR for example, but we were looking at very specific regions. And seeing what the money was spent on and who didn’t get the money.
What caught my attention, as I was focusing specifically on Isle de Jean Charles, if I remember correctly now — I think I kind of pushed on the need to tell the story in terms of how diverse and how different the coverage was. On the one hand, I saw a lot of news clips and headlines about the success of the resettlement. At that time, really the resettlement was still in the making, nobody moved. On the other hand, when I started to dig deeper, you know, like looking at the 10th or ninth page of Google search, I saw the comments from the tribal leaders and they were comparing this project to the new Trail of Tears. And it was just like so strange. And my gut told me that there is more to the story. And again, this was the, this was the first federally funded climate resettlement. And it really fit the project we were working on. So it’s basically coincidence, but also just like the fact of life and serendipity. And since I pitched the story to the team. I had the privilege of working on it.
Alvarez: Like you mentioned, “Leaving the Island” is partially based on an investigation you did a few years ago with Type, Columbia Journalism Investigations and the Center for Public Integrity. What brought you back to the project for the podcast?
Loginova: So basically, we went to print two weeks before people moved. So the houses were built, and we kind of tentatively knew when they were going to move. There were many delays throughout the project, but we had a deadline for going to print. We were out. And then it was over. My time on the team was over because the project took one year to complete. But really, when you think about resettlements, and this is what I talk to disaster and resettlement anthropologists, this is not even a beginning. It usually takes generations to see if the resettlement is successful, so I just really couldn’t stop thinking about it, and I kept checking in with people.
And also, I am primarily a multimedia journalist, actually a broadcast journalist in the past, and a indie documentary filmmaker, which means that I usually work with video, or audio this time, and I, for the life of me, cannot take notes. Like that’s the truth, and I know it’s like I have very bad handwriting, so even if I take notes, I won’t be able to read them. So I record everything. I recorded throughout my career. And so when the print story was over, I had over a hundred hours of audio. And I thought that there was a bigger story to tell and a more nuanced and more emotional piece because there were so many human stories that were left behind the print piece. Because it was investigative, there was pretty rigid structure. There was only so much we could say about the real experience of people. So that’s how it came to be. I wanted to do something about it. My editor at Columbia Journalism Investigations allowed me to do, like we had a conversation because of course I couldn’t just run with it. It was not my project, I was working for a newsroom, but she allowed me to pursue it further. I created a deck. I talked to a person who was a podcast consultant and he introduced me to people at Audiation. They saw my pitch, they saw my deck, they liked the story, they ran with it. And then Type Investigations came on board as well. And I’m very grateful for it.
Alvarez: So speaking of the reporting process a bit, how was reporting for an audio format different from reporting for a print investigation?
Loginova: It’s different, you know, because like when you’re reporting for a print piece, you’re searching for information. Here, you need to create scenes. You need to bring the audiences into that time and place, which is not now. It’s like to bring them back 10 years before. So we re-recorded many of the most significant interviews with the most important participants or sources, you name it. And some questions were very specific. Describe to me how things were, describe to me what you were wearing, like describe to me like what was in front of you. Some of it, my purpose was to kind of create a very visceral experience, to make the audiences kind of hear and feel that they are there. I tried to do it through language, sound bites, audio, but really in production, it was very different. Sometimes we were sitting in a studio, either in New York or Washington DC, and trying to recreate those bits and pieces. And then of course we were on the ground in Louisiana, also recording ambient sound. And also again, asking people who are not media trained, like trained, there are people who live on the bayou. Some of them have given hundreds of interviews. But some haven’t and to explain to them why I am asking the questions I’m asking, sometimes it took like, you know, a run around and repeating the questions several times, but also trying not to annoy them and not to waste their time. And people were incredibly generous and very kind, which I’m grateful for.
Alvarez: How had things changed for the people you spoke with between your initial investigation and the podcast series?
Loginova: During that time, most of the permanent residents moved to the New Isle. And so when I reported for the podcast, most of them already lived on the New Isle, on the resettlement site. And they were dealing with another set of problems. And as again, it’s not kind of my discovery, this is also what social scientists say: every resettlement is messy. It’s conflict-ridden. It’s complicated. And it’s like, it goes on and on and on. It’s very difficult to leave your life behind and start some place new, even if it’s someplace new only 40 miles north. I think every immigrant can attest to that too.
I think for some it was like moving to a different country and being thrown into a very different income bracket without really getting the means to fit into the bracket. The houses they were living in were new. Very solid, but also expensive. They had to pay taxes on them and it’s a struggle. And actually by the end of 2024, several households failed to meet the requirement to pay their property tax. And at least one person had their tax auctioned off. And it was a major, major issue. And actually this was a fear at the state agency all along. They were talking about the possibility of people just not being able to afford to stay there from the very beginning. So that was happening.
Also, the houses, despite the fact that they were like brand new and built to the highest fortified standard, they had lots of issues. To an extent, like one person described me that one day there were like nine toilets sitting on the lawn because neither of those toilets was working. Or there was no insulation in some building. So which meant that they were like freezing like during the winter and they were like frying in the summer. Their ACs didn’t work. Sometimes they would break down and, since it was past the warranty time, they would have to pay for it. But again, those are people, they don’t have trust funds. Many of them lived on a fixed income. So they were trying to get through a mountain of issues. They were trying to reach the agency. People would not be picking up the phone. They felt abandoned. And then again, these are just people dealing with their day-to-day stuff.
And then there is a bigger issue of what’s happening to the tribe. And it’s a different, very different level of complexity because the tribal leaders didn’t live on the new aisle. They were not eligible. So they were kind of separated in trying to fight for it. And actually, in a way losing every day and getting further and further every day. So yeah, that’s what the environment that I came back to. And one thing that happened like after it’s not after my podcast, they cannot take the credit for it. But the week before we aired, my former colleague, Alex Lubben, and you talked to him when we talked together the last time, he published a story about the New Isle, and he mentioned the situation with Johnny Tamplet, the man who could not pay his taxes and his tax was auctioned off. So he went to print, and one very generous lady in New Orleans found out about it and paid Johnny’s tax. And so just, I mean, it’s such a miracle. And like also seeing like journalism at work and making a difference, I think it was phenomenal. Yeah. So that’s like one great positive thing that happened within like the last couple of months because of the reporting that has been done on it. I think it’s just amazing.
Alvarez: You kind of spoke about this, who are the government agencies involved when communities need to relocate?
Loginova: This is a very loaded question and I think the answer will be different in regards to which community you’re talking about. I can only, like for now I’m speaking about Isle de Jean Charles resettlement and so the money for the resettlement was allocated by Congress, but it came through the National Disaster Resilience Competition that was kind of spearheaded by HUD. So the main federal agency was HUD. And then it was the funder and all the documentation that came from the state agencies went to HUD and it was like their constant communication. And, then on the state level it was the Office of Community development, that was the state agency that actually works with HUD funds and resilient funds. That’s just their portfolio. Those were two major agencies.
I filed the public records request, and so I got lots of documents, and I could see all the other agencies involved, and throughout all these years, there was communication with the Governor’s office, and also Bureau of Indian Affairs, because most of the people living on the island were indigenous, even though not federally recognized. One of the other parties to the National Disaster Resilience Competition was the Rockefeller Foundation, and they were providing technical support and also running academies. And through those academies, the communities could meet with representatives of other federal agencies. I didn’t look into that that much, because again, my job was to look into HUD, which gave the money and also ran all the regulations and also sometimes was the rigidity about this process was coming from HUD because bureaucracy and the Office of Community development, but then they, you know, employed other agencies. And of course in Louisiana, it’s also C, all this agency that kind of studies and maintains the – I need to look up that’s abbreviation and I can’t, CSRA, no, CPU, the author of the master plan.
Alvarez: And what was the relationship between like the residents and those agencies?
Loginova: Well… It depends on the year you are asking about. At first, everyone was excited when the money was granted. And during the application process, I think there was like the sense of camaraderie between the tribal leaders, because they were like, of course, spearheading the effort from the tribal community. But then also there was a nonprofit, which I didn’t mention, there was a non-profit that was helping the tribe to write the application or figure out their needs. The nonprofit work directly with the state agency and the state agencies work directly with HUD, that’s kind of the hierarchy. So the people who lived in like on the island, their interaction with agencies on the agency level was minimal, least at first, some people I think were not even aware of what was going on.
When the money was awarded and the state agency sent the surveyor, canvassers or whatever, they wanted to find out what the island was about. This is when the island residents started really talking to people from the state agency. And there was a lot of distrust. And like there was were like a group, a team of people, actually two people who showed up all the time, and then one person, an anthropologist, Jessica Simms, and so she built a very strong rapport with the island residents and she cares about them deeply and she’s still in touch. But as the project progressed, the relationship between all agencies deteriorated. So there is a huge sense of distrust between the tribal leadership and the Office of Community Development. They still I don’t have to talk to them, but like. It’s not an amicable relationship. And the exposure of them to HUD was mostly through written communication. And then at some point after the award, the manager, the officer from HUD flew to Louisiana to figure out the conflicts between in how the grant was written versus what the reality was. So he was there just to problem solve. And I also don’t think that the people really appreciated how it went. So not great, not great. Communication could have been better, said the former executive director of the OCD.
Alvarez: And I guess you spoke about this a bit, but what were some of the challenges residents were facing throughout the process?
Loginova: From the moment the grant was awarded, well the biggest one was that by the time the grant was awarded, 98% of the island was gone, which also meant that houses were gone and people had left, they were like only a bunch of people left on the island. Just under 98 was the official number of those who called it their home, the permanent residents. And according to the tribal leaders of one tribe, Jean-Charles Choctaw Nation, they had like hundreds of people there. There were members of another tribe there, the United Houma Nation. So I could never get a sense of how many presently, or like tribal members who lived on the island right before, like maybe I knew of like a couple of families, one family and then like someone was married to the United Houma Nation member, but like it was hard to get the steady numbers.
So again, land lost, houses lost, connections lost, and then every year they are hit with hurricanes and they flood and cannot get to work because the road that leads to the island like just is covered with water. It’s like a tiny, it’s basically, well – I wouldn’t even say it’s two-lane. It’s like it’s a tiny, narrow road. It goes one direction, it comes back the other direction. And then there are rocks on both sides. And whenever there is a hurricane. Yeah, you don’t see the road, it’s under, or it’s just flooded and you cannot pass. And so there’s that. And they were worried about their livelihoods, but also the state agency staff were scared for them. And so they knew that there was a sense of urgency to build the resettlement site and move everyone. And then it took forever. It took so long but it’s not the longest. Some communities have been trying to relocate for decades, like Newtok or Shishmaref in Alaska. So here it took from the moment the money came to the moment they moved was how many years? Six and a half years. Well, almost seven years, right?
But in that time some people who were eligible to get new homes, they passed because they were old or like sick and their kids inherited their houses and then again there was a lot of confusion and there was lot of conflict and so those were like the key challenges and also people had there was one thing that the state agency did which was I think was good this was a bright move they used some of the money from the grant to give people vouchers and to resettle those who wanted to Houma, to keep them there like safely while the resettlement site was being built and half of the island chose this option. Some stayed on the isle but like some didn’t and it seems like even though it was not perfect, many people were better off for it.
Alvarez: And then, zooming out a bit and kind of related to what you were just talking about, relocation due to climate change is going to become a major issue for more people in the near future. Obviously, it’s affecting a lot of people now. What are some of the things you learned through your reporting that you think organizations, government agencies, and people affected by climate change should keep in mind with these future relocation efforts?
Loginova: So a lot of what there is kind of a combination of things I’ve learned through different means. Well, first of all, no one knows how to resettle people. People are trying to do what they can to the best of their abilities. And where there is a difference between just resettling individuals, I think this is what the United States is doing very well. I am not talking about the historical context. I’m talking about now, like FEMA and HUD have a mechanism of buyouts. So if your house floods every year, you can, and if the damage is too much, you can be bought out, right? They’ll pay. The value of your home, I think before the disaster happened, and then your property is raised. But you go on your own.
For some communities, particularly indigenous communities, this is not ideal. It does harm because they function as a community, it’s more of a collectivist society. And so there should be a mechanism that allows people to move together. And I think the Isle de Jean Charles was an attempt to do so. And It’s not my discovery. Like this is what also the research arm of the Congress said in one of their reports, the GAO report, that we do not have an agency, a federal, there should be a federal agency tasked specifically with community resettlement. They should be, they should like become experts in it and work with communities.
Right now, there is no money for it. So for example, in Alaska communities have to, and like in Alaska, it’s like, it’s a very dire situation I think. Well, yeah, this is a state in some parts that’s warming up to three or four times faster than the rest of the country. And they do not qualify for a lot of federal grants that exist to help communities adapt, mitigate, adapt or even relocate. So I talked to, several years ago, I talked with a tribal member of Kotlik and she was saying that she spent all her weekend hours applying for grants. So there is a patchwork of donors, some federal, some private. And so you try to basically collect a basket of money that you can use to keep your people safe. And it’s exhausting. And for communities that don’t have the resources, that don’t have the technical acumen, it’s just sometimes not feasible.
There should be an agency that works like that. And there was, in 2020, there was an effort to create one. The White House created an inter-agency community-driven relocation subcommittee. And it was co-chaired by FEMA and the Department of the Interior. And so they were trying to kind of come up with a blueprint of how to do it better. Now it’s defunct. And so that’s gone. So that one thing, we need an agency or someone who knows how to do it and to be kind of not in charge, but at least to be like one source of information and help and possibly funding, but then also there should be a better way to communicate with people who are the ones to be resettled and really strive – I think, well, basically, let me rephrase it, every community relocation should be community driven, because nobody wants to be moved, especially in this country. And now I am referring to the historical examples of forced relocations, because that trauma, historical trauma, and the memory of it is very present. And every time people think that they are being operated on, or being forced to do something, there is a huge resistance. And I think that in a way that was also one of the plagues or one of the kind of pains that plagued the Isle de Jean Charles resettlement. People didn’t think that they had agency sometimes.
A grant program was cut, called Wasteful, but it’s, I mean, for some communities, again, I’m talking about Alaska, they relied on it. It was not the only source of funding because again, they just don’t have enough money, they need to apply for so many things to get half of what they deserve or need and like must have to stay alive. Like in some communities in Alaska, people don’t have access to drinking water or working toilet and they haven’t had it for like years. So with those programs gone, with the community-driven relocation subcommittee gone, many will be stuck in danger. And I think there should be reporting and there should be interest in stories about this. But again, it’s hard. And if you can’t like really, if you’re discouraged to use the words climate change on a government level, how are we to do our job and our job really is to shed the light and try to, I don’t know, like help. In a way, like shedding the light on the problems is kind of what we journalists can do to help. So I’m kind of right now trying to figure this out for myself, how to continue telling these stories.