- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Mississippi River diverging: When do we finally let it go down the Atchafalaya?
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:18 pm
Having a discussion on this last night with some civil engineers.
Basically, the only way to really save the coast from shrinking is to let the river do what it wants, as nature intended.
Twomain things keeping us from doing it: New Orleans, which the port is "too big to fail" as they sarcastically put it. And the people who live along the atchafalaya and below. They would have to be displaced.
So why don't we do it? Tell them they have to leave, and then build another port that is probably closer to the open water, instead of traversing the river up to New Orleans.
Who would be down for this?
Basically, the only way to really save the coast from shrinking is to let the river do what it wants, as nature intended.
Twomain things keeping us from doing it: New Orleans, which the port is "too big to fail" as they sarcastically put it. And the people who live along the atchafalaya and below. They would have to be displaced.
So why don't we do it? Tell them they have to leave, and then build another port that is probably closer to the open water, instead of traversing the river up to New Orleans.
Who would be down for this?
19
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:23 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Who would be down for this?
Me, I work in a field that works closely with CPRA and the civil engineers are correct.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:24 pm to magildachunks
It would take a huge shift in river infrastructure. So a large portion of money wouldn't be for it. But a large portion of the population would.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:25 pm to magildachunks
Nature might eventually force our hand. The big problem is that only about 1/3 of the current water volume would be going down the current channel, and that would cause saltwater to backflow into the NOLA metro area and ruin the supply of drinking water.
You'd also have to move not only over 1,000,000 residents of NOLA plus all the people who would be displaced by the new course of the river, but also a couple of airports, several universities, some of the oil and gas infrastructure, the Port of New Orleans, etc. It would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have right now.
You'd also have to move not only over 1,000,000 residents of NOLA plus all the people who would be displaced by the new course of the river, but also a couple of airports, several universities, some of the oil and gas infrastructure, the Port of New Orleans, etc. It would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have right now.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:26 pm to magildachunks
There is too much money invested in NOLA as a port that it will never happen while we have the resources and money to keep the status quo.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:26 pm to magildachunks
No way this will happen in our lifetime.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:30 pm to magildachunks
People don't want to save the coast. They want to save their habitat.
Destroying their habitat to save the coast isn't a solution to society.
Destroying their habitat to save the coast isn't a solution to society.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:32 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Who would be down for this?
Raises hand.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:35 pm to magildachunks
One of my professors at LSU said that "multiple, multiple generations" would pass before south Louisiana truly "recovered" from the Mississippi shifting course.
ETA: +1 on the Rising Tide recommendation. Excellent book.
ETA: +1 on the Rising Tide recommendation. Excellent book.
This post was edited on 3/7/15 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:47 pm to magildachunks
I'm no expert but I just watched the Vice episode about melting polar ice caps. If it's true that the sea level will rise 2 to 4 ft does the South La coastline matter? Won't it be under water.
Now I'm not saying sea level rise will happen because I don't know but many scientists are convincedit will happen.
Now I'm not saying sea level rise will happen because I don't know but many scientists are convincedit will happen.
This post was edited on 3/7/15 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:53 pm to magildachunks
It will happen right after BR gets a loop.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:53 pm to magildachunks
The Petrochemical industry would never let that happen.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 2:12 pm to magildachunks
It's not just New Orleans, it's all the petrochemical infrastructure up and down the river. It would be a major national disruption. Not something you want to do unless you have to. There are ways to divert part the flow and achieve some of the goals without a major catastrophe, the problem is for every winner there are losers who don't want their rice bowl broken. For instance, oyster fishermen have been holding up the Barataria diversion project because they think it would hurt their livelihood.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 2:18 pm to magildachunks
But all that culcha, brah?
Posted on 3/7/15 at 2:52 pm to magildachunks
quote:
magildachunks
lol@thisthread...
Posted on 3/7/15 at 3:58 pm to magildachunks
quote:
only way to really save the coast from shrinking is to let the river do what it wants, as nature intended.
This won't happen just because the flow has shifted to where it naturally wants to be. The Atchafalya is currently building marsh in two places, the main delta and the Wax Delta diversion off of it. The Mississippi also builds wetland on its current state. Seasonal flooding (sheet flow in this case) would be needed to have effects away from the deltas. So...they need to let the rivers flood annually.
Not to mention, less sediment is making it down stream due to dams upstream on Mississippi river tributaries. So...let's blow those all up too.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 4:18 pm to magildachunks
Jumping in A lil late
Baton Rouge is a pretty big port also
quote:
New Orleans, which the port is "too big to fail"
Baton Rouge is a pretty big port also
Posted on 3/7/15 at 5:13 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Tell them they have to leave, and then build another port that is probably closer to the open water, instead of traversing the river up to New Orleans.
Yea let's just completely abandon the largest port in the US (port of south LA)
Posted on 3/7/15 at 5:36 pm to magildachunks
You're scaring me, dog. 
Posted on 3/7/15 at 5:53 pm to magildachunks
quote:
So why don't we do it? Tell them they have to leave, and then build another port that is probably closer to the open water, instead of traversing the river up to New Orleans.
You do realize that one of the reasons that the port of south la is so big is because it has to river to traverse. Panamax ships can unload anywhere from Chalmette to the old bridge in BR. That is a huge amoung of real estate that other ports (i.e port of long beach or mobile) can't compete with. That means that it is cheaper to have the ship sail up the river a few miles than sitting out at sea waiting to be unloaded.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News