If the River had the 1927 levees, would the coast be net eroding or expanding?

If the river had no levees below Belle Chase, would the coast be net eroding or expanding?

If the river had no levees below Venice, would the coast be net eroding or expanding?

The oil companies have certainly made it worse, but none of that would matter if the sediment were making it to the marshes where it belongs. Subsidence in a deltaic system that has been denied annual alluvium can be a real bitch.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by jimbeam

University of LSU

Member since Oct 2011

75703 posts

Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:43 pm to kingbob

So can digging canals(direct marah destruction) and building spoil banks, thus creating huge areas in between them that are only flooded in major events (whether this water has sand[the real land building substance] in it [likely not] is moot)this creating Hypersaline areas with increased water depths that then kill off plants and suddenly you have a huge square lake (indirect marsh destruction).

Note that this happened all along LAs coast in the mid 20th century

TL;DR - digging up marsh canals and hydrologically isolating marsh areas will lead to destruction. Oil companies did this with wreckless abandon

This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 2:47 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Mung

NorCal

Member since Aug 2007

9054 posts

Posted on 4/30/15 at 3:25 pm to kingbob

quote:
If the River had the 1927 levees, would the coast be net eroding or expanding?

Human habitation is not congruent with the constant flooding necessary to maintain the floodplain. They cut of Bayou Lafourche in 1904, to stop that flooding. Thus went the sediment source for all of Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes. How can you allow all the cities along the river to flood every three years?

1 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board