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 kingbob

Sorrento, LA

Member since Nov 2010

67221 posts

Posted on 4/30/15 at 2:49 pm to jimbeam

Absolutely. We do not disagree that both cause erosion. We merely disagree on the degree to which each are contributing to the overall problem. In reality, debating about who should be blamed more it is a huge waste of time. BOTH issues need to fixed. The canals AND the levees. However, one is being protected by state politics and the other is protected by the leviathan that is the federal government.

This argument is like looking at a dying murder victim that has multiple stab and bullet wounds that are hemorrhaging blood and trying to figure out exactly which one is most lethal when all are lethal if untreated. Oh, and you can't actually stitch up any of them because you're not the doctor and the doctor isn't allowed to perform that kind of work.

This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 2:56 pm

1 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board