- 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
Experts want to move the mouth of the river upstream.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:34 am
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:34 am
I'm all in, and it makes sense for the survival of the human species in New Orleans. But shipping interests, fishermen, and the 14 current residents of lower Plaquemines will surely oppose it.
LINK
quote:
The mouth of the Mississippi River should be moved north to Port Sulphur or English Turn and communities south of those points eventually will have to be abandoned if other parts of southeast Louisiana are to have a future into the next century.
LINK
20
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:43 am to Slippy
Good luck getting most politicians on board. Our decision makers in charge only think about time as it relates to terms, not nature's time. None of them have the balls to do what is right, but rather only what will get them re-elected and a nice steak dinner.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:44 am to Slippy
quote:
survival of the human species in New Orleans
New Orleans won't last much more than another 100 years. The continued subsidence will make it uninhabitable.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:44 am to Slippy
Serious question. How much has sea level risen in the last 100 years? 1/2 a centimeter? 1 meter? How much. From what I can tell it seems like a bad idea and over reaction.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:45 am to Slippy
Shouldnt the river ultimately go to Morgan City? Why not just go all the way the the inevitable here.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:45 am to Slippy
Who's going to make landowners whole in Buras, Venice, etc. after the federal abandonment?
Time to buy property down there, Uncle Sugar will be buying everyone out.
Time to buy property down there, Uncle Sugar will be buying everyone out.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:48 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Serious question. How much has sea level risen in the last 100 years? 1/2 a centimeter? 1 meter? How much. From what I can tell it seems like a bad idea and over reaction.
The causes of Louisiana's coastal erosion don't necessarily have to do with rising seas. A lot of it has to do with the (mis)management of the Mississippi River.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:52 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Serious question. How much has sea level risen in the last 100 years? 1/2 a centimeter? 1 meter? How much. From what I can tell it seems like a bad idea and over reaction.
I think estimates range somewhere between .07-.13 inches/year. So maybe 8-15 inches since 1900. We can argue the causes all day long (but not really, intelligent people know why), but sea levels are rising at a significant rate.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 6:52 am to GetCocky11
The only thing keeping the river from moving now are the levees. It wants to shift west already
The only thing which will fix the erosion problem is blowing up the levees in Plaquemines parish and letting the river do it
The only thing which will fix the erosion problem is blowing up the levees in Plaquemines parish and letting the river do it
This post was edited on 9/16/15 at 6:54 am
Posted on 9/16/15 at 7:10 am to soccerfüt
quote:
Who's going to make landowners whole in Buras, Venice, etc. after the federal abandonment? Time to buy property down there, Uncle Sugar will be buying everyone out.
Have you been down there lately? There is is very little land left, and what's there is not worth all that much.
I think this idea has a chance of becoming politically palatable as the population of the lower delta continues to diminish, and the investment in New Orleans continues to rise. Honestly, there aren't even that many legislators from the affected areas (Plaquemines, St. Bernard, lower Jefferson). We're not there yet, but we will be. And if the shipping interests can be placated with a workable alternative, this thing is doable sooner than later.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 7:17 am to Slippy
Funny thing is that by trying to divert some of this sediment rich fresh water to areas that still have enough marsh left to benefit form it, you are going to piss off a lot of the fisherman. You are taking their saltwater rich fishery and turning it back into a more freshwater environment. They need you to save their wetlands, but not at the cost of them turning a profit.
As far as moving the mouth of the river, who cares. Is there really much going on in the towns south of Port Sulfur that rely on the river traffic that much? It's not like those towns can't exist without river traffic. They may lose some income, but it's not like it's necessary to go bulldoze the whole place just because there's no more river traffic. It's still going to be a sportsman's dream down there. I assume the river would still flow there, just not at it's current depths. I'm no civil engineer, so I could totally be underestimating it's effects, but it doesn't seem like it would automatically mean the end of existence for those towns.
As far as moving the mouth of the river, who cares. Is there really much going on in the towns south of Port Sulfur that rely on the river traffic that much? It's not like those towns can't exist without river traffic. They may lose some income, but it's not like it's necessary to go bulldoze the whole place just because there's no more river traffic. It's still going to be a sportsman's dream down there. I assume the river would still flow there, just not at it's current depths. I'm no civil engineer, so I could totally be underestimating it's effects, but it doesn't seem like it would automatically mean the end of existence for those towns.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 7:19 am to geauxtigers87
It would take a lot longer than it would have in the early 20th century to build land than it would now. The MS doesn't carry near the sediment that it once did due to all of the dams, levees and locks in the Upper portion of the river.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 7:20 am to Slippy
Where would the river run if they let it run where it wanted to?
Posted on 9/16/15 at 7:21 am to Slippy
Most of that spoil from the Mississippi currently is rolling off the continental shelf. Blow the levees, let it fill the marsh...
Posted on 9/16/15 at 7:23 am to SSpaniel
It would take the course of the Atchafalaya.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 7:33 am to CHEDBALLZ
Good luck. They have only been trying to build a new lock on the Industrial Canal for 50 years.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:03 am to CHEDBALLZ
OP doesn't care about Plaq people.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:04 am to Bestbank Tiger
Something else the Corps will frick up....
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:07 am to Mid Iowa Tiger
That's has nothing to do with redirecting the sediment load of one of the largest rivers in the world.
Currently the majority of sediment is being dumped off into deep water off the shelf, which is doing nothing for man.
Currently the majority of sediment is being dumped off into deep water off the shelf, which is doing nothing for man.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:08 am to BottomlandBrew
quote:
I think estimates range somewhere between .07-.13 inches/year. So maybe 8-15 inches since 1900. We can argue the causes all day long (but not really, intelligent people know why), but sea levels are rising at a significant rate.
right on brother...when the tide is in, man that sea level raises...you have to be blind to not know it unless of course you are standing in it.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News