- 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
1
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:14 am to Slippy
Another fantastic Slippy thread.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:16 am to thegreatboudini
quote:
Had the corps not gotten involved the river would have dumped into the Atchafalaya and ultimately taken Morgan city off of the map in the 1960s-70s
That is what they say at LUMCON....
Aggies probably see ball sacks and a flaccid penis....
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:19 am to Slippy
I'm all for coastal restoration but not at the expense of the tax payers. In the 40's and 50's land owners were happy to let oil and gas dredge canals which in turn causes massive erosion problems. Combine that with levees and now we have the greatest land loss issues in the United States.
You want tax payer funded restoration? Then give riparian rights of tidal water back to the public trust. If not, then build a big arse sea wall.
Something like 90% of all tidal marsh is private property. Nearly all of Delacroix is private. I quite literally impossible to fish out of Delacroix without trespassing. So why should the tax payers pay to restore it all?
You want tax payer funded restoration? Then give riparian rights of tidal water back to the public trust. If not, then build a big arse sea wall.
Something like 90% of all tidal marsh is private property. Nearly all of Delacroix is private. I quite literally impossible to fish out of Delacroix without trespassing. So why should the tax payers pay to restore it all?
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:19 am to MyNameIsNobody
That is probably what they see.
I see a number of good river dominated deltaic deposited reservoirs in 50 million years.
I see a number of good river dominated deltaic deposited reservoirs in 50 million years.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:37 am to thegreatboudini
I'm not seeing how it will help New Orleans unless the river is channeled through upper St. Bernard Parish. New Orleans needs land southeast (mostly east) of it. Port sulphur seems too far south and I'm not sure how the English Turn channel will happen either. Seems like there is a lot of land east of there they would have to dig and dredge to 50ft.
Then you have two major refineries south of English Turn along with all the businesses south of there. There are also a lot of businesses south of there that rely on the river.
Something needs to be done but I'm not sure that is it. You put the river on the east side of New Orleans and it addresses that side but then it doesn't address the marsh that is eroding in the Barataria Bay area. They would almost need river channels in both the east and westside of the current river to protect New Orleans. One at English Turn and one at West Point A La Hache to attack both eroding areas.
Then you have two major refineries south of English Turn along with all the businesses south of there. There are also a lot of businesses south of there that rely on the river.
Something needs to be done but I'm not sure that is it. You put the river on the east side of New Orleans and it addresses that side but then it doesn't address the marsh that is eroding in the Barataria Bay area. They would almost need river channels in both the east and westside of the current river to protect New Orleans. One at English Turn and one at West Point A La Hache to attack both eroding areas.
This post was edited on 9/16/15 at 8:42 am
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:39 am to Slippy
Isn't the projected rate of subsidence + rising tide levels way greater than the projected rate of any meaningful benefit from silt build up due to diversion/levee removal?
Seems like a pointless exercise.
Seems like a pointless exercise.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:44 am to JasonL79
Department of Interior report says oil and gas canals are ultimately responsible for 30 to 59 percent of coastal land loss. In Barataria Bay, it’s closer to 90 percent.
Land owners profited off those canals, and now everyone is paying for that mistake.
Land owners profited off those canals, and now everyone is paying for that mistake.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:46 am to Slippy
Letting "experts" frick with the river has worked so well in the past.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:52 am to KG6
quote:
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.
nobody forced them to be a commercial fisherman, if they want to keep doing what they're doing they can pack up and move east to delacroix or west to cocodrie and continue their way of life
Posted on 9/16/15 at 8:54 am to Ignignot
Time to buy land on the Northshore
Posted on 9/16/15 at 9:02 am to Ignignot
quote:
nobody forced them to be a commercial fisherman, if they want to keep doing what they're doing they can pack up and move east to delacroix or west to cocodrie and continue their way of life
They have a very powerful lobby. Sadly that is what it takes in Louisiana to get what you want.
Remember the giant lawsuit filed by the oystermen over the MRGO? They sued for 3 BILLION.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 9:15 am to Slippy
If the Corps of Engineers had not built levees and prevented it, the mouth would be much further north than it is now, and the coast west of the river would not be in the predicament it is now.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 9:22 am to thegreatboudini
quote:
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.
^this. Floods are natural events that deposit sediment. Once we cut off this deposition with levees we began sinking.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 9:31 am to Barf
The commercial fishing lobby needs to understand this,
If they want to continue to have healthy populations of shrimp, oysters, and other target species then they need healthy wetlands.
This plan, from the surface, seems like an ok way to begin to rebuild those needed wetlands rather then wasting the sediment the river carries. The downside is the fisherman have to relocate which seems to be inevitable anyway.
quote:
The coastal fishing industry cannot avoid dramatic relocation because major diversions are the only way to build and maintain enough wetlands habitat to supply its target species. Each of the plans hopes to rebuild basins on a schedule that would always result in enough estuarine habitat in some areas for viable fisheries on shrimp, crabs, oysters and fish such as speckled trout and redfish.
If they want to continue to have healthy populations of shrimp, oysters, and other target species then they need healthy wetlands.
This plan, from the surface, seems like an ok way to begin to rebuild those needed wetlands rather then wasting the sediment the river carries. The downside is the fisherman have to relocate which seems to be inevitable anyway.
This post was edited on 9/16/15 at 9:33 am
Posted on 9/16/15 at 9:41 am to PoppaD
The real problem is that the Mississippi River wanted to move West in 1973. The Corps made sure that didn't happen because of Old River Control. It's been held in place artificially ever since. It's foolish to think anyone can hold it back forever.
Rather than proactively planning on the eventuality of the river moving, people still think they can get away with holding it where they want to. As long as the river stays where it is, the New Orleans area will continue to subside, and eventually turn into an island with levees piping the Miss River to a Delta that empties into nothing.
Rather than proactively planning on the eventuality of the river moving, people still think they can get away with holding it where they want to. As long as the river stays where it is, the New Orleans area will continue to subside, and eventually turn into an island with levees piping the Miss River to a Delta that empties into nothing.
Posted on 9/16/15 at 10:00 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
As long as the river stays where it is, the New Orleans area will continue to subside
Im asking because i dont know. If the river shifted west like it wants to, how does that effect New Orleans? Is the plan to keep the old river channel dredged for shipping and industry up to Baton Rouge something that would actually work?
Posted on 9/16/15 at 10:06 am to GetCocky11
quote:Yeah, but the reestablishment of the coastal soils is done on a geologic time scale...like hundreds of thousands of years of the mouth changing locations and deposits from anywhere from Sulphur to Biloxi, right? It's not like we can let the river run wild south of a control and expect it to fix everything in 10 years.
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
Am I off base here?
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News