WaPo Article on LA Coastline

The levee system is the main cause. Flooding the marshes with nutrient loaded diversion water doesn't help plant root structures either.

quote:

---

Read the first few paragraphs and quickly stopped reading after the immediate demonization of the oil companies. Does the article go on to mention that the levee system constructed by the federal government is also responsible for coastal erosion, if not the most responsible? The science is not that difficult; slow or stop the flow of slit into lands that are built by silt that are constantly compacting (subsiding) over time, the land will soon become inundated by the Gulf. Louisiana coastal marshes need annual Mississippi river flooding to build more lands. The levee system likely causes a lot more coastal erosion than the oil companies ever have.

---

That's the first article I've ever read about LA's disappearing marshlands/coastline that didn't immediately blame the levees. I mean seriously, those articles pop up all the time around hurricane season talking about the natural buffers etc and I've never once seen oil exploration blamed as the cause.

As much as the levee system is to blame, the oil companies have as much blame as well. The oil field canals that were dredged out to create access for pipelines and pumps were direct inlets for saltwater into freshwater areas, as well as new areas to start to erode away. Louisiana marshes turned from long marsh plains to criss crossed checker board patterns all along the coast.

Now such is the way it happened and as so it has benefited Losuiana's economy. And its not as though the oil companies had strong knowledge of the value and importance of those marshes. But they are still to blame for much of the erosion that has happened

quote:

---

Not even close.. if the river's were never restrained the freshwater would flush all of this saltwater back to where it is supposed to be

The canals would have zero impact on erosion

---

If those marshes were connected to a high output river system. And the dredging of the marsh is itself erosion, not to mention the subsequent erosion from boat traffic, hurricane storm surge, normal weather patterns, and so on. With that erosion taking on a much greater amount of surface area due to all the extra canals and bayous created.

The oilfield canals have been a major contributor to the degradation of the marsh for the last 60 years. and its only be exacerbated by the lack of sediment input as well.

I'm just an outsider, but has the management of the Louisiana coast been one of the biggest disasters in US engineering history?

quote:

---

I'm just an outsider, but has Louisiana been one of the biggest disasters in US ?

---

FIFY

Its not a case of mismanagement as much a case of what we were looking to gain. The river was leveed so we would have a major shipping channel to the ports in NOLA, BR, and above. It also made much of South La habitable in the fact that you didnt have to worry about the river jumping course and washing away your town.

The oilfield canals provided a much needed route for our fuel to reach their hubs as well as provided a steady stream of cash flow to louisiana.

Historically we have always seen marshes and swamps as wastelands with no value. They were never prized outside of fishing, trapping, and hunting. So as a result the government and companies didnt have reason to think of ways to maintain the integrity of these areas. Its just how it was... now we know better and see how much value they provide.

Its just a shame of how much we have lost in the meantime

Are there areas of LA coastline where there is little/no oilfield canals where very little coastal erosion is taking place to back up this claim? I tend to believe these canals would have very little impact if the river could return to old patterns of change.

quote:

---

Are there areas of LA coastline where there is little/no oilfield canals where very little coastal erosion is taking place to back up this claim? I tend to believe these canals would have very little impact if the river could return to old patterns of change.

---

There are, but its few and far between. I know down by intercoastal city, there is a little refuge that has some of the longest uninterrupted marsh plains in louisiana and it was healthy as could be... but then a hurricane came through. Unfortunately such is the life of the marshes along the gulf.

If you want to look at a broader case study though, you could look at the comparisons between the everglades of florida and the marshes of louisiana. Both similar in nature and plants, but one is still pristine and the other is dealing with massive erosion.

Again, I agree that the levee system is to blame for much erosion... but that doesnt explain why the marshes in swla are eroding away as well, or south central la. Those areas wouldnt be affected by the river in any case. But they are affected by oilfield canal.

Obviously...it's both the canals and the lack of new silt input. Close the canals and open up the diversions (which, arguably, the freshwater might kill what plant life now there)...while slamming the oyster/rec fishing industry and dropping shipping lane water levels in the MR? I doubt that will happen.

Things change. Period. Enjoy it while it's there. I suspect that in the next decade...those marshes will be the least of our worries.

The question is how do you fix it? There's so much money and infrastructure in the area that you can't feasibly shut down the energy industry. And obviously you can't do away with the levee or else Nola and other cities would be gone. Could you do controlled flooding to keep some marshes in good shape?