Started By
Message
locked post

NYT Mag re: NO Levee Dist v. O&G Companies

Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:21 am
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:21 am
Long...regardless of your view on the liability of O&G for marshland erosion, paints LA politics in a very poor light. That aside, I think the momentum is building and it's only a matter of time before a suit like this breaks through and the fur really begins to fly.

quote:

In Louisiana, the most common way to visualize the state’s existential crisis is through the metaphor of football fields. The formulation, repeated in nearly every local newspaper article about the subject, goes like this: Each hour, Louisiana loses about a football field’s worth of land. Each day, the state loses nearly the accumulated acreage of every football stadium in the N.F.L. Were this rate of land loss applied to New York, Central Park would disappear in a month. Manhattan would vanish within a year and a half. The last of Brooklyn would dissolve four years later. New Yorkers would notice this kind of land loss. The world would notice this kind of land loss. But the hemorrhaging of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands has gone largely unremarked upon beyond state borders. This is surprising, because the wetlands, apart from their unique ecological significance and astounding beauty, buffer the impact of hurricanes that threaten not just New Orleans but also the port of South Louisiana, the nation’s largest; just under 10 percent of the country’s oil reserves; a quarter of its natural-gas supply; a fifth of its oil-refining capacity; and the gateway to its internal waterway system. The attenuation of Louisiana, like any environmental disaster carried beyond a certain point, is a national-security threat.


LINK

Very popular image I'm seeing more and more:



New Republic also has a TL;DR article on pretty much the same subject.
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27816 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:38 am to
If the Mississippi River wasn't constrained behind levees, this wouldn't even be a problem. This is basically like letting a robber get away with stealing from a home because the back door was unlocked. Yes it's happening quicker due to the vast water system built which supports many industries (fishing, shrimping, crabbing, etc) including O&G. But once the levees were built, LA started sinking. It's inevitable. And there is no stopping it without releasing the Mississippi.
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 11:52 am to
The article provides a couple of times that:

quote:

By its own estimate, the oil and gas industry concedes that it has caused 36 percent of all wetlands loss in southeastern Louisiana.


Have you ever seen anything within the industry that provided the above? I've never heard that before.
Posted by SpidermanTUba
my house
Member since May 2004
36128 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:03 pm to
quote:


Have you ever seen anything within the industry that provided the above? I've never heard that before.




I think that's a mis-representation. DO a little digging on the google - I think they are referring to a USGS study that had industry representatives as part of the research team.
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27816 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 12:15 pm to
Again just because it sped up the loss, doesn't fix the underlying cause. LA is going to lose a lot of land in the coming future due to the Mississippi River being levied. If you want to say the loss in this area is at a 30% greater rate I doubt anyone would argue. Making the oil companies fill in the gaps isn't going to fix anything. Likely it will be hated by locals for removing navigable waterways and damage local tributaries.
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 1:08 pm to
I agree.
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 1:09 pm to
quote:

quote:

Have you ever seen anything within the industry that provided the above? I've never heard that before.



I think that's a mis-representation. DO a little digging on the google - I think they are referring to a USGS study that had industry representatives as part of the research team.


Way to go NYT, nice misrepresentation!
Posted by Darkknight
Member since Mar 2012
1415 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 1:13 pm to
quote:

I think they are referring to a USGS study


Correct. The number is from a 2002 USGS study.

quote:

Canfield, however, also added that the state had not looked into permits older than 1980.


Probably because the state did not issue Coastal Use Permits prior to 1980.

Which brings up another interesting point. The article states that the lawsuit is for O&G violating permits going back a century. But again, these types of state permits only go back 34 years. And the COE's permitting for activities in wetlands go back to the early 70's.

ETA: I think the first USGS study was in the late 90s. A follow up study was in 2002.
This post was edited on 10/6/14 at 1:16 pm
Posted by Tchefuncte Tiger
Bat'n Rudge
Member since Oct 2004
57132 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 1:19 pm to
quote:

If the Mississippi River wasn't constrained behind levees, this wouldn't even be a problem.


...or by the Old River Control Structure.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67003 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 1:23 pm to
quote:

Which brings up another interesting point. The article states that the lawsuit is for O&G violating permits going back a century. But again, these types of state permits only go back 34 years. And the COE's permitting for activities in wetlands go back to the early 70's.


The companies signed lease agreements stipulating that canals reaching the sea had to be plugged at the cessation of their operations. The canals were left open, allowing salt water to continue to intrude into the marsh, killing off the freshwater plants. That's breach of contract. The state is protecting the oil companies to keep the money flowing while the levee board is going after them to score political points.

In the end, both sides are fighting over a relatively minor issue compared to the real cause of land loss in Louisiana: The Army Corps of Engineers.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51475 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 1:43 pm to
The O&G industry could come back and plug every canal ever dug and it would only delay the loss of land as the ROOT of the problem is that the Mississippi River is no longer recharging these areas.

But I guess it's easier to go after O&G than the Corps of Engineers.
Posted by Darkknight
Member since Mar 2012
1415 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 1:53 pm to
quote:

lease agreements stipulating that canals reaching the sea had to be plugged at the cessation of their operations.


Interesting. Who were the lease agreements with? Office of Conservation? Private land owners?

An I agree with your comment about the COE.
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

ut I guess it's easier to go after O&G than the Corps of Engineers.


It is and I'm certain it's going to happen. Sooner or later the tangible losses are going to reach beyond small marsh villages and will affect the larger population centers...at that point the politicians will start bending to their will over the dollars from O&G companies.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67003 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:24 pm to
quote:

Interesting. Who were the lease agreements with? Office of Conservation? Private land owners?


I may be wrong, but I think that most of the leases in question were from the state of Louisiana.
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:30 pm to
I don't know the entire history of gov supervision of marsh development but I think the vast majority of coastal LA is privately owned. I also think back in the day the only permit you needed to dredge a canal on say Miami Corp was Miami Corp's permission. Maybe if you were dredging a connection to a navigable waterway the State had some right to comment before 1980, but I can't be sure. Likely back in the 30's and 40's there was little to no supervision.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67003 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:33 pm to
quote:

Likely back in the 30's and 40's there was little to no supervision.


In the 30s and 40s, the state owned all of it from unpaid property taxes during the depression era. People lost hundreds of acres of land for pennies in unpaid taxes (often due to clerical errors rather than inability to pay or refusal to comply) with no legal recourse. Millions of acres were taken over by the state and later sold to highly politically connected private interests. Coastal lands were no exception.
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:33 pm to
Also consider that when the COE built the levees everyone was in favor of them vs being flooded. Only now in retrospect was that a bad idea. Is it the gov fault when practically everyone affected by MS floods wanted the levee system? If the gov knew in 1975 that the levees were destroying the marsh should they have torn sections down? Can you imagine the fight over something like that? The whole mess is fricked up.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67003 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:36 pm to
quote:

Also consider that when the COE built the levees everyone was in favor of them vs being flooded. Only now in retrospect was that a bad idea. Is it the gov fault when practically everyone affected by MS floods wanted the levee system? If the gov knew in 1975 that the levees were destroying the marsh should they have torn sections down? Can you imagine the fight over something like that? The whole mess is fricked up.


Agreed. To see an interesting parallel to our troubles on the Mississippi River with its levees, look at Egypt's debate over the Aswan Dam. The dam ended the annual floods that had for so long made irrigation and fertilizers unneccesary, but also spared the Egyptian people the misery of exceptional floods while providing the electricity and clean water necessary to keep the country's burgeoning population from starvation. It very much so parallels our own struggles.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by cwill
Member since Jan 2005
54752 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:41 pm to
I've seen a lot of coastal title...most of what I've seen is Northern interests buying up large swaths of marsh and swamp for $.50/acre in the 1920s with few bankruptcies. Miami Corp, LL&E, Lafourche Realty, etc.
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27816 posts
Posted on 10/6/14 at 2:42 pm to
quote:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


iswydt...

And in the end, people adapt over generations. Ending immediate problem is of greater need than preventing long term erosion as long as the overall health of the planet isn't endangered.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram