- 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
Mississippi River diverging: When do we finally let it go down the Atchafalaya?
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:18 pm
Having a discussion on this last night with some civil engineers.
Basically, the only way to really save the coast from shrinking is to let the river do what it wants, as nature intended.
Twomain things keeping us from doing it: New Orleans, which the port is "too big to fail" as they sarcastically put it. And the people who live along the atchafalaya and below. They would have to be displaced.
So why don't we do it? Tell them they have to leave, and then build another port that is probably closer to the open water, instead of traversing the river up to New Orleans.
Who would be down for this?
Basically, the only way to really save the coast from shrinking is to let the river do what it wants, as nature intended.
Twomain things keeping us from doing it: New Orleans, which the port is "too big to fail" as they sarcastically put it. And the people who live along the atchafalaya and below. They would have to be displaced.
So why don't we do it? Tell them they have to leave, and then build another port that is probably closer to the open water, instead of traversing the river up to New Orleans.
Who would be down for this?
19
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:23 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Who would be down for this?
Me, I work in a field that works closely with CPRA and the civil engineers are correct.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:24 pm to magildachunks
It would take a huge shift in river infrastructure. So a large portion of money wouldn't be for it. But a large portion of the population would.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:25 pm to magildachunks
Nature might eventually force our hand. The big problem is that only about 1/3 of the current water volume would be going down the current channel, and that would cause saltwater to backflow into the NOLA metro area and ruin the supply of drinking water.
You'd also have to move not only over 1,000,000 residents of NOLA plus all the people who would be displaced by the new course of the river, but also a couple of airports, several universities, some of the oil and gas infrastructure, the Port of New Orleans, etc. It would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have right now.
You'd also have to move not only over 1,000,000 residents of NOLA plus all the people who would be displaced by the new course of the river, but also a couple of airports, several universities, some of the oil and gas infrastructure, the Port of New Orleans, etc. It would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have right now.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:25 pm to jimbeam
Read Rising Tide. It deals with this same issue long ago on the MS River, good read.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:26 pm to magildachunks
There is too much money invested in NOLA as a port that it will never happen while we have the resources and money to keep the status quo.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:26 pm to magildachunks
No way this will happen in our lifetime.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:27 pm to McGregor
very expensive.
not happening by choice.
not happening by choice.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:29 pm to sassyLSU
quote:
very expensive.
not happening by choice.
that's what is so strange, you think that with all this super duper eco-terrorist groups out there that somebody would have tried and screwed something up by now
ETA: Nevermind most of those people in those groups probably live in New Orleans
This post was edited on 3/7/15 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:30 pm to magildachunks
People don't want to save the coast. They want to save their habitat.
Destroying their habitat to save the coast isn't a solution to society.
Destroying their habitat to save the coast isn't a solution to society.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:32 pm to efrad
quote:
People don't want to save the coast. They want to save their habitat.
Destroying their habitat to save the coast isn't a solution to society.
Either way, their habitat will eventually be taken over by water.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:32 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Who would be down for this?
Raises hand.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:35 pm to magildachunks
One of my professors at LSU said that "multiple, multiple generations" would pass before south Louisiana truly "recovered" from the Mississippi shifting course.
ETA: +1 on the Rising Tide recommendation. Excellent book.
ETA: +1 on the Rising Tide recommendation. Excellent book.
This post was edited on 3/7/15 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:38 pm to Jefferson Davis
quote:
ETA: +1 on the Rising Tide recommendation. Excellent book.
yup, have a signed copy from Barry.
He came to my high school after Katrina and gave us a talk about everything...cool dude
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:38 pm to Jefferson Davis
Yep. It will be a losing battle until I die. Sucks.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:42 pm to jimbeam
quote:
Yep. It will be a losing battle until I die. Sucks.
pretty much, I know a good bit of the CPRA modelers in LA and it's a constant fight between what people care more about...fish, habitat, land building, etc.
It's a political quaqmire
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:47 pm to magildachunks
I'm no expert but I just watched the Vice episode about melting polar ice caps. If it's true that the sea level will rise 2 to 4 ft does the South La coastline matter? Won't it be under water.
Now I'm not saying sea level rise will happen because I don't know but many scientists are convincedit will happen.
Now I'm not saying sea level rise will happen because I don't know but many scientists are convincedit will happen.
This post was edited on 3/7/15 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:50 pm to jimbeam
A couple things I don't understand. If the river would naturally replace the sediment if it followed the course that the river wants to take, shouldn't it be creating new wetlands elsewhere? That silt has to go somewhere.
Someone said if the current course had 30% of the flow, salt water would contaminate the local drinking supply (as if that nasty water is actually clean right now. I've inspected way too much of the infrastructure in Nola to pretend it's drinkable). So what percentage of average flow would be maintained to keep the salt water from intruding? Is there a way to do both, but just at lower levels, or would that just be a bandaid on the problem?
Someone said if the current course had 30% of the flow, salt water would contaminate the local drinking supply (as if that nasty water is actually clean right now. I've inspected way too much of the infrastructure in Nola to pretend it's drinkable). So what percentage of average flow would be maintained to keep the salt water from intruding? Is there a way to do both, but just at lower levels, or would that just be a bandaid on the problem?
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:52 pm to CCTider
quote:
shouldn't it be creating new wetlands elsewhere?
it's been building in Wax Lake.
Problem is the silt flow is far to low because of damming and diversions in the upper river.
Posted on 3/7/15 at 1:53 pm to magildachunks
It will happen right after BR gets a loop.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News