- 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
re: WaPo Article on LA Coastline
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:34 am to RedStickBR
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:34 am to RedStickBR
I really am not for trying to beat up oil and gas all that much. I want a plan to try and reverse some of this mess.
I also don't think it's too much to ask to fast track the federal gov. to speed up the process of allowing La to get a fair amount in oil and gas royalties as compared to other states. Our politicians cut a shitty deal 70+ years ago to enrich themselves. Time to fix that mistake and let us get the proper $$$ since we have given up so much to help give the rest of the country cheap oil and gas.
I also don't think it's too much to ask to fast track the federal gov. to speed up the process of allowing La to get a fair amount in oil and gas royalties as compared to other states. Our politicians cut a shitty deal 70+ years ago to enrich themselves. Time to fix that mistake and let us get the proper $$$ since we have given up so much to help give the rest of the country cheap oil and gas.
2
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:37 am to deltaland
quote:
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?
You cant fix everything, but you can try to alleviate some of the issues. The main thought is diversions, so as to reintroduce the natural fluctuations and sediment loads of the river back into areas of the marshes. The Coast 2050 plan has 20+ projected diversions along the river. Some just freshwater input, some sediment inputs.
In the end, all of these diversions will truly only benefit SELA though, they will need to come up with a plan for outside of the Miss and Atch floodplains
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:41 am to lsufisherman
quote:Not exactly. The sand on the beaches of southwest Louisiana are a product of Mississippi River siltation. The levees have starved those beaches of sand, and they have reversed from growing to receding horribly.
the last 500+ years SWLA has not benefitted from the river at all.
Couple that with subsidence and the devastating effects of ship channels and canals, and the marshes of SWLA are practically doomed.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:42 am to notiger1997
quote:
I really am not for trying to beat up oil and gas all that much.
I don't think its right to blame the oil companies for it fully either. Acknowledging that they were part of the problem is one thing, but kicking them and beating them over and over again is another. They are one of the biggest movers in the restoration push. Shoot BP has paid so much to LA after the oil spill that I feel bad for them, lol. Chevron, Shell, and all these companies now know the value of the coastlands and what they protect. And as a result they are seeking to help out.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:42 am to lsufisherman
quote:
You cant fix everything, but you can try to alleviate some of the issues. The main thought is diversions, so as to reintroduce the natural fluctuations and sediment loads of the river back into areas of the marshes. The Coast 2050 plan has 20+ projected diversions along the river. Some just freshwater input, some sediment inputs.
In the end, all of these diversions will truly only benefit SELA though, they will need to come up with a plan for outside of the Miss and Atch floodplains
The diversions make the problem worse.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:44 am to Tigerlaff
That is a whole discussion in itself. I see the posts on various fishing websites about the damage created by the diversion. But how can it be as bad as they say if that was the method in which all of those areas were produced? Its counter-intuitive. Unfortunately though, they are speaking often enough and loud enough that they are getting noticed and they are going to delay or even doom the only real hope of their marsh even surviving.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:50 am to deltaland
quote:
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?
The only hope for SE Louisiana is to blow the levees below Belle Chase and levee the fish/oil communities such as Venice/ Port Sulphur and connect them with causeways. I doubt this is feasible at this time as the investment was to levee all of St. Bernard and Jefferson to protect New Orleans. Now the problem is exacerbated.
quote:
Both similar in nature and plants, but one is still pristine and the other is dealing with massive erosion.
This is completely false... Florida has the benefit of being built on lime stone not river sand. There are areas on the west coast of Florda all cut up with canals with very little erosion(ie Marco Island).
The oil companies didn't create the problem per se but did speed up the problem. It was going to happen any way as there were many more natural bayous and broken barrier islands when they levee'd the Miss. Erosion is happening on the western coast line but much slower for sure due to a more continuous natural barrier.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:51 am to lsufisherman
It's throwing good money after bad. Will it bring in silt? Yes. Will the new land become good, stable marshland? Not as long as the vegetation that takes root can get all the phosphorus and nitrogen they need from non-point source agricultural run off in the entire river drainage basin. Above ground plant biomass like leaves don't hold soil. Roots do.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:00 am to notiger1997
quote:
Our politicians cut a shitty deal 70+ years ago to enrich themselves.
Bingo!!! Louisiana benefited way more than the oil companies' cause to erosion but the problem is we lacked the state leadership to give any forethought of how it was going to effect coastal louisiana...
There were warning from the locals in the fishing communities back in the 60's and 70's but the politicos were paid for so they had no interest in listening to them.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 9:38 am
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:21 am to GetCocky11
quote:
the management of the Louisiana coast been one of the biggest disasters in US engineering history?
Correct. When the Corps of Engineers tamed the MS river to keep NOLA as the major port it doomed the coastline in between the Atchafalaya and MS river outlets. Without new sediment and fresh water to keep the saltwater line in check no amount of refurbishment projects will keep the coast line together. To the OP yes Isle De Jean Charles is as bad or worse than they say. The east side of Terrebonne parish has some of the worst coastal erosion in all of LA. In my 33 year lifetime the marshes of Terrebonne parish have changed dramatically as well as the barrier island chain. If you don't run the marshes yearly you would be lost. My family owns 110 acres off of the Bayou Sale road between Chauvin and Dulac and my great grandparents raised cattle on it at one time. Now it is open water that you can fish in a bay boat with only a few tufts of grass left.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:30 am to Tigerlaff
Understood, but the salt marsh isn't a viable option for the long-term either, its been degrading and subsiding at a rapid pace long before those diversions were in place. Unfortunately we are in between a rock and a hard place in this fight against erosion. And the only thing that we can somewhat control is new diversions.
Its a shame too, like bayoudude, i've seen so much erosion of my favorite fishing spots and various other areas. I hope that I will have a place that I can bring my kid(s) fishing when they are old enough. But its definitely not looking good.
Its a shame too, like bayoudude, i've seen so much erosion of my favorite fishing spots and various other areas. I hope that I will have a place that I can bring my kid(s) fishing when they are old enough. But its definitely not looking good.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 9:31 am
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:31 am to RedStickBR
Levee's are 80% of the problem, canals make up the other 20%. There's hundreds of miles of canals that were dredged through the marsh for oil and gas pipelines and exploration. The vast majority were supposed to be filled back in once they weren't being used by the oil companies. Most were simply abandoned. Those canals are contributing to and accelerating the saltwater intrusion process.
However, if the levees had not been built, those canals would have eventually filled in naturally with sediment deposited from the river.
However, if the levees had not been built, those canals would have eventually filled in naturally with sediment deposited from the river.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:38 am to lsufisherman
quote:
Understood, but the salt marsh isn't a viable option for the long-term either, its been degrading and subsiding at a rapid pace long before those diversions were in place. Unfortunately we are in between a rock and a hard place in this fight against erosion. And the only thing that we can somewhat control is new diversions.
I still think it's a lost cause. Louisiana doesn't have the capital (monetary or political) to actually effect any meaningful plan. The best thing to do is try to move people and just get over it. It was a really fragile ecosystem that had to be regularly flooded with river water and we stopped letting that happen.
No one is getting their hunting spots from yesteryear back. We aren't going to turn the tide against land loss from erosion, subsidence, and storm surge. We'll be better off the sooner we recognize that and get packing. There is no way the citizens of Louisiana are going to commit to sea works on the level that the Dutch have. Even if they did, the money isn't there.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:48 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
No one is getting their hunting spots from yesteryear back. We aren't going to turn the tide against land loss from erosion, subsidence, and storm surge. We'll be better off the sooner we recognize that and get packing. There is no way the citizens of Louisiana are going to commit to sea works on the level that the Dutch have. Even if they did, the money isn't there.
Unfortunately this is the reality with the post Katrina levees for SE Louisiana...
And its probably too late for the Terrebone coastal marsh without drastic measures.
There is plenty of positive though with the Atchafalaya diversion but that is such a limited dynamic to the entire louisiana coast.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 9:50 am to Tigerlaff
True, but realistically, the movement is only there to save industry. NOLA is the main focus, being that it is a major port with major political and industry ties. So it needs to be protected in their minds.
But lets just say that we quit all together and leave the levee system to itself. Then in fifty years we will have beachfront property up to Nola across to houma then up to pierre part to laffy and so on. Much of louisiana would be washed away with only fingerlings of levees, roads and bridges. tens of thousands will be needing to move and the cost to maintain the oil and gas industries properties and rigs down south, and move current refineries and Hubs further north would be in the billions.
Its a complicated situation to say the least
But lets just say that we quit all together and leave the levee system to itself. Then in fifty years we will have beachfront property up to Nola across to houma then up to pierre part to laffy and so on. Much of louisiana would be washed away with only fingerlings of levees, roads and bridges. tens of thousands will be needing to move and the cost to maintain the oil and gas industries properties and rigs down south, and move current refineries and Hubs further north would be in the billions.
Its a complicated situation to say the least
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News