- 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: Cancellation of Mid-Barataria Diversion project could cost Louisiana at least $700 million
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:06 pm to Marshhen
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:06 pm to Marshhen
quote:
False. It’s approximately $50,000/acre to dredge. Do the math.
Well, the math states that dredging is quantified by cubic yard, not area. You also are not elaborating on what sort of dredging method are you using? Hydraulic or mechanical? Not to mention a myriad of other factors.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:11 pm to JerryTheKingBawler
democrats frick up everything
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:13 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
"Being a past parish president, I believe it’s up to the parish to be satisfied.”
What about the neighboring parishes that will (not might, will) suffer down the line for this stupidity?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:20 pm to crazyLSUstudent
quote:
fricking stupidity of this state
And Plaquemines is renowned for their stupidity, even from other Louisians!
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:23 pm to jrobic4
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:36 pm to lion
quote:Again... tell us your credentials. and tell us what is more effective. Because there have been 20 years of planning and studies that says you are wrong.
there are far more effective methods anyway.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:39 pm to Marshhen
quote:you have bigger ASSumptions than a group of fatties at the buffet line.
That’s a great point. I believe there has been consistent uproar from the commercial fisherman; however, their concerns have been taken with a “grain of salt” because of the enormous settlements after BP. The fact that they got rich doesn’t change the fact that they will be severely impacted.
The biggest issue of alternatives is that dredging was not even considered. Only diversions…and the cost used to make the final decision was less $700M and the current cost is closer to $3.5B which doesn’t account for the $1.3B of levees to protect Lafitte. Also remember that the structure has a lifecycle of only 50 years. So more than likely would have to be replaced in 70 years which matches the two dredging cycles of $1.2B.
Again, I believe diversions could work but this current project is a complete boondoggle.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:41 pm to Swagga
quote:
a project that would provide significant protection for a large portion of the state.
Imagine believing this
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:44 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:Easily overlooked
Nungesser
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:46 pm to armytiger96
quote:
I'm asking do you know that they didn't apply because they did not have too which was suggested in your previous post as if it were fact? I'm asking because from previous experience getting a federal and state level permits is the first step in the permitting process. Getting parish level permit occurs after receipt of those permits not before.
All I’ll say further on that is if the State turns around and blames archer western for not applying and terminates for cause (as opposed to terminating for convenience due to the litigation, etc), discovery will be very interesting and the State will look not great.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:47 pm to CarRamrod
quote:My credentials allowed for them to use me as a consultant years ago (where I refused taxpayers dollars, you’re welcome) and I have spent hundreds of days every year in our coastal estuaries. If you think twenty years of perfect studies created this and politics killed it, I don’t see how you can believe 20 years of politics didn’t go into creating it.
Again... tell us your credentials. and tell us what is more effective. Because there have been 20 years of planning and studies that says you are wrong.
I have also not kept up with the day to day drama, nor do I care to, and couldn’t tell you anything about the politics involved, other than guessing the obvious.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:47 pm to tigersmanager
So, the protagonists in this disaster-in-process are Jeff Landry, Gordon Dove and Billy Nungesser. All are Republicans.
How did the Democrats cause this particular mess?
How did the Democrats cause this particular mess?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:48 pm to BugAC
quote:
Well, the math states that dredging is quantified by cubic yard, not area. You also are not elaborating on what sort of dredging method are you using? Hydraulic or mechanical? Not to mention a myriad of other factors.
Tell me you don’t understand what you’re talking about without telling me you don’t know what you're talking about.
All of your myriad of factors will generally come back to around $50,000/acre of land for coastal restoration.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:50 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
you have bigger ASSumptions than a group of fatties at the buffet line.
WTH are you babbling about?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:51 pm to lion
quote:i never said this........
If you think twenty years of perfect studies created thi
What i have said is that 20 years of studies back and forn came to this being the more "effective" way to appease everyone. Define effective how you want to, becuase it would be a long drawn out definition. But all sides came to this conclusion.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:52 pm to Marshhen
quote:
How much storm surge do these two areas reduce for population centers?
Do you know the actual reduction or you just playing bullshite games to sound smart?
The key with the diversions is to rebuild land over time, year after year. After the initial major expense of building a structure that mimics the old river flooding, there is minor costs associated with maintenance unlike the yearly costs associated with dredging.
I’m very nearly starting to boycott Louisiana oysters. As mentioned, they got arse loads from BP. Now they “might” have to relocate their leases to historic mileage away from the launch due to the return of fresh water and that’s just too much for the ole baw to handle.
It’s utter nonsense that we can’t protect the freshwater systems because of politics.
The marsh dies every year because the lack of nutrients from the river. But no matter, the oyster man will shave 30 minutes boat ride.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:52 pm to Marshhen
quote:huh? you cant read betwwen the lines? EVERYTHING you have posted has is based on assumption that mostly can be proven wrong.
WTH are you babbling about?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:52 pm to Junky
quote:
Do you know the actual reduction or you just playing bullshite games to sound smart?
I know the number exactly…it’s 0.0
Posted on 5/10/24 at 1:53 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Tell me you don’t understand what you’re talking about without telling me you don’t know what you're talking about.
All of your myriad of factors will generally come back to around $50,000/acre of land for coastal restoration.
Hey genius, is dredging a measure of area or volume? It is not a blanket "$50k an acre". That's simplistic thinking. Are you talking hydraulic dredging or mechanical? Completely different costs.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News