re: NYT: Editorial on Climate Change and Louisiana

quote:

---

It sure hasn't stooped the Atchafalya from depositing a bunch of sediment at its mouth and creating more land.

---

This. What's happened at Wax Lake over the past 30 years is a clear proof of concept.

The other problem with the Mississippi River is the fact that it doesn't carry near the amount of sediment it did 100 years ago. Upriver locks and dams on tributaries have resulted in it carrying possibly as little as 10% of the sediment it used to.

Even if we completely unleashed the river, it might not carry enough sediment to save all that has been lost and is being threatened with imminent loss, but no one can deny it wouldn't help tremendously, just at what cost. What costs are we willing to pay in terms of flooding of populated areas and navigation issues for shipping and industry relying on the river.

quote:

---

It sure hasn't stooped the Atchafalya from depositing a bunch of sediment at its mouth and creating more land.

---

I've read reports that say the Mississippi un-leveed wouldn't create land like it used to because it doesn't carry nearly the amount of silt it used to. But, as said, if the Atchafalaya is building land, why wouldn't the Mississippi?

Here's the other thing. You know the dead zone in the Gulf? It's caused by fertilizers from the river concentrating in the gulf and creating algae blooms.

Now, my question is, what would happen to marshes if they were flooded with these fertilized waters? Wouldn't accelerated vegetation growth perhaps overcompensate for the absence of silt coming downriver? I love the concept of these fertilized waters nourishing marsh grass growth and, in the process, reducing the dead zone problem in the Gulf.

Never seen any science discuss this, though.