re: Current, former LA officials spar over scuttled coastal project (Mid-Barataria Diversion)

quote:

---

Doesnt matter which model was used. Edwards admin said they obtained flood insurance covergae for the parishes in the area (they lied), and that they could cover all dredging costs (another lie)

The ACoE estimates that at $50M a year over the 50 year life of the project. $50M x 50 = $2.5B

---

All estimates and assumptions are based off the model used. That's how it works.

What's the political version of a bootlicker?

quote:

---

Shane Guidry gets in the dredging business.

---

Aint gonna happen...Kurt Crosby has that sewn up

Tell that to the people that have lost their jobs because this project was scrapped. No grift here. When a company wins a portion of a project fairly by providing fair pricing and great value and working a relationship with a subcontractor then that project is cancelled, it sucks. All I know is that the company that I work for was counting on that project to expand their business operations in south Louisiana. Nothing under the table, no kickbacks - just providing a great service and great value for a piece of a 3 billion dollar construction project. Multiple people at dozens of companies are now looking for employment after being told for a damn year that this project is gonna happen and to sit tight.

quote:

---

What's your point?

---

That JBE lied

Then the Army Corps of Engineers pulled the permit

There was no project at that point

Blame JBE

quote:

---

Thats a pretty good deal - especially when you consider that any dredging to compensate for the loss of this project will be taxpayer funded.

---

You just cant gloss over $2.5 billion in taxpayer money for dredging costs over 50 years as "a pretty good deal"

quote:

---

pursued a large project and won it.

---

Clearly you didnt

As of April there was no project. The ACoE pulled the permit. Landry couldnt finish the the project without the permit. Blame JBE for getting the permit pulled

quote:

---

As of April there was no project. The ACoE pulled the permit. Landry couldnt finish the the project without the permit. Blame JBE for getting the permit pulled

---

That was a minor setback that was being worked through and you're being wholly disingenuous in blaming JBE. This project was killed by Landry and his handlers. We get it, you voted for him and refuse to ever admit you were duped.

quote:

---

Then the Army Corps of Engineers pulled the permit

---

you keep saying this

and this

quote:

---

That JBE lied

---

It shows how little you know. I am sure you are some staffer or oyster lobby-associated, and that's fine, you are parroting your master's line, but for the rest of the board, let's be clear on a few things:

1) The USACE requires a local sponsor (in this case the state) for all projects. The USACE only pulls a permit in situations like this (after they've issued it) when the local sponsor first signals they no longer support the project. In this case, the Dove/Landry/Nungesser cabal stated FIRST, with no scientific basis, they didn't want the project, THEN the Corps pulled it. You continue to state it the other way around, like the Corps saw the light or uncovered a hidden fact or something. If the state supported it and re-submitted it tomorrow, the Corps would still approve of it. You are being disingenuous in how you state this.

2) JBE did not lie. I hated the guy, but he didn't lie, and this is another subversion of facts that unfortunately political types aren't intellectually equipped to understand. Every model is a purpose specific tool. Think of them like telescopes...the same telescope can be dialed in and focused to view something close, like the moon, or something farther, like a planet, another star system, another galaxy etc...the same tool/telescope. In this case, models were dialed in to look at entirely different scenarios: one the broad basin-side effects, the other the conveyance channel and nearfield intake/outfall. You are favoring misused results from the latter when the former is the correct model to consider for broad land preservation or building performance. Once again, disingenuous at best, outright strategic lies at worst. You are picking up the telescope dialed in to view the Moon and saying "aha, see, a lie, it doesnt view Neptune very well at all!" but you are ignoring the fact it was not set up with that intent.

You clearly are interested in the subject. I would highly encourage you to go talk to the scientists and engineers from across the nation and world, who all spent decades thinking on the problem, who all came to the same solution. But somehow you and the cabal you favor know better...? It is why Louisiana is the way it is and always will be.