- 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: Gov. Landry has pulled the plug on Louisiana’s biggest coastal project, Tulane expert says
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:01 am to Novastar
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:01 am to Novastar
quote:
So the plan is to spend $2,000,000,000 dollars for 12,000 acres of land? In addition to adding fresh water to the current eco system? The ROI just isn’t there for this project.
Louisiana should fight to keep the earmarked money for more sustainable coastal projects.
That's not how it works. There have been studies ongoing since before the BP oil spill on how to replace land, stop saltwater intrusion, stop coastal erosion, etc. Then the BP spill happened and the trust that controls the money decided that this was the project that they would allocate billions to. They aren't changing the scope of the project and they aren't going to allow only a percentage of it to be done. They said that it is an all or nothing deal and if the state does not move forward then they want their money back that they already gave out. The toothpaste isn't going back in the tube on this. The area that the sediment and freshwater will be diverted to used to be mostly freshwater and land before the river was leveed all the way down. Without the levees there would be no saltwater intrusion and land would still be there - the purpose is to return the ecosystem to what it used to be or would still be without the levees. I am not arguing against the levee system - that had to be done over the last century. But this is the plan and project that the trust agreed to and they control the money - there is no fighting to keep it in Louisiana. The state either uses it or they don't. And there are definitely economic impacts in the form of income tax and sales tax dollars that would benifit the state if this project moves forward.
2
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:38 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
MG Pass is also in an uninhabited part of the eastbank. Not really all that big of a deal if MG Pass gets washed out and widened during future river floods since there's no roads or buildings to worry about around there.
Can't risk having a diversion on the westbank side without armoring and reinforcing the entire thing so there isn't risk of failure during future river floods.
Obviously you did not catch the sarcasm in my comments about just blowing a hole in the levee. Yes additional work will be needed.
There is no way that amount of work needed to build an intake structure, armor the intake structure, build a railroad bridge, a road bridge, and 4 miles (2 miles on each side) of guide levees costs $3.1 billion. The project needs a serious review because the price of it has doubled since it was announced that BP money was going to be used to build it. Some consultants are getting rich off by screwing over the state "studies and models" which all you have to do is look at Mardi Gras Pass and say hey "we need a few more channels like that." I will be happy to drive down to Mardi Gras Pass, take pictures, and tell the Governor that we need more of those. I will do it for $100,000 which probably much cheaper than what the "experts" are charging for their "studies."
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:48 am to lsuchip30
quote:
quote: So the plan is to spend $2,000,000,000 dollars for 12,000 acres of land? In addition to adding fresh water to the current eco system? The ROI just isn’t there for this project. Louisiana should fight to keep the earmarked money for more sustainable coastal projects. That's not how it works. There have been studies ongoing since before the BP oil spill on how to replace land, stop saltwater intrusion, stop coastal erosion, etc. Then the BP spill happened and the trust that controls the money decided that this was the project that they would allocate billions to. They aren't changing the scope of the project and they aren't going to allow only a percentage of it to be done. They said that it is an all or nothing deal and if the state does not move forward then they want their money back that they already gave out. The toothpaste isn't going back in the tube on this. The area that the sediment and freshwater will be diverted to used to be mostly freshwater and land before the river was leveed all the way down. Without the levees there would be no saltwater intrusion and land would still be there - the purpose is to return the ecosystem to what it used to be or would still be without the levees. I am not arguing against the levee system - that had to be done over the last century. But this is the plan and project that the trust agreed to and they control the money - there is no fighting to keep it in Louisiana. The state either uses it or they don't. And there are definitely economic impacts in the form of income tax and sales tax dollars that would benifit the state if this project moves forward.
Regardless Landry’s decision wasn’t about any of this. This is just him pocketing donations from the Croatian mafia like it’s trial lawyer money.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 11:51 am to ragincajun03
Erosion is happening whether Nungesser likes it or not. That fat fock needs to go away. Landry is out of his league on this one. It will get done eventually regardless of this legislature.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 12:07 pm to lsuchip30
quote:
he state either uses it or they don't.
That's unfortunate
Posted on 11/27/24 at 12:18 pm to WeeWee
quote:
There is no way that amount of work needed to build an intake structure, armor the intake structure, build a railroad bridge, a road bridge, and 4 miles (2 miles on each side) of guide levees costs $3.1 billion. The project needs a serious review because the price of it has doubled since it was announced that BP money was going to be used to build it. Some consultants are getting rich off by screwing over the state "studies and models" which all you have to do is look at Mardi Gras Pass and say hey "we need a few more channels like that." I will be happy to drive down to Mardi Gras Pass, take pictures, and tell the Governor that we need more of those. I will do it for $100,000 which probably much cheaper than what the "experts" are charging for their "studies."
I don't know who is or has been paying for the studies. I just know that studies have been ongoing since well before the BP disaster. Regardless - the trust that controls the BP fund decided that they wanted this project done - and they were presented with a variety of projects in Louisiana and other states. Obviously the price tag was inflated - but the trust decided to cover that overage from the initial numbers. I've been on site and I can say that the scale is massive. I don't know what 3 billion dollars of construction looks like, but this thing is huge and the amount of equipment and manpower that is out there is staggering. Again - the governor does not control that money - no one in Louisiana controls that money, where it goes, or what project or projects it is allocated to. That part - for this particular project at least - is already done. The options are to move forward with it or abandon it and pay the half a billion plus that has been paid out back.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 12:30 pm to lsuchip30
This feels like the most Louisiana thing that has ever happened.
This state really is a shithole.
This state really is a shithole.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 12:38 pm to lsuson
quote:Not when the BP money trust pulls out and takes their $3B back plus the $500M the state will now have to repay for money already spent on work before Landry and the oyster mafia got the project stopped
It will get done eventually regardless of this legislature.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 1:10 pm to Tiger Prawn
quote:
Not when the BP money trust pulls out and takes their $3B back plus the $500M the state will now have to repay for money already spent on work before Landry and the oyster mafia got the project stopped
I just don't know how they can allow that to happen. Regardless on where anyone stands on how they think the money is being spent and the perceived benifit - it's not our money and not the state's money. Whatever anyone thinks of the value of the project - the state cannot afford to pay back the 500mil and it would suck to be devoid of the tax revenue associated with a construction project of this size.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 1:29 pm to Optimism
“Very few people…not qualified or understand…to give an opinion” [paraphrased of course]
I am. Diversion was/is a terrible idea and colossal waste of money. ROI doesn’t math. Restoring Louisiana’s coast (which I support) is a politcial boondoggle and money-grab.
How much land has been created since the inception of CPRA vs. how much have we lost?
Who gets paid to research? Study CPRA projects? Engineer and design? Construct?
Follow. The. Money.
I am. Diversion was/is a terrible idea and colossal waste of money. ROI doesn’t math. Restoring Louisiana’s coast (which I support) is a politcial boondoggle and money-grab.
How much land has been created since the inception of CPRA vs. how much have we lost?
Who gets paid to research? Study CPRA projects? Engineer and design? Construct?
Follow. The. Money.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 1:38 pm to DCTiger
quote:
How much land has been created since the inception of CPRA vs. how much have we lost?
Who gets paid to research? Study CPRA projects? Engineer and design? Construct?
I don't know the answers to those questions. I know that it is not our money. It is BP money that is there and the trust that decides what to do with that money awarded 3 billion of it for this specific project. How they decided which projects to greenlight and fund out of the multitude that they were presented with - I do not pretend to know. Would it have been better for Louisiana to turn down that project because the people in power figured that it was a bad ROI or they didn't agree with the type of construction or the scope in general? I'm sure that a lot of people have made a lot of money over the last decade plus for studies and research on coastal restoration in LA and other states on the gulf coast. Regardless of all of that - the people in charge of the money said they want this particular project to go and they decided to fund it. Why turn it down?
Posted on 11/27/24 at 1:49 pm to DCTiger
quote:
Who gets paid to research? Study CPRA projects? Engineer and design? Construct?
Uh engineers and scientists. Who do you recommend do it? Maybe we can pray for the coast to fix it!
Posted on 11/27/24 at 2:03 pm to DCTiger
quote:
Follow. The. Money.
Yes, let’s follow the money.
Follow the bribes from the oyster fishermen.
Like I said earlier, this is the most Louisiana thing to ever happen. Money set aside from BP to help rebuild the coast. Not state dollars.
But now, we get to keep losing coastline, and somehow the state will have to pay out money to keep losing it!
What a great state to live in.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 2:12 pm to upgrade
quote:
Yes, let’s follow the money.
Follow the bribes from the oyster fishermen.
Like I said earlier, this is the most Louisiana thing to ever happen. Money set aside from BP to help rebuild the coast. Not state dollars.
But now, we get to keep losing coastline, and somehow the state will have to pay out money to keep losing it!
What a great state to live in.
Spot on. Not a good look to abandon a project like this. Regardless of anyone's viewpoint on how much land it will replenish or anything else in the scope of the project. The economic impact alone that comes with a 3 billion dollar 4-5 year construction project of wich zero state dollars have been spent to fund is a very good thing. To abandon that is just wreckless.
This post was edited on 11/27/24 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 11/27/24 at 2:21 pm to upgrade
quote:
Follow the bribes from the oyster fishermen.
Boom, roasted.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 2:26 pm to lsuchip30
quote:
How they decided which projects to greenlight and fund out of the multitude that they were presented with - I do not pretend to know.
You do. Whether intimately or adjacent, you do. Your use of certain language suggest it.
Perhaps look at where and how the diversion (or diversions) came to be and who/what was the driving force behind it/them. Who from academia was involved, who from the NGOs?
And at the end of the day, with all those collective millions/billions in funds being to used for coastal restoration, who has been the main benefactor in the past 20 years?
Posted on 11/27/24 at 2:27 pm to REG861
Sit this one out. The conversation is well-above your comprehension.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 2:35 pm to upgrade
quote:
Not state dollars.
False. State dollars have been spent on studying the diversions. Millions.
These projects don’t pop-up overnight on someone’s white board. The same collective group of Academics, NGOs, A/E firms, and a host of others (lobbyists, etc) have benefitted since Day 1; however, we’re on our 3rd (or 4th really) different Governor.
Why is that? Hmmmm.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 2:37 pm to DCTiger
quote:
You do. Whether intimately or adjacent, you do. Your use of certain language suggest it.
Perhaps look at where and how the diversion (or diversions) came to be and who/what was the driving force behind it/them. Who from academia was involved, who from the NGOs?
And at the end of the day, with all those collective millions/billions in funds being to used for coastal restoration, who has been the main benefactor in the past 20 years?
I really don't. And I am not a scientist or anything associated with coastal restoration. My interest in this project is economic. I just know that there are 4 entities that make up the trust that controls the BP funds and that collective trust decided to fund certain projects and this was one of them. I am looking at this from the viewpoint of the economic impact in south Louisiana and particularly the SE portion of the state. I don't honestly know enough about coastal restoration and land replacement and all of that stuff to have much of an educated opinion on if this scope of a project is better than something else. I do know that a 3 billion dollar 4-5 year construction project will provide a substantial amount of tax revenue for both the state and local areas. And that the ancillary contractors involved in projects with suppliers and contractors that are involved in this project will receive work orders and PO's and they will make money too.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 2:45 pm to lsuchip30
quote:
Not a good look to abandon a project like this.
Should have never led with this project to begin with.
“Too big to fail”.
In my experience and without fail, Louisiana has wrongly chosen their water resouces projects starting with the outfall canals, but not without the meddling buffoonery of the enviros or other special interests (fisheries?).
Think “special ops” when it comes to projects, not massive ground campaign (no pun).
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News