re: Gov. Landry has pulled the plug on Louisiana’s biggest coastal project, Tulane expert says

This is finally an actual smart move by the Governor. Project would have made less than 1 square mile of land per year....

Dredging is the answer..not Diverting

Dredging is what got us into this mess. Dredging thousands of miles of canals to reach oil and gas reserves in under the coastal marshes is what got us into this mess.

Without a steady stream of fresh water and sediment our marshes are dying.

Dredging will only get you so far as to rebuilding land. If you build too high the wrong plants grow and the land eventually erodes. If you are too low, the plants don’t grow and the land eventually erodes too.


My issue with the project is that it is too dependent on large hard structures that helped to inflate the cost of the project. I understand that you need bridges to relocate the roads and train tracks. But a concrete lined canal and pumps to take Mississippi River water out is too much. A weir could have sufficed and only allow water to enter the basin if water reaches a certain height. That way it mimics the natural flow, and allows periods of high salinity when the river is low. An earthen levee would have been enough.

quote:

---

Graves and Carter’s Offshore Parity Act passes

---

Benefit or not, Watch for Scalise to crush it to make sure Graves gets NO win on the way out the door.

Better than JBE

quote:

---

Do y’all know how small 21 square miles is?

---

A 3 mile wide strip of land from Joshua's Marina all the way out to the barrier islands and a hair beyond.

Not so small when you look at it that way.

Also...Bermuda is 21 square miles in size.

Maybe some folks don't realize how big 21 square miles can be.

If you’re going to shut this down I want to see an alternative on the table. It is an undeniable fact that this state is losing land, rapidly. Who gives a damn about camps and how far out fishermen have to go when those communities won’t even exist in 50 years (and that’s generous), whether it be because of erosion, hurricanes or insurance. It all ties together. Levees need to be destroyed and nature needs to take its course but if this is getting shut down there’s no way in hell that ever happens. I love my home state, but damn, it’s a snake eating its tail and has been for pretty much its entire history.

quote:

---

I have listened to both sides of this and to potentially get 21 miles over 50 years and possibly destroy our fishing industry may not be worth it. The opponents say we can dredge and use thats to build land without damage to the fishing industry and make more land cheaper. Let’s be honest as very few people on this board include myself are coastal engineers or commercial, fisherman, and really understand the impact of this to really give a opinion whether there is the right move or not

---

You don't need to be a coastal engineer to understand and inherently know what udtiger eloquently stated:

quote:

---

This project was an attempt to recreate, in small measure, the natural process that literally built south Louisiana. Constraining the Mississippi River within the levee system signed the death warrant for the state. Digging canals throughout the area allowed salt water intrusion and has accelerated the land loss, but make no mistake, it is SUBSIDENCE coupled with no new sediment that is killing south Louisiana.

---

This is the correct answer. It's basically a compromise since blowing up the levees isn't feasible.

Of course the fishermen that complain about this project are also the ones that bitch about coastal erosion.

quote:

---

Let’s be honest as very few people on this board include myself are coastal engineers

---

Although technically I'm not a Coastal Engineer, I did complete Old Dominion University's Coastal Engineering Master's Certificate program several years ago.

quote:

---

Agree JBE did just that

---

Superb. What does that have to do with this thread?

quote:

---

3 billion for 21 square miles over 50 years doesn't sound like a good use of taxpayer money .

---

Isn't this BP money and not taxpayer money?

Also, this is net 21 square miles. Without this, we will lose a lot more.

quote:

---

I’m not sure of the details, but saving 3.1 billion seems like a decent idea

---

We aren't saving anything.

The 3.1 billion will go to another project, probably in another state.