re: Mid Barataria Diversion

Agreed. This was posted by someone that likely hasn’t ever been South of Gretna. The land is vanishing. Rapidly. And we are going to let a few commercial fishermen (very few) paying off Fat Billy to stop it.

quote:

---

In one small area about 15 miles wide

---

No. Throughout the bay area because the fresh water will make the marsh healthier and the marsh plants will hold the land together.

Map below is from the mid 19th century, significant coastal marsh and land. Obviously before wide scale levee construction and other, more modern factors.



Map below, the upper panel is around year 2,000 while the lower panel is an estimate of the State's coastline by the end of this century, absent mitigation.



Landry has ordered a review of the Diversion project, along with proposed merging of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, now headed by Landry appointee Gordon Dove, into the DNR.

Dove's floated an idea to create rock barriers along the coast "from Texas to Mississippi" and is apparently unaware of unconsolidated sediments low shear strength i.e. swamp mud to resist granite and other rock type loading.

The State's executive agency (Landry) is "negotiating" with Plaquemines Parish officials for a scaled down version, or cancellation (?) of the Diversion. This work is being done under an N.D.A. shielded from public scrutiny.

The fix is in, the deal is done.

To the dredging advocates, the answers you seek are in the USCOE EIS.

You do realize dredging is a full time activity to the end of the century vs a passive Diversion once built, and that there are not near enough Jones Act Dredges in the U.S. to conduct a project of this scale? Boskalis, anyone?

The more I think about it, the better "blow the levees south of Belle Chase" sounds as the most reasonable solution.

Mr. Breeze= 100% correct

quote:

---

It took me 30 seconds to find one.

---

Well, that’s an article not a study. I’m just looking for an actual study that shows the actual comparison of dredging versus the diversion.

quote:

---

To the dredging advocates, the answers you seek are in the USCOE EIS.

---

Dredging was not studied in the EIS

quote:

---

They really need to quit pussy footing around and blow the levees south of BC. Take the 3B going to be used for this and use it to move the few remaining full-time residents out and fortify the needed infrastructure for the commercial/industries to remain

---

This is the only way if the Louisiana coast is to be saved long term.

quote:

---

You get the government you vote for

---

This is true but it sounds so much better from the original 1811 source:

“Toute nation a le gouverement qu'elle merite.”

No no no and no. I could flip the same argument against you. Semantics
Nature hasnt adapted to man made, thats why some argue that MORE intervention is needed.

There isn't a perfect cure. We gwt that. But wasting billions, and we know it will be over budget....on 25 miles of basically uninhabitable land 50 years later...well, thats just scary thinking. We would have zero clue what future problems would arise.

It just makes more sense to move in a direction that's more natural, that to dive further into man made crap thats fighting against nature and can be wiped out w one storm.

And we all agree, we would absolutely like to preserve and gain back our lost coastline.

No easy answers, but God let's not throw money away anymore

quote:

---

You're literally bitching about both the cause AND the cure.

---

He's probably the same guy I used to see with one bumper sticker that read "SAVE OUR COAST" and another that said "LOCKS AND LEVEES PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES."