- 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: Thoughts on Diversions and the Coastal Master Plan
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:15 am to Barf
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:15 am to Barf
quote:
But why fight a war that can not be won? What is there to gain from spending a shite ton of money to educate people who don't want to be educated?
Correct, the Legislature needs to stand up and pass laws protecting the various entitees who are engaging in Coastal restoration. Then the scientists can decide what is best.
The harmed communities can be given fair recompense but not prohibitive amounts.
1
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:15 am to Barf
I'm talking less about commercial fisherman and more so about your average recreational fisherman. The average outdoorsman knows that the coasts are disappearing and has been told what a few of the most infamous causes are but there is no real knowledge in that. An educated and outspoken voice from the fisherman who are trying to protect the coast for the next 100 years vs the next harvest is what would best serve everyone. Now, how you go about that is the real question.
All I'm saying is that as of now, the loudest voice is coming from the opposition who have armed themselves with facts. Deceitful, but facts nonetheless. The answer is to educate the other 98% of the state as to how utterly important diversions are if they hope to have fishing grounds left for their children and grandchildren. We have to be able to look past 2 or 3 or 5 bad harvests, because if we don't, we will lose it entirely.
All I'm saying is that as of now, the loudest voice is coming from the opposition who have armed themselves with facts. Deceitful, but facts nonetheless. The answer is to educate the other 98% of the state as to how utterly important diversions are if they hope to have fishing grounds left for their children and grandchildren. We have to be able to look past 2 or 3 or 5 bad harvests, because if we don't, we will lose it entirely.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:20 am to Sid in Lakeshore
BY THE WAY.
The State master plan has all sorts of different projects in it including shore protection, vegetative plantings, dedicated dredging, beneficial use of dredged material and frshwater diversions and sediment diversions.
Sediment Diversions are NOT the end all be all. There are limited locations where they will be effective and the sediment load in the Miss River is ~70% of it's historic levels. That means there is less sediment to work with.
We need an all of the above plan, which is what the master plan had in it once (not sure what is in there now, its been a while).
The State master plan has all sorts of different projects in it including shore protection, vegetative plantings, dedicated dredging, beneficial use of dredged material and frshwater diversions and sediment diversions.
Sediment Diversions are NOT the end all be all. There are limited locations where they will be effective and the sediment load in the Miss River is ~70% of it's historic levels. That means there is less sediment to work with.
We need an all of the above plan, which is what the master plan had in it once (not sure what is in there now, its been a while).
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:22 am to MrBobDobalina
quote:
The answer is to educate the other 98% of the state as to how utterly important diversions are if they hope to have fishing grounds left for their children and grandchildren
This will never happen because of the ignorance to public access in tidal marsh.
If you start telling people that you are going to start rebuilding private property with their money, you're going to have a real arse problem on your hands.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:23 am to MrBobDobalina
quote:
All I'm saying is that as of now, the loudest voice is coming from the opposition who have armed themselves with facts. Deceitful, but facts nonetheless. The answer is to educate the other 98% of the state as to how utterly important diversions are if they hope to have fishing grounds left for their children and grandchildren. We have to be able to look past 2 or 3 or 5 bad harvests, because if we don't, we will lose it entirely.
Agree totally, but how do you get people to care? THose that care the most (show up at meetings, polls), are the ones who it directly impacts monetarily (commercial fishermen).
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:23 am to Barf
quote:
If you start telling people that you are going to start rebuilding private property with their money, you're going to have a real arse problem on your hands.
The legislature needs to clear the legal hurdles.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:32 am to Barf
I agree, and I don't claim to have the answer. The extent of my knowledge is limited to the building and loss of wetlands. Once you get into the subject of takings and using taxpayer money to pay for private land, my role switches to observer. The amount of bs to overcome in our state to rebuild the damage endured over the past 80 years is beyond infuriating and I only aim to get the ball rolling in the right direction.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:38 am to MrBobDobalina
quote:
The amount of bs to overcome in our state to rebuild the damage endured over the past 80 years is beyond infuriating and I only aim to get the ball rolling in the right direction.
Good luck. A lot of people are willing to help. We need to get our state legislature (and Governor) involved to clear some of the legal hurdles. without that, there will never be any real progress.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:40 am to Barf
quote:
If you start telling people that you are going to start rebuilding private property with their money, you're going to have a real arse problem on your hands.
What about the fact that private property was impacted from the levees which were build with tax dollars in the first place. It is a 2 way street.
Yes, I know that things were done on private land such as private canals that may have helped with the negative impact, but at the same time the levees are the root of the problem and were created with public funds. Now public funds need to help fix the problem that was started all those years ago.
Diversions and other projects that aren't like dredging where they directly choose where to dump the sediment seem more justifiable in using public monies in my opinion. Not to mention they are cheaper and more sustainable.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:41 am to MrBobDobalina
Just to be clear that we all understand the magnitude of the problem/fix.
The stated goal of the State master plan was to achieve NO NET LOSS of land by the year 2050. That was assuming adequate funding starting in the year 2005 (or whenever it was first proposed. we have since squandered away over ten years and really done very little.
The problem continues to grow and become more costly. I'm not sure we will ever reverse the tide, all we can do is slow it down in certain areas, IMHO.
The stated goal of the State master plan was to achieve NO NET LOSS of land by the year 2050. That was assuming adequate funding starting in the year 2005 (or whenever it was first proposed. we have since squandered away over ten years and really done very little.
The problem continues to grow and become more costly. I'm not sure we will ever reverse the tide, all we can do is slow it down in certain areas, IMHO.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:43 am to Scrowe
quote:
What about the fact that private property was impacted from the levees which were build with tax dollars in the first place
Apples and Oranges. Land owners were compensated/paid for the construction of the levee as well as granted batcher rights.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:47 am to Sid in Lakeshore
Why not just do it anyway? The government is constantly doing stuff that people don't want already. Somebody has to nut up and pull the trigger
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 11:50 am
Posted on 6/7/16 at 11:59 am to Barf
quote:
Land owners were compensated/paid for the construction of the levee as well as granted batcher rights.
I do not believe they compensated those who's land didn't receive sediment from the river anymore thanks to the levees. You're speaking of those who's land was put inside the levees themselves. I'm speaking of all the land cut off from the deposit of sediment that their land once had when the river went outside of it's banks.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:00 pm to Hammertime
quote:
Why not just do it anyway? The government is constantly doing stuff that people don't want already. Somebody has to nut up and pull the trigger
The government is good at not doing something thanks to a minority outcry. That's kind of their thing right now. The only people that are winning right now are those conducting the studies. Just like with the BR Loop, we just keep spending a shite ton of money on design and studies and nothing is ever actually getting done. I'm hoping they pull the trigger on the diversion through Blind River soon because that will help the area out tremendously.
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:00 pm to Hammertime
quote:
Why not just do it anyway? The government is constantly doing stuff that people don't want already. Somebody has to nut up and pull the trigger
ENORMOUS monetary awards in the courts. Hence teh need for the legislature to step up and protect those doing the Coastal Restoration. They also need to settle the property rights issues for the lands created (maybe).
ETA: $1.3B award was eventually thrown out. LINK
This post was edited on 6/7/16 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:06 pm to Scrowe
quote:
I do not believe they compensated those who's land didn't receive sediment from the river anymore thanks to the levees. You're speaking of those who's land was put inside the levees themselves. I'm speaking of all the land cut off from the deposit of sediment that their land once had when the river went outside of it's banks.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. There is a lot of land outside the levees, some impacted by the construction, some not. What was the alternative?
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:14 pm to Barf
I'm ready for that West Maurepas Diversion to take place 
all they have to dig is the blue part, there are already canals in place to carry the rest of the water
the way its supposed to be funded is through the fact that that is one of the few standing cypress tupelo swamps left in the world or whatnot...i heard it should be done within 2 years or so
I really wanna see it bc it will help the bass fishing in the blind river and maurepas area out alot, along with all the fishing in maurepas imo
all they have to dig is the blue part, there are already canals in place to carry the rest of the water
the way its supposed to be funded is through the fact that that is one of the few standing cypress tupelo swamps left in the world or whatnot...i heard it should be done within 2 years or so
I really wanna see it bc it will help the bass fishing in the blind river and maurepas area out alot, along with all the fishing in maurepas imo
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:19 pm to Ignignot
quote:
I'm ready for that West Maurepas Diversion to take place
That makes two of us. Please for all that is holy let this happen soon.
They have been talking about it for way too long.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:23 pm to Barf
quote:
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
I'm saying government money went into the construction of the levees which increased erosion on lands that received no compensation for such impact.
You are saying that using government money to fix these private lands is a touchy subject, but it was used all those years ago to create the problem. There shouldn't be that much resistance to use government money to fix the problem as a whole just because as a result it's going to help out eroding lands that are privately owned along with those state owned. Also, it's a way bigger problem than some oyster farmers and inshore charter captains.
You sited the issue with private marshes and people having a problem with it, the issue boils down to whether or not you want to help the coast. If the answer is yes then it shouldn't change because someone in the marsh ran you off their private canal and it will help reduce erosion on his property or assist to build up land on his property.
If we're looking for blanket prevention then diversions are definitely the way to go and it keeps out the part where dredging sediments are gerrymandered to help a lucky few people.
Posted on 6/7/16 at 12:26 pm to Ignignot
quote:
there are already canals in place to carry the rest of the water
They have to do a little work to the existing canals I think, but I believe it's in one of the early phases of the Master Plan. I think something that is holding it up is St. James wants there to be the ability to pump water over the levee at the location to assist with their flood problems.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News