- 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: Is the port of NOLA putting our water supply at risk?
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:18 am to Tarps99
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:18 am to Tarps99
quote:
Actually the Mid Barataria would have worsened the saltwater intrusion problem because now you would have had as much as 75,000cfs leaving the river.
I think the Mid Barataria Diversion was designed to flow when the river is high and have reduced/no flow when the river was low which is when salt water intrusion would be an issue.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:40 am to chalmetteowl
The salt water wedge is the new boogie man... My dad talked about the wedge back in the 70's, you never heard a peep about it on the news...
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:52 am to HubbaBubba
You roll your eyes even at the mere mention of a rising sea level? You think
That it’s fake? It’s objectively measurable…
That it’s fake? It’s objectively measurable…
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:10 am to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
I think the Mid Barataria Diversion was designed to flow when the river is high and have reduced/no flow when the river was low which is when salt water intrusion would be an issue.
Then what would have been the point of spending billions of dollars for a project that would only work sometimes during the year.
In drought years, that diversion may sit idle waiting for a few days or weeks that it can open without impacting freshwater concerns in the river.
The only ones that would have made money on this project would have been the contractor who built it and the agencies and organizations tasked with monitoring the the environmental impact of the project.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:14 am to VOR
quote:It is.
You roll your eyes even at the mere mention of a rising sea level? You think
That it’s fake? It’s objectively measurable…
January 29, 2026: NASA released an analysis showing that global mean sea level rose by only 0.03 inches (0.08 cm) in 2025.
Doing the math, in 100 years, that's a rise of 3".

Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:20 am to Tarps99
quote:
Actually the Mid Barataria would have worsened the saltwater intrusion problem because now you would have had as much as 75,000cfs leaving the river.
And creating massive amounts of land that pushes the gulf volume back. The pressure is what’s moving the salt water up the river.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 10:25 am to Tarps99
quote:
Then what would have been the point of spending billions of dollars for a project that would only work sometimes during the year.
In drought years, that diversion may sit idle waiting for a few days or weeks that it can open without impacting freshwater concerns in the river.
Looked up the low flow scenario and it was recommended that the diversion be closed when the River is below 300,000 cfs which is typically between September and February (usually shorter). As the basin would flow into the River when under the 300,000 cfs stage.
So the diversion would operate 7+ months out of the year. Not "wait for a few days or weeks that it can open".
The diversion would have had little to no impact on the saltwater intrusion issue for the Mississippi River.
This post was edited on 4/13/26 at 10:28 am
Popular
Back to top

1






