- 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: Cancellation of Mid-Barataria Diversion project could cost Louisiana at least $700 million
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:47 am to KamaCausey_LSU
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:47 am to KamaCausey_LSU
Where is the governor on this? Oh, that’s right, he’s talking about LSU women and the national anthem 
1
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:49 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Where is the governor on this?
He is who appointed the fat mafia to kill it in the first place.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:51 am to The Boat
Who are you calling grown?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:53 am to Indefatigable
quote:
My question would be, is it not the state's prerogative to decide how this would be done? That there are other alternative options seems irrelevant now, that this decision was already made to go forward with the diversion a decade ago. Where was all of this uproar in that time? This thing passed the legislature unanimously, repeatedly.
That’s a great point. I believe there has been consistent uproar from the commercial fisherman; however, their concerns have been taken with a “grain of salt” because of the enormous settlements after BP. The fact that they got rich doesn’t change the fact that they will be severely impacted.
The biggest issue of alternatives is that dredging was not even considered. Only diversions…and the cost used to make the final decision was less $700M and the current cost is closer to $3.5B which doesn’t account for the $1.3B of levees to protect Lafitte. Also remember that the structure has a lifecycle of only 50 years. So more than likely would have to be replaced in 70 years which matches the two dredging cycles of $1.2B.
Again, I believe diversions could work but this current project is a complete boondoggle.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:56 am to Marshhen
Also, the Master Plan was approved unanimously multiple times…not the Diversion
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:02 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Also, the Master Plan was approved unanimously multiple times
Of which the Diversion was the cornerstone....
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:03 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
So.... how about a boycott?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:04 pm to Marshhen
quote:
The biggest issue of alternatives is that dredging was not even considered.
Was dredging one of the things that the fed/BP dollars would pay for? For some reason I thought that the dredging money had to go to barrier islands and not the bay that far up the river, but I could be mistaken on that.
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:04 pm to Funky Tide 8
quote:
This guy absolutely does not look like the prototypical, greedy, gluttonous Louisiana politician. Not at all.
Good Lord he's a coonass version of Roy Biggins.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:06 pm to The Boat
quote:
Happy to hear they shut down this waste of time and money. The state needs to focus on manual land building. They're doing that on other parts of the coast and it works very well. The amount of land created for the cost and time scale is hilariously small.
The Atchafalaya River and Mardis Gras Pass say hello. But let’s not bring actual anecdotes into this argument.
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:11 pm to The Boat
quote:
Imagine losing your shite over this
You’re an edge lord so I shouldn’t waste my time, but this is one in a long list of missteps by the Landry administration a couple months into his tenure.
He’s spending all his time worried about standing for the national anthem, the Texas border, and making sure he gets the attention of every national republican.
He’s done nothing to benefit anyone in LA, and now wants to torpedo a project that would provide significant protection for a large portion of the state. And on top of that it’s going to cost the state a billion dollars.
Like you, he’s nothing but a short sighted attention whore who makes big statements that don’t really do anything of substance.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:13 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Of which the Diversion was the cornerstone....
Still does not equate to unanimous approval of the project as you stated
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:14 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
This is a local power play, no different than Livingston, EBR, WBR, Ascension and Iberville all at some point in the past 3 decades torpedoing a new bridge for one reason or another.
Governors only have so much power when a parish says no. Hell in 2006 I believe the people of Brusly, Addis and Port Allen killed a bridge in favor of saving the Cinclair Sugarmill, now the bitch to the high heavens about traffic.
Last go around it was Ascension that killed it because of wetlands.
Now it is some ancient forestry coalition trying to kill the location.
People forget that politics is local and local parish do most of the screwing to the citizens of the state.
Governors only have so much power when a parish says no. Hell in 2006 I believe the people of Brusly, Addis and Port Allen killed a bridge in favor of saving the Cinclair Sugarmill, now the bitch to the high heavens about traffic.
Last go around it was Ascension that killed it because of wetlands.
Now it is some ancient forestry coalition trying to kill the location.
People forget that politics is local and local parish do most of the screwing to the citizens of the state.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Was dredging one of the things that the fed/BP dollars would pay for? For some reason I thought that the dredging money had to go to barrier islands and not the bay that far up the river, but I could be mistaken on that.
Various pots of money with strings attached. When the BP settlement framework was determined, CPRA chose to earmark specific funds to pay for their diversions and included barrier islands in the same pot of money to avoid looking like the decision was pre-determined which is unacceptable to the NEPA process. However, the decision was pre-determined which is 100% against the process … right now, the State has agreed to pay for the diversion no matter the cost. The CMAR could come back and say it’ll cost $5B and the State will have to pay … not the best arrangement to be in.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:20 pm to Junky
quote:
The Atchafalaya River and Mardis Gras Pass say hello. But let’s not bring actual anecdotes into this argument.
How much storm surge do these two areas reduce for population centers?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That those other agencies approved the diversion? Yes.
No . . . That's public record. I'm asking do you know that they didn't apply because they did not have too which was suggested in your previous post as if it were fact?
I'm asking because from previous experience getting a federal and state level permits is the first step in the permitting process. Getting parish level permit occurs after receipt of those permits not before.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:38 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Of which the Diversion was the cornerstone.... Still does not equate to unanimous approval of the project as you stated
There’s roughly $400M for the diversion in the present annual plan. Voting “for” $400M in spending on the diversion you are opposed to makes no sense.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:43 pm to Junky
quote:
The Atchafalaya River and Mardis Gras Pass say hello. But let’s not bring actual anecdotes into this argument.
There is another one forming called Neptune Pass near Buras.
All are doing the work Mother Nature intended without any human intervention.
Mid Barataria needs some human intervention because there is a roadway and a railway goes right through it and other utilities.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:45 pm to The Boat
quote:
Happy to hear they shut down this waste of time and money. The state needs to focus on manual land building. They're doing that on other parts of the coast and it works very well. The amount of land created for the cost and time scale is hilariously small.
You cannot only look at land built. You must also look at the prevention of land loss that would otherwise occur if no diversion were built. Those numbers are in the hundreds of square miles. This is land throughout the basin that would benefit from thin sheet sediment deposition, salinity regulation, etc and goes well beyond just the outfall.
Dredging by itself cannot prevent such loss, so the math and maps you are looking at are not the total picture.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:53 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
Should have just used this money to build ring levees around the population centers of Plaquemines Parish - of which there are few left - and just removed the levees in the remaining areas. Elevated Hwy 23 over these areas, and allowed the river to begin doing what it had done for millennia, without the need to build any diversion structures, per se.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News