Refreshing Rockefeller

[Steel3's]

..... Sediment diversions can do a hell of a lot. About 50,000 acres from Mid-Barataria alone.

Maybe more than initially thought:

New Study Compares Human Contributions to Mississippi River Delta Land Loss, Hints at Solutions

www.lsu.edu

 

[DComeaux]

Our entire coast line (marsh) has been butchered, and some areas have way more wounds. It's very hard to find a large section of unmolested marsh land.

This is south of New Orleans. How do you expect a marsh to survive when it's chopped up like this? I would imagine to the east of this that is now open water received this same trauma.

 

[Engstfeld]

Our entire coast line (marsh) has been butchered, and some areas have way more wounds. It's very hard to find a large section of unmolested marsh land.

View attachment 381634

This is south of New Orleans. How do you expect a marsh to survive when it's chopped up like this? I would imagine to the east of this that is now open water received this same trauma. View attachment 381639

I assume you’re talking about the canals? Outside of the marsh that was removed, there’s little more destruction caused by them. I could show you areas where there are canals cut and no marsh deterioration other than the canals.

It’s not the canals. It’s the age of the deltaic lobes. The younger lobes sink faster due to the dewatering of the sediments while the older lobes, what you see sub-aerially, have already dewatered and are stable.

Ultimately it’s the fact that we’ve controlled the river that’s the real problem. Not canals.

 

[bill cooksey]

I assume you’re talking about the canals? Outside of the marsh that was removed, there’s little more destruction caused by them. I could show you areas where there are canals cut and no marsh deterioration other than the canals.

It’s not the canals. It’s the age of the deltaic lobes. The younger lobes sink faster due to the dewatering of the sediments while the older lobes, what you see sub-aerially, have already dewatered and are stable.

Ultimately it’s the fact that we’ve controlled the river that’s the real problem. Not canals.

Lot of truth here regarding the river and also that the newest ground is also the first to subside, but canals have been a significant factor in many areas while others are as you describe.

 

[Engstfeld]

Lot of truth here regarding the river and also that the newest ground is also the first to subside, but canals have been a significant factor in many areas while others are as you describe.

Prove it, Bill.

 

[bill cooksey]

Prove it, Bill.

Not exactly new and unsettled science. It was proven long before I got involved by experts who study it for a living. No doubt cutting off the river is the predominant issue, and that can’t be overstated. Also no doubt the newest ground disappears the fastest. There’s also no doubt canals dug in locations where they allow far more saltwater intrusion to kill vegetation and/or eroding tidal currents where they wouldn’t otherwise be have exacerbated the problem in many areas. And it passes both the scientific test and reasonable man test.

Really nothing here to argue about.

 

[ducaholic]

There is no undoing what man has done. I don’t care how many studies are done that point to minute successes. It’s the proverbial pimple on an elephants ***. It’s akin to DU saving the PPR with its efforts. That shouldn’t stop anyone from doing what they do but let’s be real about what it really means in the big scheme of things.

 

[bill cooksey]

There is no undoing what man has done. I don’t care how many studies are done that point to minute successes. It’s the proverbial pimple on an elephants ***. It’s akin to DU saving the PPR with its efforts. That shouldn’t stop anyone from doing what they do but let’s be real about what it really means in the big scheme of things.

Another yes and no deal. No way to compare the 64 million acres of the PPH with the 2.5 million acres of Louisiana coastal marsh. There are places which will remain just a note in the history and places which are there today yet can’t be saved.

That said, going with a median scenario (no worst or best case factors), if the Coastal Master Plan projects are implemented, you are looking at beginning a net gain for the whole coast in about 50 years. Other places will see gains far quicker.

 

[DComeaux]

I assume you’re talking about the canals? Outside of the marsh that was removed, there’s little more destruction caused by them. I could show you areas where there are canals cut and no marsh deterioration other than the canals.

It’s not the canals. It’s the age of the deltaic lobes. The younger lobes sink faster due to the dewatering of the sediments while the older lobes, what you see sub-aerially, have already dewatered and are stable.

Ultimately it’s the fact that we’ve controlled the river that’s the real problem. Not canals.

So you're saying that if I go out into a pristine marsh with an excavator and do what's shown below, which is introducing water with depth and current to an otherwise closed, solid marsh that this will have no adverse affect?

 

[ducaholic]

Another yes and no deal. No way to compare the 64 million acres of the PPH with the 2.5 million acres of Louisiana coastal marsh. There are places which will remain just a note in the history and places which are there today yet can’t be saved.

That said, going with a median scenario (no worst or best case factors), if the Coastal Master Plan projects are implemented, you are looking at beginning a net gain for the whole coast in about 50 years. Other places will see gains far quicker.

Keep on believing Bill. The world with people doing what you do is better for it!