[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think everyone is working with their own understanding about what it means to "save" an area. Some mean (including Smalls, I think) of saving an area by preserving the land and marsh from becoming open water. In this sense, preserving the flow of silt through the Atchafalaya is important.

But local fishermen and oystermen often enjoy much better years when there is less flow of freshwater and silt through the river, so they come to see reduced flow as a good thing.

Another point is that the river is not just bringing the silt needed to rebuild land and marsh, it is also bringing all the other crap that is flowing down the Mississippi, including pretty heavy nutrient loads, pesticides, antibiotic residues, hormone residues, etc. Recall that 30% of the flow of the Mississippi River is diverted to the Atchafalaya.

I am of the view that the benefits of the silt outweigh the negatives of the nutrient loading, fresh water, and chemical residues. But the attached pic shows the zone of hypoxic bottom water ("dead zone") that formed in the Gulf in the summer of 2013 which is largely attributable to the nutrient loading.

Probably the most tangible step to reducing Gulf hypoxia would be to reduce nutrient loading by ending ethanol subsidies and fuel requirements, since the artificially high corn prices encourage farmers to use more fertilizer which washes down and contributes to the problem. Lower corn prices would also reduce pressure on cattle feed operations to boost feed efficiency with heavy use of antibiotics and hormones. Ending ethanol subsidies and requirements would also increase demand for domestic oil.

LIKE


Sent