Interesting little article

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

I just wanted to put this out here and bring up this point. Caernarvon diversion was designed to be a fresh water diversion. The main goal was never to build marsh, only reduce salinity and reduce stress and lessen the loss rates. But even though it isn't feeding off of the bottom of the river where the heavier sediments are it still building land. Same thing with the Naomi siphon.

The Diversions planed are going to be designed for sediment transport and will have a better ability to build land in the outfall.

Why is it that so many look at that project as a failure then? Isn't it supposed to benefit a much larger area? Why has it and the management of it continually been criticized?

There has definitely been some land gain there, which is good, but I've heard nothing but criticism of that project.

[capt coonassty]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Why is it that so many look at that project as a failure then? Isn't it supposed to benefit a much larger area? Why has it and the management of it continually been criticized?

There has definitely been some land gain there, which is good, but I've heard nothing but criticism of that project.

This is a good question that I don't exactly have an answer for. But yes the diversion benefits a much larger area as far as salinity reduction.

As far as the criticism I think it has to do a lot with a few people who happen to fish oysters. For sure the Save Louisiana Coalition is the squeakiest wheel and seems to spread a lot of misinformation. They love to use some imagery of before and after a hurricane and claim that the diversion is responsible from interior land loss.
They also love to cite some research paper and use the worst possible outcome of it and said that a diversion would displace fisheries by 40Km(or something like that)