Diverting versus Dredging?

[Gasper Master]

Great article. Seems pretty simple to me. If you dredge today, you will have new land tomorrow.

[Duck Butter]

Devin, I will agree that dredging does build land right now, but the first storm that comes thru will knock that land out. You can post maps all day everyday of what southeast La looked like before and after diversions, and I can post maps of what SW La looks like where there has not been a freshwater diversion and you will see similar land loss taking place over there as well as ALL of SE Louisiana. There was a thread about this with some maps showing land loss in SW LA nowhere NEAR a freshwater diversion. All this land loss is due to saltwater intrusion and subsidence, and not one person will disagree with that.

In SE LA, the land is subsiding and we are losing a football field a DAY over there, nowhere near Caernarvon or Davis Pond. Leeville to Grand Isle looks different every time I go there and its from saltwater intrusion and subsidence, and I think we can agree on that. You can also see the effects of saltwater intrusion on Lake Pantchartain and Maurepas. All those cypress are dying a slow death due to saltwater, you can see it from the interstate, some are already dead and not one person will tell you that its something other than saltwater. I can show you on Maurepas WMA where cypress trees were planted 15 years ago and some are not even 6 feet tall because of lack of nutrients and saltwater intrusion. Its been well documented, there are CRMS stations right there.

There are dredging projects going on RIGHT now all over the state and yes they help out and you can actually see it with your own eyes that land is buidling. I was on Pelican Island just last week and there was dredging taking place. That place is a poster child for needing hyrdologic remediation ( i.e. freshwater) The whole place (Empire to Buras) is open water which used to be land. MY GPS even showed me that where we were boating was ONCE land and not that long ago. I would bet that any charter captain in that area would tell you that there land is washing away right in front of their eyes.

BUT, you are putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound essentially. Without stopping the 'wound' you aren't doing anything. I know that the majority of people against diversions are against it only what has been done south of Caernarvon diversion and want to blame that diversion on their land loss but that land loss is comparable to land loss all over the coastal zone of our state. In other words EVERYONE is experiencing land loss, not just you guys below Caernarvon

I listened to 5 talks on this a few weeks ago from professionals (geologists, oceanographers, and plant ecologists) and the first two were providing evidence that maybe we shouldn't jump on diversions just yet, the next ones were presenting data that diversions are needed right now ASAP, and the final presentation was a plant ecologist who showed data (that was previously published by the first two presenters and that they conveniently left out of their presentation).

The take home message here is that

1. Saltwater is BAD for everything except trout fishing
2. Trout should not be caught in Maurepas Lake but that is going to be the case here real soon and
3.Land is being lost all over the state not just below Caernarvon
4. There are WAY more dredging projects than diversion projects planned and WAY more money dedicated to dredging than diverting.
5. Dredgind does NOT address the two main issues here causing the loss of land which are subsidence and saltwater intrusion

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Gasper Master

Great article. Seems pretty simple to me. If you dredge today, you will have new land tomorrow.

and that land will be wiped out first storm that comes thru

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

and that land will be wiped out first storm that comes thru

Did you read the article? There is land made from a dredge that withstood a storm in the article, is this photoshopped?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Did you read the article? There is land made from a dredge that withstood a storm in the article, is this photoshopped?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I will say I didn't read the article, but I think I get what DB is saying. First, that land, if nothing establishes, will wash away. Second, there is nothing stopping dredged land from washing away. It is not a super marsh that will sustain everything. It can wash away just as quick as anything else. What DB is getting at, I think, is that dredging cannot be the only option.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by Smalls

I will say I didn't read the article, but I think I get what DB is saying. First, that land, if nothing establishes, will wash away. Second, there is nothing stopping dredged land from washing away. It is not a super marsh that will sustain everything. It can wash away just as quick as anything else. What DB is getting at, I think, is that dredging cannot be the only option.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

The dredged land created would be just like the sediment that was placed there naturally, and like the sediment that creates land at the moths of rivers - it will more than likely have established plant life rather quickly, just like the incidental land created within the article.

I would at least read the article before standing so firm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Goooh

The dredged land created would be just like the sediment that was placed there naturally, and like the sediment that creates land at the moths of rivers - it will more than likely have established plant life rather quickly, just like the incidental land created within the article.

I would at least read the article before standing so firm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I read it and like I said I dredging is a good thing, we need it and there are dredging projects going on right now all across the state, but what people with an agenda often do is skip over articles that may not fall in line with their position (just like the media), they skip over articles until they find one that suits them

From the article:
"In 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers was dredging out the MRGO (Mississippi River Gulf Outlet) to keep it navigable to ocean-going ships. They pumped this material out of the MRGO and onto the opposite side of the rock jetty, where it piled up above the waterline and accidentally formed land. The mud sat there as it was naturally populated by oyster grass, making it hardy against storm surge. This occurred on the south side of the MRGO, opposite of Gardner Island."

Then he shows two maps with the following headings
Island being built by a dredge in 2004.

Here the island is complete and has successfully survived Hurricane Katrina despite being devoid of oyster grass. Note the date stamp.



So which is it? Is there oystergrass or not? In the paragraph above its yes, then in the photo right here it says 'devoid of oystergrass'


The entire agenda here is to keep the water salty down there in order to keep the great speckled trout fishery they have down there. The diversions have been running for years and anyone that has seen any reports coming from that area knows that the trout fishing has been great this year despite the doom and gloom from the diversions

There is another website that you can find all this out for yourself and if you try to disagree or state your opinion you will be banned from the website and maybe even get a nasty message, your posts will be deleted if you say anything about the diversions

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Goooh

The dredged land created would be just like the sediment that was placed there naturally, and like the sediment that creates land at the moths of rivers - it will more than likely have established plant life rather quickly, just like the incidental land created within the article.

I would at least read the article before standing so firm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

What's your point? I guess I missed where I said I was completely against dredging.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Goooh

The dredged land created would be just like the sediment that was placed there naturally, and like the sediment that creates land at the moths of rivers - it will more than likely have established plant life rather quickly, just like the incidental land created within the article.

I would at least read the article before standing so firm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

The article states two differing things on plant life - it says oystergrass was there in one sentence and then it says it was devoid of it.

Dredging is good for the record.

It needs to be coupled with other things though. If you ever get over to SE La and look around all that land is going quick