Diverting versus Dredging?

[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