what y'all make of this?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There certainly is a good chance it could work out this way. I'm optimistic that fairly good fisheries can be preserved over the next 100 years as the marshes turn into open lakes and bays by:

1. Minimizing future loss of marshes and preserving marsh that used to be more brackish or even freshwater swamp.
2. Restoring, establishing, and preserving oyster reefs in the bays to provide valuable ecosystem services.
3. Managing salinity in the lakes and bays by controlling salinity flowing in from the Gulf and freshwater flows from rivers and freshwater swamps.

The big picture is to be more intentional about what levels of salinity are maintained in which regions. The "saltwater" line may end up further north than it is now and there may be some trade-offs between crawfish/bass/crappie habitat and crab/redfish/speck habitat.

We can't afford anymore conversion to open water. Why do you think the Cameron-Creole and the weirs are such a point of contention? They didn't put those there for ducks or for fish. They put those there for the Marsh. If we lose too much more Marsh in Cameron parish, it will compromise all the infrastructure to the North. All that Marsh is important flood control. Without it, a major hurricane like Rita or Katrina would be devastating.

I hope they don't move the saltwater line further north. We've already lost many acres of valuable fresh water habitat.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

We can't afford anymore conversion to open water. Why do you think the Cameron-Creole and the weirs are such a point of contention? They didn't put those there for ducks or for fish. They put those there for the Marsh. If we lose too much more Marsh in Cameron parish, it will compromise all the infrastructure to the North. All that Marsh is important flood control. Without it, a major hurricane like Rita or Katrina would be devastating.

I hope they don't move the saltwater line further north. We've already lost many acres of valuable fresh water habitat.

I agree, and I did not mean to advocate allowing further losses. I was more hoping to point out that I don't think we've passed a point of no return, as one of the posts had suggested.

Protecting against storm surge is undoubtedly an essential reason to protect the marsh. But the general public has short memories, and you have to sell expensive ideas based on more than events that occurred 9 years ago.

There are a bunch of stakeholders whose focus varies among many short and long term interests. The more interests an expensive plan meets and the fewer perceived difficulties it presents to the common man, the more likely it will be to be accepted.

There are most likely going to be more hurricanes like Katrina and Rita in the next 50 years. But as the memories fade, places like Holly Beach and Rutherford Beach will again be built up with camps and homes as the memory of Rita becomes more distant. Lack of flood insurance will make getting loans harder, and for a time it'll be RVs under shades. But eventually, the mobile home numbers will rise, and then people will be again be building permanent structures, though probably not with federally guaranteed loans.