I was invited to speak at a recent meeting of independent scientists from the Water Institute of the Gulf in Baton Rouge. Brig. Gen. Duke DeLuca of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also gave a presentation.
DeLuca’s insights should be a wake-up call for all Louisianans who think state officials have a clue about how to rescue our coast.
The gist of DeLuca’s evidence completely refutes the claim by the state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority that the way to rebuild lost land along the coast is to “reconnect the river to the marsh” with large-scale river diversions.
“This isn’t your grandfather’s river,” DeLuca said memorably.
Louisiana is losing 16.5 square miles of land a year — roughly 10,000 acres — but more than half of this wetland loss is beyond reach of any diversion that might be created, no matter how big, DeLuca said. Moreover, as he pointed out, the Mighty Mississippi has nowhere near the land-building capacity it had 7,000 years ago when annual sedimentation created the delta that’s now rapidly disappearing. At the time, the river’s massive flow was fed by the meltdown of an equally massive glacier. No glaciers have been spotted in the Chicago area in recent years!
In arguing for diversions, the coastal restoration authority has made the Wax Lake Outlet over by Morgan City its poster child for the river’s land-building potential. But, as the general noted, even using 10 percent of the river’s total flow, since 1983 the outlet has been building only 250 acres a year.
To those of us who make our living harvesting seafood and guiding sportsmen through the waters we know, it seems like the coastal authority is so hooked on diversions that no amount of hard science will stop them.
Do the math: Even if we could utilize every drop of the river’s flow, we could only build 2,500 acres a year — just a quarter of what needs to be replaced just to break even. The problem, as DeLuca explained, is that the river carries only a quarter of the sediment it had prior to the 1950s, and only half of that sediment gets past Baton Rouge.
DeLuca also dispelled the widespread misconception that all the sediment goes out the mouth of the river and falls off the continental shelf. Not enough sediment makes it to the mouth of the river; that’s why there are no “mountains” of land at the crow’s foot delta. The mouth of the passes is the largest “diversion” in the world, yet some of the largest erosion rates occur there.
Faced with the Army Corps’ new findings, the coastal authority has come up with a new argument in support of a master plan that leans far too heavily on diversions. They now claim that the diversions will remove the harmful nutrients from the river — nitrogenous fertilizers, primarily — that cause the Dead Zone in the Gulf.
Say what? Rather than let the harmful nutrients go into the Gulf, we’re going to divert them into our precious marshes, the nursery for the planet’s most productive fishery?
Another view: David Muth, of the National Wildlife Federation, disputes Ricks’ argument and defends the state’s coastal master plan.Live chat Thursday: Join us at noon CST for a live, text-based Web chat with Ricks and Muth about how to rebuild the coast.
Anyone familiar with the freshwater diversion at Caernarvon, in St. Bernard Parish, will tell you that these same harmful nutrients have weakened wetland root systems. According to evidence from numerous scientists, including professor Eugene Turner of LSU, that process is prime suspect in the overnight loss of 47 square miles of land during Hurricane Katrina. Thirty-seven of those 47 square miles were in close proximity of the diversion near Lake Lery.
To those of us who make our living harvesting seafood and guiding sportsmen through the waters we know, it seems like the coastal authority is so hooked on diversions that no amount of hard science will stop it.
The authority just received a first installment of BP money — $67.8 million — and what did they do with it? Forty million — 60 percent of the total — was immediately appropriated for the engineering and design of the Myrtle Grove diversion, even though the fresh revelations by the Army Corps are sure to make the permitting process problematic.
Such a priority makes no sense. A far better use for $40 million would be to build land by funneling dredge spoil from the river bottom to the outboard side of the levees where it’s truly needed — a win for both deepwater shipping as well as the fishing industry. We need land NOW!
The corps predicts that in the early going — the first five to 10 years — diversions actually accelerate land loss. If my figures are correct, at the annual loss rate of 16.5 square miles a year, we could lose 165 square miles before a diversion builds even one.
I think it’s time we all woke up and abandoned the comforting fantasy that massive diversions will solve the enormously complex problems we face along the coast.
Charter boat captain George Ricks is president of the Save Louisiana Coalition, which advocates for wetland, environmental and coastal community interests.
This is one of the more irresponsible and scientifically unsound editorials I’ve ever read. Congratulations on your efforts to protect the economic interests of fishermen at the expense of everyone else.
Thank-you Captain Ricks. This is very well stated and highly accurate. I will only offer to add to your arguement. Prior to the design of the Myrtle Grove Sediment Diversion Project, CPRA designed and built the West Bay Sediment Diversion as a “demonstration project”. What it demostrated could not have been more clear – sediment diversions on the lower Mississippi River are not capable of building new land. To quote Mead Allison of the Water Institute from his 2011 study of the “sediment budget” of the river “These large sediment inputs into the lower parts of the shallow Breton Sound and
Barataria interdistibutary basins are inefficient at land-building.” The West Bay Sediment Diversion cost $50 million and has produced less than 20 acres of emergent marsh in 13 years of operation.
The money that is being spent on the design and study phase of the Myrtle Grove Diversion is a drop in the bucket compared to its construction cost. It is very likely that if this project is allowed to go through it will end up costing half a billion dollars. Bob Marshall’s article last week shined a light on the effects that subsidence is having on our existing flood protection infrastructure. We are going to need every dollar we can get to maintain what we already have. If we move forward with this magnitude of spending on a project for which we already have a clear demonstration of its outcome, we will simply not be able to go back to the federal government for the money we will need in the future.
Oh lord, you again? Do the oyster farmers pay you for this or is it pro-bono? You end your essay with a scintilla of scientific curiosity, and you almost formulate a reasonable conclusion despite your underlying motives. In the cases where saltwater habitat has replaced the natural freshwater habitat the saltwater lifeforms will die off initially when freshwater is reintroduced. Duh. Make an example of Myrtle Grove. It’s suffered losses in the areas where the concentrations of fresh water and nutrients are highest. Duh again. However extend your observation to the more diluted areas being restored to their natural condition downstream of the Myrtle Grove diversion. Next time you pass the camps on the Wilkenson Canal, notice the freshwater grasses that are establishing themselves. Notice that the erosion seems to have slowed after years of almost weekly losses. Add that data point to your scientific observations Cap.
And of course you are correct that a single solution is not going to fix all the abuses that mankind has heaped upon our wetlands, it will take a variety of methods. One of the biggest hurdles to moving forward with executing these methods is the oyster fishermen, their attorneys, and their sacred near shore beds. The state government should seize these beds through imminent domain and remove this impediment to healing our coast. Florida’s oyster reef off Apalachicola should be the model for the future of our oyster fisheries.
Dredged sediment diversion just isn’t big enough to move the needle.
The lower sediment load for the MS River has been a known issue since at least Blum & Roberts 2009 ( http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n7/abs/ngeo553.html ). It’s not good, but it also isn’t a showstopper.
For $10.7 million in 1992, dredged sediment was used to build up 109 acres (net) in Trinity Island (project completion was 2009). That’s a 1 shot deal. http://lacoast.gov/reports/gpfs/TE-24.pdf
For $50.8 million in 1992, West Bay was begun. It was completed in 2003 and has created >10 acres a year since. The net buildup is estimated in excess of 9,000 Acres. http://lacoast.gov/reports/gpfs/MR-03_hq.pdf
$10 million for 100 acres or $50 million for 9000 acres… Which would you pick?
It’s not that dredged sediment projects are bad or a waste, but if you have a capital constraints, which would you pick?
Thanks boathead.
This Rics cat is a self-serving clown. My company has supported the Lens for many years and must now reconsider after it consistently gives this guy the opportunity to blatantly lie to the people of this great region.
When Rics first started his group it was lead by Mike Lane (rodnreel.com). After showing up to public meetings drunk and using profanity towards anyone who opposed his position, the good captain took over. During his first public speech he stated that Billy Nunguesser fully supported his position against the State’s master plan, yet, in his ignorant bliss, he failed to realize that Billy was the chairman of the group who passed the Master Plan. So then he changed tactics. He then stated he had research studies to support his position. When he presented the studies it was revealed that the studies actually supported diversions if done in conjunction with other projects-exactly what the master plan proposes. When he admitted he had only read the introduction of the studies and now the actual findings, he was actually laughed out of the Nicholls State campus during his presentation. So again he changed his position by using the “expertise” of someone named Dr. Trout (Pat Fitzpatrick), who then publicly presented an 11 minute power point presentation which looked more like a Bugs Bunny cartoon. In fact, a BB cartoon has more actual facts. So much so that Dr. Trout’s own employer (a Mississippi state college) publicy stated that Friztpatrick is NOT a coastal erosion expert and should not be accepted as so. So again, Rics changed his tactics, He then claimed the State was only doing the master plan to make money on carbon credits (Marsh and Bayou magazine). To follow such logic, one would have to believe the State was going to spend 50 (B)illion dollars of federal money so they could receive 4 (M)illion dollars of federal carbon credits.
Just once I would like Rics, Lane, Fritzpatrick to state one thing that is true, that is scientifically supported or not self serving. It really is getting old. Quite drinking the Lane kool-aid, which I assume it is spiked, and stop making a fool of yourself.
I have often visited and supported this website, but if the Lens wants to get to the next level if may want to check the knowledge, the truth and the probable intoxication level of its writers.
The state already owns the water bottom and leased it to oystermen/women creating business and job opportunities, lease income for the state of Louisiana, locally caught sustainable seafood for our Louisiana citizens and a huge economic impact for the State of Louisiana and it’s taxpayers. Add to that, most of the same benefits are gain
via shrimp, crab, finfish etc, whether from commercial fishing, charter fishing or recreational and tourism actual economic benefit to the State of Louisiana is in the Billions. We should destroy this why? Dedicated dredging to build land combined with small diversions, operated for salinity control, provides a solution that helps all Louisiana citizens without hurting our historic fishing communities and weakening Louisiana’s economy as a whole; in addition, if done
correctly, it is the more cost effective, long term, bang for the buck option. Protecting and restoring Louisiana’s coast and fisheries is in the self interest of all Louisiana citizens.
The state already owns the water bottom and leased it to oystermen/women creating business and job opportunities, lease income for the state of Louisiana, locally caught sustainable seafood for our Louisiana citizens and a huge economic impact for the State of Louisiana and it’s taxpayers. Add to that, most of the same benefits are gain
via shrimp, crab, finfish etc, whether from commercial fishing, charter fishing or recreational and tourism actual economic benefit to the State of Louisiana is in the Billions. We should destroy this why? Dedicated dredging to build land combined with small diversions, operated for salinity control, provides a solution that helps all Louisiana citizens without hurting our historic fishing communities and weakening Louisiana’s economy as a whole; in addition, if done
correctly, it is the more cost effective, long term, bang for the buck option. Protecting and restoring Louisiana’s coast and fisheries is in the self interest of all Louisiana citizens.
The estimate of 9000 acres of marsh creation by the West Bay Sediment Diversion was the original estimate of what the project would accomplish after 20 years of operation. It has been operational for more than half of that time period, and has created less than 1/2 of 1% of that total. It is apparent that the bulk of the land created was as a result of dredge spoils that were placed in the mouth of the diversion, and sedimentation that took place during the 2011 flood, which was a 100-year flood. It is highly unlikely that this project will create any significant new marsh, and it certainly won’t provide any flood protection for anyone. These projects are massively expensive, and there is no scientific support to claims that they are capable of building emergent marsh. The analogs that are commonly used in support of their potential – Brandt’s Pass crevasse splay, Pass a Loutre crevasse splay, and the Bonnet Carre spillway have all created less than 1500 acres of emergent marsh. That is simply not enough to justify the cost.
There is also a very costly risk associated with sediment diversion projects – induced shoaling in the navigational channel of the river. Every natural and artificial opening of the river that has created any new marsh (including all of those just listed) has been directly associated with shoaling of the channel. Shoaling of the Pilottown Anchorage Area caused by the West Bay Diversion force CPRA to use $12 million of restoration money to pay for dredging of the anchorage. The Corps has experience a dramatic escalation of dredging costs on the lower MIssissippi over the past few years, and the risk of induced shoaling by projects that are not likely to provide any good to anyone else is simply not worth it.
Line by line rebuttal:
“The estimate of 9000 acres of marsh creation by the West Bay Sediment Diversion was the original estimate of what the project would accomplish after 20 years of operation.”
I cited a common metric between 2 projects. That metric was created by CPRA. It’s the best one out there. If you have a better one, present it so we can hash through actual numbers.
“It has been operational for more than half of that time period,”
Half of 20 is 10. West Bay was completed in late 2003. It’s 50% on the nose.
“and has created less than 1/2 of 1% of that total.”
The first several years of delta making always involves scouring of the channel before distributary formation and land accretion builds steam. There’s still plenty of time to see what a couple more big river floods can create.
“These projects are massively expensive, and there is no scientific support to claims that they are capable of building emergent marsh. ”
Scientific support that they are capable of building marsh: Mohrig, Kim, et. Al. 2009. 55 citations. Eos. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO420001/abstract . I can get you a lot more than that.
“The analogs that are commonly used in support of their potential – Brandt’s Pass crevasse splay, Pass a Loutre crevasse splay, and the Bonnet Carre spillway have all created less than 1500 acres of emergent marsh. That is simply not enough to justify the cost.”
The Bonnet Carre is only occasionally open and was never designed as a sediment diversion. I’ve never heard of the others referred to as an example of a diversion project. Usually everyone references Wax Lake.
“There is also a very costly risk associated with sediment diversion projects – induced shoaling in the navigational channel of the river. Every natural and artificial opening of the river that has created any new marsh (including all of those just listed) has been directly associated with shoaling of the channel. Shoaling of the Pilottown Anchorage Area caused by the West Bay Diversion force CPRA to use $12 million of restoration money to pay for dredging of the anchorage.”
West Bay was (erroneously) blamed for shoaling Pilottown, but subsequent investigation proved that the anchorage was shoal prone anyway and West Bay had minimal impact.
http://ssearchive.tulane.edu/FORUM_2011/pdfs/2011/alisha-renfro.pdf
(Modelling of above)
Coastal restoration funds didn’t end up being used. The Corps ended up paying for the dredge costs out of their own budget (after lots of wrangling).
A properly designed, pulsed sediment avulsion can minimize river shoaling. Drawing deep in the channel and only when river flows ate at their peak negates the chances of downstream shoaling. Dr. Kemp:
http://ssearchive.tulane.edu/FORUM_2012/pdfs/2012/D_Kemp.pdf
So. Anybody else?
I want to state publicly that I am proud to be a part of SLC, a
group of unselfish Louisiana Citizens doing our very best to save south East
Louisiana from massive destruction to our culture, coastal communities, the
fisheries and loss of flood protection.??None of get paid a penny for our
efforts, we do what we do because we love Louisiana.?? To our naysayers, you
are entitled to your opinions. I only wish you would try and make your points
without making it personal. Present your facts to support your position.? ?I would put George Ricks integrity against
ANY of you that slander him. He has a true heart and is a real man. As far as
the attacks on me from the likes of KR1964… The crap you write about me
amuses and causes me to wonder why you are so unhappy.??
Enough of my ramblings and amusements. Here are the FACTS.??
SLC can back up EVERYTHING we say with published documents, non
paid scientists evaluations, NOAA and a recent TV interview with Brig. Gen.
Duke DeLuca of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and many others.
None of the opposition has taken note of the support we have
with St Bernard, Plaquemines parish governments. unanimous votes supporting our positions. To your
dismay, the list will be huge before that end of the fight!
We may win or we may loose, but i (we) will be proud of the
position we have taken. At least we are in the game. Should we
loose our position will be verified in the futures and our children and grand
children will be proud of us.
I go to sleep and wake up every day knowing that the diversions
will destroy the fisheries immediately and permanently. As time marches on
the damage will grow and the mistakes will be magnified.
May God bless us and help us.
May the correct side win
Clay,
These are more opposing opinions than rebuttals.
West Bay Diversion has created less than 20 acres of emergent marsh during a 100-year flood; it is just blind optimism to think it will do any more. Neither of the nearby natural crevasse splays showed any extended period of scour prior to land formation.
The Mohrig reference is pretty thin. They make a allusion to mathematical modelling they have done that supports the idea that sediment diversions can build land, but they are very short on substance. The fact that they refer to the Old River Control Structure as an engineered avulsion suggest that they fundamentally misunderstand the natrual processes in play. The structure was put in place to prevent the avulsion of the river. The 30% of flow that is allow down the Atchafalaya is the natural course of the river. The control structure forces the remainder of the flow down what would otherwise be the abandoned channel of the Mississippi.
The Corps produced the report that determined that “Construction of West Bay diversion has likely contributed to increases in deposition rates in the anchorage area mainly between the diversion and Cubits Gap.”
Four out of the five configurations for the Myrtle Grove Diversion modelled by Ehab Meselhe at the Water Institute yielded a sediment-to-water ratio of less than 1.0 indicating that shoaling was likely. It is and should be a serious concern for sediment diversion projects.
You have perfectly captured the problem with sediment diversions. What the Corps dredges in order to maintain a 40′ channel from New Orleans to Southwest Pass are the bed load sediments that move by traction along the bottom of the channel. Sediment diversions only capture the suspended sediment load of the river. The Myrtle Grove Diversion is specifically designed to divert only suspended sediment and water to avoid the risk of “thalweg capture”, effectively a change in course of the river. Mead Allison’s 2011 study found that only about 20% of the suspended sand (which all parties agree is the essential component to building new land) that passes Old River makes it to Belle Chasse. This is exactly why he recommended against sediment diversions into the Breton Sound or Barataria Basins. There is not enough suspend load sediment in the river south of New Orleans to build new land.
“West Bay Diversion has created less than 20 acres of emergent marsh during a 100-year flood; it is just blind optimism to think it will do any more. Neither of the nearby natural crevasse splays showed any extended period of scour prior to land formation.
I made this awhile ago, but though I would share…http://pcook.me/U8hs
Chris, you love to quote Dr. Allison, but have not done much reading of his work. Dr. Kemp summarizes it nicely in the presentation posted: when the river is over 700,000 cfs the coarse bed load IS suspended in the water column…hence pulsing diversion to capture that material when its suspended…hence land building @ West Bay during 2011 high water. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how diversions are designed to work.
Also, for your own sake, stop with the West Bay references. You are exposing yourself on the shoaling issue and the failure to transport material issue. Sure, it took over a decade for subaerial land to emerge…you conveniently NEVER reference the fact that what was a 6-8 ft bay is now entirely 1-2 ft deep. Why? Well there just so happens to be a diversion in the area.
Since the anti-diversion crowd cherry pics comments as a method of survival, here is a quote from Save Louisiana Coalition deity and recent newcomer to the field of hydraulic engineering, (and the Louisiana Coastal Plain in general) Gen. Duke Deluca, when asked if diversions work, “It could be true. I want to know that it’s true.” Stepping back to reality: Deluca has not once said diversions will not work as intended. He has called for extensive study just like state officials have. State officials tudying diversions to the tune of tens of millions of dollars is somehow being corrupted into pseudo ammunition by the Save Louisiana Circle of Friendship as a negative thing…I guess you would rather them do no studies first.
Your estimates of sediment accumulation are not consistent with Kolker’s 2012 numbers. He concluded that “rates of sediment accumulation could be as high as 3 centimeters (1.1 inches) per year across West Bay” and “Assuming a linear balance between water depth, relative sea level rise, and sediment deposition rates, it would appear unlikely that large areas of new land would develop in West Bay over a time scale of less than a few decades
Does anyone have any actual evidence that large scale dredged sediment would work better than diversions? Numbers? Peer reviewed papers?
Bueller?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169410001824
The use of large water and sediment diversions in the lower …
http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/S0022169410...
by MA Allison – ?2010 – ?Cited by 38 – ?Related articles
Apr 10, 2010 –
Mead Allison studies some of the things to pay attention to in design of diversions, but he’s still quite supportive of diversions.
I want to state publicly that I am proud to be a part of SLC, a
group of unselfish Louisiana Citizens doing our very best to save south East
Louisiana from massive destruction to our culture, coastal communities, the
fisheries and loss of flood protection.??None of get paid a penny for our
efforts, we do what we do because we love Louisiana.?? To our naysayers, you
are entitled to your opinions. I only wish you would try and make your points
without making it personal. Present your facts to support your position.?
?I would put George Ricks integrity against ANY of you that slander him. He has a true heart and is a real man. As far as the attacks on me from the likes of KR1964… The crap you write about me amuses and causes me to wonder why you are so unhappy with your life.
Enough of my ramblings and amusements
To Mike Lane,
I should never doubt the gall you have. You ask that posters not make personal attacks, but when someone makes a factually correct statement that is “pro-diversions” on your website you ban them, send them threatening emails, and even insult them by calling them various parts of a female body. You even went so far as offering rewards of names of people so you could threaten them. Please deny that so I can post the emails you sent and show the readers who really lacks any shred of honesty in this debate. In fact, Mike, in one of your first dog and pony shows, a state official had to reprimand you for cursing at audience members who simply asked you questions. Real classy!
Now, as to Rics’ integrity that you hold in such high esteem:
(1) Rics lied to BP officials in trying to secure work for the oil spill and was caught in that LIE;
(2) o impress his small audiences, Rics stated publicly he had laws changed by parish officials in support of his anti-diversion agenda. That was also a LIE, he only had resolutions passed, which have no legal effect;
(3) Rics stated that Billy Nunguesser was in full support of stopping the diversion, when Billy was actually the chairman of the committee who created and introduced the master plan to the State officials. Another LIE;
(4) Rics stated at a public hearing he had coastal erosion experts to support his position, but when pressed about names, he stated the experts did not want their names made public. It was determined less than 72 hours later, that he had no experts. Another LIE;
(5) At his next public spectacle, Rics professed that he now did in deed have an expert in coastal erosion. It was determined that his expert was a weatherman, who was a self-professed expert on coastal erosion. That was such a LIE, that this self-proclaimed expert’s own employee was forced to publicly state that this guy was not a coastal erosion expert. Another LIE;
(6) Rics publicly stated that he had no evidence that a diversion has ever worked in Louisiana, yet at previous meetings he admitted to the Wax Lake Outlet being a diversion that actually worked. Another LIE;
(7) Rics, as well as you, often states that there is scientific evidence that the diversion will not work, yet, and despite hundreds of request, no one has ever been able to produce any study, report, etc that shows diversions do not work, if done in conjunction with other projects. A premise which is founded in the State’s master plan. Another LIE.
But lets talk about Rics biggest LIE-The Save Louisiana Coalition (SLC). He likes to profess that this non-profit is supported by all major industries in south Louisiana. He does so, by name dropping some of the officers and directors, and the purported groups each represent. Thus, his LIES begin.
First, he claims that the Shrimping Industry is represented by Clint Guidry, President of the Louisiana Shrimp Association. Yet, there are no minutes which reflect a vote by the LSA members for Guidry’s involvement in the Board. For this group to support the SCL, it would be making a political statement, which SLC does on a daily basis, in violation of its 501(c) non-profit status.
Another LIE of Rics is that the Louisiana Restaurant Association is in support of his group. He even list as a board member Paul Rotner, in support of this LIE. Steve Harris, the President and CEO of the Louisiana Restaurant Association has stated that Paul does not speak for the group and his group is not involved in Rics organization.
Rics also name drops Tracy Kuhns. This is a difficult task since sometimes Tracy goes by Deborah, depending on what non-profit she appoints herself to. Nevertheless, Rics likes to profess that BayouKeepers and Go-Fish are also part of the groups that support his position. Yet, another a LIE. BayouKeepers is a local branch of an international group called the WaterKeeper Alliance. That group has actually supported the diversion of the Mississippi River, and was quit upset when Tracy or Deborah insinuated in public that BayouKeeper supports the stance of stopping diversions.
Mike Roberts is also listed as officer in the SLC group in support of fisherman via a group called Association of Family Fisherman. Yet that group does not even exist in realm of Louisiana organizations.
Maybe these persons support SLC as individuals, but certainly not as representatives of a certain industry, as Rics likes to LIE about.
I do believe it odd the GO-Fish organization, which so heavily supports Rics fantasy is not even in good standing with the Secretary of State and has Clint Guidry, Deborah/Tracy Kuhns and Mike Roberts as its board members.
Is it also not just as odd that when you press links on the SLC website it directs you through Mike Lane
For those of you who have not read the entire journal article, you would also read the other half of the conclusion that the article makes which is that diversions are more inefficient downriver AND that diversions would be more efficient higher up river (i.e. around Myrtle Grove) where there is more sediment and receiving basins that are more conducive to land-building. The jist of the article is that not as much sediment is lost past the continental shelf as we think, there is plenty being lost at outlets further upriver, and a much high amount of sand is stored in the bedload than previously thought and this bedload is expedited out these outlets during high river years.
As I read it ,the article documents the sequestration of sediment load in reaches between St. Francisville and Belle Chasse. There is no mention of the Myrtle Grove location. Kemp’s recent article characterized the lower delta as being in a state of “hydraulic contraction” back-stepping away from the shelf edge. While this may be interpreted to mean that the focus of deposition is moving upstream, it may also be that these combined phenomenon are components of the natural avulsion of the river channel, which without intervention, almost certainly would have happened in 1973. We are working on the assumption that constraining the river (as Kemp says) “to stay within a channel that it would have abandoned in favor of the Atchafalaya under natural conditions” will avoid avulsion. It seems likely that hydraulic contraction and sediment sequestration are natural components of the avulsion process that we cannot control. The abandoned lower channel of the Mississippi is simply losing its ability to build new land – as abandoned channels do.
KR1964, rjhalic or whatever aliases you are using today.
My only response to your diatribe is
I see again that you cannot and never will be able to argue the facts. You just keep making your threats. Not one thing I stated above was incorrect, but you will not address that because you have no factual or legal argument. That is exactly what happens at your group’s little dog and pony shows, you can never argue facts, only fantasy.
As to your service of process comment, wow, do you think that scares me, I welcome any litigation, for several reasons. First, I did nothing wrong, Second, I would love to take you and Rics’ depositions (under oath) to really expose both of you, and third, I got enough money to make this litigation real, real fun.. So please sue me and give me that opportunity. But rest assured those threating letters you like to get your atorney to send to others, does not bother me one bit.
Oh, I almost forgot. Today, one of the many projects of the master plan, including MB diversion was approved. It now waits final legislature approval and a preliminary vote count shows 92% in favor of passage. Sorry, you lost!