Environment
 

You’re invited: Join us to talk about the cost of restoring our coast and who will pay

The Lens, with sponsorship from the Mississippi River Delta Coalition, is hosting a panel discussion on the financing of the $50 billion coastal master plan at Loyola University, Wednesday, Aug. 20 from 6 to 8 p.m.

The story we published on that subject generated a lot of discussion and concern, which helped lead to this event.

While much of the discussion about the master plan lately has revolved around implementation — in particular the pros and cons of river diversions — without funding, it’s all academic. Our panel discussion will expand the conversation.

This event is designed to send the audience home with a solid understanding of how to restore our coast.  An example of questions we plan to address include the following:

  1. How far can we go on the current master plan with the funding in place as well as future funding the state believes it can count on?
  2. What will happen to the scope of the master plan, and the coast, if we don’t secure funding sources beyond that date?
  3. What are the chances Congress will step up in the next decade and provide substantial funding?
  4. What are alternative sources of money?
  5. What can you do to help with this challenge?

Who:

When:

  • Wednesday, Aug. 20
  • 6 to 8 p.m.

Where: Loyola University, Miller Hall 114

Questions: amueller@TheLensNola.org or (504) 258-1624

Light refreshments will be served.

To learn more about the issue, we invite you to read these articles:

Coastal restoration financing is uncertain, but Louisiana has ideas to find $50 billion

Has state found strategy to hold Corp of Engineers responsible for coastal erosion?

As Lawsuits proliferate, will Big Oil join in a ‘grand bargin’ to save the coast?

The Louisiana Coast: Last Call

Help us report this story     Report an error    
The Lens' donors and partners may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover.
  • Kelly M. Haggar

    “send the audience home with a solid understanding of HOW to restore our coast” [emphasis added]
    Aren’t you begging the question of CAN it be restored? The article below is very good, although a geologist could argue it suffers from the defect it cautions against – - Turner cites Frazier 1967 without appreciating his central point; that the Louisiana coast is fleeting, shifting, variable thing. This “stable until 1932″ notion is so incorrect it’s not even wrong.

    Doubt and the Values of an Ignorance-Based World View for Restoration: Coastal Louisiana Wetlands
    by R. Eugene Turner
    Estuaries and Coasts (2009) 32:1054–1068
    DOI 10.1007/s12237-009-9214-4

    Received: 7 June 2009 / Revised: 26 July 2009 / Accepted: 6 August 2009 / Published online: 25 August 2009

    Abstract

    Embracing doubt, a signature strength of science, is an essential core component of an ignorance-based-world view (IBWV) that assumes the areas of certainty are small relative to the large field of ignorance. The contrasting
    knowledge-based world view (KBWV) assumes that small and mostly insignificant knowledge gaps exist. When the KBWV is combined with a sense of urgency to “do something,” then the intellectual landscape is flattened,

    the introduction of new ideas is impeded, monitoring and adaptive management is marginalized, risky behaviors continue, and social learning is restricted. The history of three coastal Louisiana land-uses (agricultural impoundment, marsh management, and dredging) is one of ignored and untested assumptions that might have provided a cause-and-effect means to avoid catastrophic land losses — the result of a KBWV that remains the primary perspective of Louisiana’s current coastal restoration and management program that includes river diversions and a proposed expansion of hurricane protection levees into wetlands. I argue from the pathology of results that willful
    adoption of an IBWV in the administration, management, and implementation of restoration will reduce the scale and diversity of significant missteps in the future, improve project efficiencies, and cause fewer unintended consequences
    that cannot (again) be retracted.