Is it time to divert the Mississippi? (Vanity)

8/31/2005 | LonePalm

[x]

Egypt's great port, Alexandria, is outside the Nile Delta or on its most extreme edge. Now they have Port Said, likewise outside the Delta. If I remember correctly, China's great port, Shanghai isn't, at the mouth of the Yangtze River, but only near it. There is a tendency not to build cities and ports in the mouth or lower reaches of great rivers with a tendency to flooding, or to jumping the bank and cutting new channels.

The way we may be going is towards Houston becoming the New New Orleans. It would be unfortunate. It would certainly be convenient to have a port somewhere on the Mississippi close to the Gulf. The economy of Lousiana depends a lot on New Orleans, and the state will use what power it has to keep the city alive. And so does that of ports further up the river system. If there weren't a seaport in the lower Mississippi, river traffic would decrease. Consequently there's going to be a lot of pressure to rebuild a major seaport somewhere in Louisiana.

There's something that's distasteful in the "New Orleans destroyed for its sins" posts -- whether those sins are moral or religious or political or administrative. If you live in a country like ours with a wide variety of people and traditions, you're bound to offend someone else by being too strict or too lax, too rigid or too flexible.

In a lot of ways, the Anglo-American world was built on sea travel, nautical trade, and the cultural mix of harbor towns. Ports and commerce, the exchange of goods and opinions weakened the power of government bureaucracies and feudal overlords. The increasingly important idea of freedom owed a lot to overseas commerce. Rightly or wrongly, the desire for freer trade inspired our revolution and the other new world revolts.

Port cities like New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco have undoubted problems and faults now. Maybe you can only take cosmopolitanism and cultural receptiveness so far without making problems for yourself. Eventually it may overcome your own culture, but it's unfortunate that some people think that such cities are somehow damned by God.

It's certainly true that some big city dwellers mistakenly think that having dozens of cuisines to choose from makes them superior, but it's also mistaken to think that not having them makes one blessed. The great advantage of such port cities is that they break up the inertia and fixity of life in the countryside. It might appear nice to cut off all outside influences, but it's better to be exposed to the outside world and what's going on there, so as to be remain competitive and not taken by surprise. We may not want to live there, but a window on the rest of the world, and a city where people who are unhappy at home can go to make something of themselves can be a valuable thing.

[Arthalion]

It wouldn't neccesarily be a dead city, or even suffer from the loss. With a pair of lochs, the old riverbed could easily be converted into a shipping canal. As I recall, the Miss is fairly flat south of Baton Rouge, so it should require minimal dredging at the upper end of the channel to keep the whole thing filled with water. One loch at sealevel, and a second where the new shipping channel meets the river, are all that would be required.

[dirtboy]

I understand that this would cut off the ports of New Orleans and Baton Rouge and would be VERY expensive.

I've been saying that we should move New Orleans to the high ground (20 feet above sea level) that is between the Mississippi and Atchafalaya. It isn't that far away and would still be connected to the existing port structures and surviving manufacturing facilities.

Next, build a sea-level canal that parallels the Atchafalaya to the new city and dredge a man-made port. Continue the canal with locks up to the current Mississippi channel. This route would be shorter to the Gulf than the current channel and would allow the levees below NOLA to be removed and sediment released to restore protective marshland.

Then, build a control structure to augment Old River Control so that when the channel does shift, you still have a channel from where the canal enters the existing to the point where the Atchafalaya breaks off and can maintain shipping along the length of the river - because when the channel jumps, the resulting channel will probably be unnavigable for a few years until the river works out the new gradient.

So you kill three threats with one major project.

[flying Elvis]

The Mississippi changes course all the time. Look upstream at the present day boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana. You will notice quite a bit of Louisiana on the eastern side of the river and Mississippi territory on the other side due to the river having changed courses so many times since the river was designated as the border. Just about every time there is a major flood upstream the river ends up cutting off loops.

[Fawn]

Can I look that up in the Federal Registry? I received this article from a liberal...(http://www.alternet.org/story/248710) and would like to counter it. Thanks

[Young Scholar]

Why were Clinton's politics to blame for his decison not to give money to NO? Bush faced to same decision when he came into office, and he also chose not to give them money (at least not as much as others, notably, liberals, claim he should have). Does this mean he is responsiblity for the disaster? Both Bush and Clinton made budgetary decisions, and in retrospect, it would have been wiser to invest more in NO, but are they to blame for not making that decision?

[bigsigh]

If that's true of Clinton in 98 wouldn't it be true of the following administration which hasn't done the project either?

[Gondring]

The thing that many laymen fail to realize, I think, is that the current situation will continue to naturally worsen over time. The levees are a "Band-Aid" approach on a wound that does not heal.

We should allow controlled flooding and siltation of marshlands, allow a new channel for the river (and do any "rebuilding" there), and allow Pontchartrain to come more in line with its natural depth (i.e., let it drain to the Gulf). Continuing to fight against natural geologic progression is EXTREMELY costly and usually fails.

[Gondring]

It wouldn't neccesarily be a dead city, or even suffer from the loss. With a pair of lochs, the old riverbed could easily be converted into a shipping canal. As I recall, the Miss is fairly flat south of Baton Rouge, so it should require minimal dredging at the upper end of the channel to keep the whole thing filled with water. One loch at sealevel, and a second where the new shipping channel meets the river, are all that would be required.

Bingo...this is something I have argued for years, though admittedly I have failed to study the feasibility in detail. Still, the subsidence is natural, and will continue to occur...so we must be prepared for potential consequences to any development we allow to remain in the lower reaches.

[subterfuge]

A geologist friend of mine says the Mississippi River has been trying to change coarse for the last 50 years. He says that the levees merely "convince" it to go where we want it to go.

[elbucko]

Why not just turn Nawlins into the Venice of the United States?

IMHO, that's the best suggestion yet.

[Gondring]

A geologist friend of mine says the Mississippi River has been trying to change coarse for the last 50 years. He says that the levees merely "convince" it to go where we want it to go.

I am a licensed professional geologist, although not in Louisiana (LA does not have P.G. licensure). The talk among geologists is astonishingly different from what you hear elsewhere. There's little surprise at recent events, since it's well known that coastal LA has been fighting natural progression for a long time...and that's an expensive and losing game.

To me, hearing talk of rebuilding NO is like listening to a drunk driver crawling from a crash and asking for a drink and another set of car keys.

[Gondring]

Why not just turn Nawlins into the Venice of the United States? They have the water. All they need now is the garbage and the gondolas.

The geology is different...the earth isn't static anywhere, but it's even less static in NO, where there's constant subsidence and a much greater sediment influx, etc.

[fallujah-nuker]

I was checking your proposal with "Topo" maps from National Geographic, I think I found the area you propose, it looks to be close to Baton Rouge? I was wondering about a path to the sea via Lake Pontchartrain.

It would be an interesting project to build a new city, probably plan it better with wider streets and underground conduits built first. You could probably even build tunnels using cut and cover before the city goes up, instead of after the city is built up.

[TAdams8591]

We were just discussing that NO should be rebuilt further inland but not too far from the coast so that it can continue serving as a port. WOW, but your more specifc plans are mighty impressive. Quite amazing!!!

[mdmathis6]

I just don't think New Orleans could produce Neapolitan love song singing gondola rowers of any quality!

[dolander2002]

I think if you could divert a branch of the Mississippi to West Texas up to New Mexico it might solve that drought problem there and as a bonus, make it harder for illegals to enter the US?

I can dream, can't I?

[DoughtyOne]

LOL, yes you can.

[the_pigeon_hunter]

Would it be possible to divert part of the mississippi? I mean, the Corps' kept it at 30-70 for 50 years, would ti be physically possible to keep it at say 65-35? That way, N.O.'s still on the water but not in danger of flooding. Then again, it may be logistically impossible. As the extra water pours in and the Atchafalaya catches the Mississippi, maybe it'd become impossible to close the gates. I'm no engineer tho, what do yall think? Obviously Simmesport, Melville, Krotz Springs, and Morgan city would have to be abandoned, but I'd say it's a small price to pay to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.