Hacker News Reader

Comment by cFyrute | Hacker News Reader

Important context from the article includes things such as: unspent funds remain available for future projects; the works were predicted to have a devastating impact on local wildlife, such as killing an estimated 6,000 dolphins; this is not a partisan issue, as there have been outspoken Dems and Republicans on either side; also devastating impact to the local fishing industry was predicted, prompting a $400m lawsuit to curtail the project.

View on HN

> unspent funds remain available for future projects

Not according to the article?

> Its collapse means that the state could lose out on more than $1.5 billion in unspent funds and may even have to repay the $618 million it already used to begin building.

From the article:

> The Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group, a mix of federal agencies overseeing the settlement funds, said that “unused project funds will be available for future Deepwater Horizon restoration activities” but would require review and approval.

Likely it’s both. The cost of the cancelled project will not be reimbursed AND the money will be available for other activities at a later stage.

The article doesn't even go into this, but the primary cause of the issue is not climate change, but natural processes. The Mississippi river used to be undammed and untrammeled; envision a hose whipping around (in geological terms) spraying tremendous amounts of sediment over a very wide area.

Now, the Mississippi is tightly controlled. Most areas are no longer getting that sediment. So natural subsidence and erosion processes mean that "land" is sinking back below the water.

The solution (for this project) entailed reconnecting the Mississippi to the area, restoring sediment deposition. But this does have a lot of negative effects as well, because it impacts salinity levels and of course the Mississippi is also full of fertilizer and other substances.

Landry flat out lied about the expected oxygen and salinity levels.

I know nothing about Landry and have no opinion on him or those statements specifically, but I'm familiar with the kerfuffle over the Bonnet Carré Spillway that allegedly devastated Mississippi fisheries, and obviously it has some impact. I suppose he overstated them?

The spillway perhaps could be opened more often but can you cite something about this alleged devastation?

The claim is that opening the spillway decreased salinity in the Mississippi Sound and caused substantial hardship for Mississippi fishermen. They want it opened less often, not more often. There was a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers over it. It’s hard to see why Mississippi would care at all if it weren’t true.

Papers: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/ojce_1882046.pdf (salinity)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972... (dolphin mortality)

News stories: https://www.mpbonline.org/blogs/news/five-years-after-disast...

> With salinity levels bottomed-out as a result of the overwhelming freshwater intrusion from the Spillway, an estimated 95% of the estuary’s oyster population was wiped out. 2018 remains the last time a wild oyster was harvested from Mississippi waters – once among the most productive oyster fisheries in the world.

> Data provided by MDMR shows the seafood industry along the Coast, which in many respects was both the first and primary early-economic driver of the region, suffered revenue losses exceeding $210 million in 2019 alone.

https://www.wlox.com/2023/01/19/court-rules-army-corps-engin...

I can definitely understand why, after events like this, people would be extremely leery of other Mississippi river diversions.

I have been to that harbor where Gautier’s is recently myself and I feel for them but Landry isn’t governor of MS.

You would probably make up the dolphin lives on curtailing the fishery.

You cannot make up a life!?

You surely can at a statistical sense, curtail excess death and increase procreation.

Did you read about the devastating impact yourself from primary sources or are you repeating the soundbites?

There’s no such thing as a “Dem”. Use the proper name for the party, not a pejorative shorthand.

I dont see how thats pejorative

You might be overthinking that, mate.

It’s similar to this. Republicans use mis-naming of their opponents to subtly undermine them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com