For project one I wrote about the Louisiana wetlands and the alarming rate in which they are disappearing. Throughout my paper, I asked the reader what can be done to restore the wetlands. After focusing on several points of what can be done in project one, I plan to explore even more on what exactly can be done in project two. After reading many articles covering this topic I found a reoccurring proposal-purposely diverting the natural path of the Mississippi River. "This will be one of the great engineering challenges of the 21st century-on the order of the Channel Tunnel or the Three Gorges Dam," said Denise J. Reed, a scientist at the University of New Orleans who has focused on the river.
The proposal is not completely finalized but so far is calls for allowing the Mississippi to flow out of its levees in more than a dozen places throughout Louisiana. This would compose at least seven new waterways that would carry a volume of water comparable to the Potomac River. In fact, at least three of those waterways would maneuver much faster than the Potomac (Whoriskey). These deviations would channel the Mississippi and its land-enhancing sediment to the eroding coastal areas. The proposal also calls for mechanically pumping sediment in order to rebuild marshes and barrier islands as well as closing shipping to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. According to Peter Whoriskey, the writer of the article, some scientists stated that this navigation channel acted as a "superhighway" for storm surge caused by Hurricane Katrina.
After reading about the magnitude of this proposal, I find it hard to be either pro or con. A part of me feels that it may be too risky to tamper with the wetlands we have left but I also know that something needs to be done fast and this could be the answer we've all been waiting for.
http://www.lexisnexis.com.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5927825439&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5927782158&cisb=22_T5927825442&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8075&docNo=1
How do you feel about it? Do you think that this should be tested or trying to find another more "safe" way is the better answer?
Some may argue that whatever necessary risks should be taken because of the devastated state the wetlands are in and now, it is a matter of time. Do you agree?
3/2/09
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Because the topic for my paper is similar ive looked a lot into this issue also. I agree, for the most part, with the proposals. Our wetlands are dissapearing so fast that something has to be done and it needs to happen soon. Of course there are risks involved with this plan but if we dont try something our coast will just continue to gradually erode until our lowlying cities are underwater. Even though there may be safer ways to go about it, they arent going to be as drastic and wont cause much of a result.
ReplyDelete