A Mini-Mississippi River May Help Save Louisiana’s Vanishing Coast

It won’t work. We’ve already destabilized around 6 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice from the marine sectors of Greenland and West Antarctica, a large fraction of which could arrive within 100 years. “Today, we’re struggling with 3 millimeters [0.1 inch] per year [of sea level rise],” says Robert DeConto at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, co-author of one of the more sobering new studies. “We’re talking about centimeters per year. That’s really tough. At that point your engineering can’t keep up; you’re down to demolition and rebuilding.” http://e360.yale.edu/feature/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_antarctica/2990/

Nice article! Analog models are "real" in a way that computer models are not, and that's important when you are dealing with non linear systems like river flow. Besides, we all love to play in the sand at the beach! And it's about time that breaching the levees is employed to mitigate the harm to the area. Ah, but Mr. Schwartz, why do you say this: "...into nearby wetlands being annihilated by climate change and other environmental disasters." When later on, you quite accurately list the causes of the loss of the wetlands, and climate change certainly isn't one of them? Did your editor make you do it? Don't tell me sea level rise is "climate change." It's been going on for centuries, and the levees, which dump sediment to the near-gulf and weigh down the sea bed further, have accelerated it. Need I point out that if climate change is the culprit, this model is not going to do a bit of good for anyone! You wrote: "Since the 1930s, Louisiana has lost more than 2,000 square miles of land, roughly the size of Delaware, to subsidence, sea level rise and the loss of sediment caused by construction of the levees along the length of the Mississippi. ... other damage to the wetlands that includes channels cut for oil and gas exploration, ..."

Have to say to the NYT that this story would have been improved with a little multimedia--a video to show the flow and dye and ships. The still photography was nice but video would have made this easier to understand and experience.

I remember visiting something similar for the SF Bay Area back in the 70's when I was in high school. I really wanted to go play with it, too!

From a conversation held last year with Michael Mann and the glaciologist Richard Alley. A few comments by Alley below. “If we don’t change our ways we’re expecting something like 3 feet of sea level rise in the next century, and it could be 2 and it could be 4 and it could be 20. The chance that we will cross thresholds that commit us to loss of big chunks of West Antarctica and huge sea level rise is real. So when you start doing “Well you’re not sure,” but there’s a chance of really bad things and the uncertainties are mostly on the bad side, could be a little better or a little worse or a lot worse, but we’ll be breaking things.” https://youtu.be/l2yclMcDroQ?t=47m4s The same may be said about most impacts from global warming, could be a little better than we think, a little worse, or a lot worse. There’s no a lot better.

How do they model the scale change in the viscosity of water?

This was a good read, but blaming climate change as a primary factor is ignorant at best. The wetlands have been eroding for almost 100 years, well before climate change has reared its ugly head, from erosion due to plant loss from salt water intrusion. This is caused by the levees blocking fresh water from entering the woodlands. Couple that with natural subsidence and of course the wetlands will disappear. Go west were the Atchafalaya delta is and there's a square mile of land growth per year despite climate change.

Tear down the levees.

If I'm not mistaken, the shipping terminal mention here is for crude oil not LNG: https://thelensnola.org/2020/01/17/environmental-groups-say-state-is-moving-too-quickly-on-permits-for-proposed-plaquemines-oil-terminal/

"Man plans, God laughs" May the river gods be with you...

So why do the folks from Louisiana keep electing Republicans, the anti-science party, to national and state office?

Such a cool article. Kudos NY Times and scientists. Just sent this to the Biology teacher here at school as well.

Great article! I hope this helps the American public understand why we need to give our support to science and scientists. For the past 3 years we have seen an unprecedented attack on science coming from Trump and his supporters. It is ironic that such a pro-Trump state will benefit immensely from the work these scientists are doing.

The loss of land to erosion and subsidence ranges between about 10 (the number quoted here as 1 football field/minute) and 30 square miles a year. The solution being built here, if it works as advertised, reduces that loss by between 3 and 10 percent, which is not insignificant. However, land loss due to global warming and its attendant sea level rise will swamp out these numbers. Even if we are able to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions after 2075 and then remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere thereafter, there is still a >90% chance of 1 foot of sea level rise by 2100. (Sweet et al, 2017. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083) A quick glance at NOAA's Sea Level Rise Viewer shows the almost total inundation of the the project's target area with this (optimistic) level of sea-level rise. The project, as noble and cool as it is, is futile. This is in microcosm, a great example of the enormity of the problem global warming presents. Spending an average of $1 billion/year by the state doesn't even begin to address the issue. Clearly, we need an absolutely gigantic investment to move away from fossil fuels, and even if we were to succeed, we are still going to face the loss of a stunning amount of coastal land.

We have to step away from viewing myopic economic gains as a salient reason to avoid major infrastructure improvement. The commercial fishing and oyster industries will lose in the short term; the towns and cities, all their inhabitants, and all the industries (since that's apparently the all-important kingmaker) will lose in the long term, and will not recover. The Mississippi, on the other hand, is not going to lose. She was here before us and she will be here long, long after we are gone from our own self-inflicted destruction. The choice is up to us.

Nature is going to win in the end. Everything in the current Mississippi Delta is determined by one man-made feature, the Old River Control Structure. When, not if, the Old River Control Structure fails, the Mississippi will naturally reroute itself to the sea down the Atchafalaya River. New Orleans and Baton Rouge will no longer be port cities and Morgan City will probably be destroyed. Every time the Mississippi floods, I check to see if the Old River Control Structure is going to hold.

For a look at what the levees have done to the shorelines, peoples and cultures of Louisiana I recommend the book Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun Coast by Mike Tidwell.

John, Another brilliant piece of work. Physical models are one, just one, of the corner stones of great engineering and science. Why it took so long to realize that physical models are essential aids is the central question. Keep digging and exposing the short comings of our non-science based practices.

With all the times, and with billions of dollars of US governmental aid and grants supplied over untold number of years, we have helped these people move right back onto land that will flood again and again. Why? Why are their homes re-insured again and again and rebuilt again and again. At our expense?

Yeah, that's the ticket! Let's spend gazillions of $$$ attacking symptoms. But for Goddess' sake, peeps, don't do anything radical to address the problem, like, um, reducing our over-consumption of Fossil Fuels. After all, don't we have to visit every remote destination on the NYT's "52 Places" this year?

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Americas-Achilles-Heel-Mississippi-Rivers-Old-River-Control-Structure Part 1 of a 3-part series of work done on the Mississippi River to prevent diversion to the Atchafalaya River.

Wish we could have had a shot of the whole thing from above.

What most alarms me in the article when it says "That, and other damage to the wetlands that includes channels cut for oil and gas exploration, have led to ongoing losses of about a football field of land every 100 minutes." That's not sustainable.

Hard science research is the only real method to get a solution to the problems caused by levees, subsidence and oil and gas canals. I have personally seen this situation develop over a 70 year period and applaud the attempt to begin the restoration. Two cautions: local residents must be ready to accept the major impacts of restoration and 2) I hope the plans include also restoring the marshes east of the Mississippi River. These have been virtually destroyed as they have had the additional impact of the Mississippi Gulf Outlet Canal. Restoring just one side of the delta will end causing a new set of problems.

The river will eventually shift to the Atchafalaya. It's not a question of if, but when. While it's nice to keep building works to try and forestall that, we should also be studying ways to react to that eventuality.

There are so few comments on such a worthwhile article and endeavor. Successfully working with the natural world to recreate what was originally there in the river impacts everyone. Learn about and be aware of what is being done to help save the delta of the mighty Mississippi river.

There is a very similar model of the San Francisco Bay in a warehouse in Sausalito, California. It’s a tourist attraction now, since the research has gone digital. Very worth a visit! Are there other such models in the US, in the world?

This is why funding for R&D is so important. Why do corporations and our government not respect that research takes time and money but can yield results? What has happened to our country that respect for Bell Labs, Xerox Park, the NIH, etc. aren't seen as valuable assets?