Thread: Scenic rivers

I'm no engineer so I don't really know, but if they're finding areas downstream that have silted in over the years, I can see that causing the Amite not to drain like it should. I'm not suggesting they dredge the whole thing out 50 ft deep. I think dredging the silted in areas allowing the water to flow like it did 30 years ago would help. Same concept as dredging out smaller creeks and canals that flow into the Amite and Comite. If done correctly, it can improve drainage without causing erosion problems. The Comite River diversion project would help out a lot also.

FYI (Because the guy who was once the head of the Scenic Streams Division of the DW&F was once a good friend and fly-fishing buddy!)
Dredging and snag removal have been proven to be ineffective in flood prevention of these streams. This is nothing but another knee-jerk effort to open these streams to someone's economic benefits. And if I may add this as a personal note. They don't make pretty little creeks anymore, so if one is ruined, there won't be another coming along to take its place.
Pete

Just got off the phone with the Senate office and the nice lady is giving Senator Jonathan Perry the message that I'm strongly opposed. It's very easy to do and I have experience in the past that efforts like this can work so don't be lazy.

Originally Posted by sneakypete

FYI (Because the guy who was once the head of the Scenic Streams Division of the DW&F was once a good friend and fly-fishing buddy!)
Dredging and snag removal have been proven to be ineffective in flood prevention of these streams. This is nothing but another knee-jerk effort to open these streams to someone's economic benefits. And if I may add this as a personal note. They don't make pretty little creeks anymore, so if one is ruined, there won't be another coming along to take its place.
Pete

I see your point about this potentially benefiting someone economically, but I don't understand how it wouldn't help with flooding. Let's say for example a square mile of the Amite River has silted in causing the water depth to be 5 ft compared 10 ft 20-30 years ago, how would dredging out that section back to 10 ft not help with flooding upstream? I don't think this can be the only thing done, but after flooding in August, I'm open to anything that will help keep us from flooding again. Combine that with the Comite River diversion canal and the majority of homes that flooded might not flood again under the same weather conditions. I've also read that they are looking into the Darlington Reservoir project again. That would help slow down the flow of water. Not trying to make an argument. I'm now undecided whether or not I want this bill to pass.

It's hard to beat Mother Nature or Father time. In the end they always win. Below is a chart showing how many gallons of water fall on 1 square mile of land at 1 inch. Look and see how much must have fallen when some areas received up to 20 inches and then multiply that by the vast area that received the abundant rain. I can't count that high with 10 fingers and 10 toes but I imagine it's a mind boggling amount. As you can see below, 20 inches on 1 square mile equals 347,571,200 gallons. Thats a lot of water PawPaw. Dredging one small river won't put a dent in reducing the amount of water that overfilled it's banks.

I feel for anyone who got flooded. I got flooded twice by hurricanes and it ain't pretty. I guess they want to make it legal to clean those streams as I've been told by some others that they have cleaned a lot of streams that were on the protected list already even before they pass the law.
"gene"


ps: just my opinion

Area Rainfall Total gallons Total cubic feet Total 40 gallon baths

1 sq. mile 1 inch 17,378,560 2,323,340 434,464

1 sq. mile 20 inch 347,571,200 46,466,794 8,689,280

The sand and gravel mining industry? Major contributor to silt?

Debate is good. Helps the folks make their decisions. IMO

The 1983 flood was the bench mark. This flood was 4-5 foot higher. A lot of development in the last 30 years.

Originally Posted by lsufan1188

I see your point about this potentially benefiting someone economically, but I don't understand how it wouldn't help with flooding. Let's say for example a square mile of the Amite River has silted in causing the water depth to be 5 ft compared 10 ft 20-30 years ago, how would dredging out that section back to 10 ft not help with flooding upstream? I don't think this can be the only thing done, but after flooding in August, I'm open to anything that will help keep us from flooding again. Combine that with the Comite River diversion canal and the majority of homes that flooded might not flood again under the same weather conditions. I've also read that they are looking into the Darlington Reservoir project again. That would help slow down the flow of water. Not trying to make an argument. I'm now undecided whether or not I want this bill to pass.

I am only an armchair hydrologist, but my friend with the W&F learned really quick what "channelizing" one of these streams could do and stood his ground against it for several years. I have seen both streams mentioned (Amite and Comite) in full flood, and I fully understand the concern that those of you who could be or have been effected by floodwaters from them could have. But again, dredging and snag removal HAS BEEN PROVEN to be ineffective in such waterways. And the precedent will almost assuredly open loopholes in the established regulations that will allow further degradation of them.
Thanks Mermentau, PPG, JR, and the rest of you all who oppose this bill.
Pete

Originally Posted by jig rig

Debate is good. Helps the folks make their decisions. IMO

Well said, I agree.