Scenic rivers

Hey CDC folks,

"Senate Bill 132 proposes to change the Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act to direct the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries (LDWF) to allow any “…clearing and snagging, and dredging operations for drainage purposes, in the Amite River, [West] Pearl River, Tchefuncte River, Bogue Falaya River, Abita River, and Comite River…” and to"

The link below will bring you to the la wildlife federation web site for more info and a easy link to let your Senator know how you feel.

Thanks Jig Rig

Louisiana Wildlife Federation

Jig...so what is your position on the bill?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=Sac-a-lait D.A.;3427608]Jig...so what is your position on the bill?

I'm against it. I would think LDWFS needs more control not less. What is yours?

Those tree tops laying in the water is the Structure fish use , of all species!!!! Catfish must have this structure to spawn each Year.... we use to put Cats in Grandpaws Cattle Pond. there was no structure and without Spawning they all died off. there there are nothing but snakes, Turtles, Minnows and small bream in a weed choked pond less than 3 foot deep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jig rig

Hey CDC folks,

"Senate Bill 132 proposes to change the Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act to direct the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries (LDWF) to allow any “…clearing and snagging, and dredging operations for drainage purposes

---

That's pure crap. What is "Scenic" about a drainage ditch? The main reason I see to leave is habit and natural state of the river. I'll let my senator know what I think.

I disagree on the need for structure for spawning. I can point to many places with tons of catfish and no structure at all. White Lake and Grand Lake in the southwest part of the state to start.

"The Natural and Scenic Rivers System" in Louisiana was established to protect and maintain certain streams in our state as God made them. Once modifications to the original tenets are created, there's no telling how far they will go - in-stream gravel mining comes to mind. And then the stream is no longer neither natural nor scenic.
Any changes to these laws are detrimental to the health of the system and are usually self-serving. Please, PLEASE suggest our reps vote against them!
Pete

Uh oh........
Break out the chainsaw and let em fall...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I sent them my thoughts and told them to vote against the change.
"gene"

You better behave Adam. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micropterus salmoides

Uh oh........
Break out the chainsaw and let em fall...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

My guess is that the reason this bill was started is the August flooding. Prior to August, I would have been against this bill. Since I flooded from the Amite River last year and supposedly they've found major silting problems downstream, I wish they would have already begun dredging and be finished before hurricane season. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this bill and there's a better reason why I should be against it. If you aren't from the Baton Rouge area, take a ride by any Amite or Comite River bridge. You'll understand why these rivers need to be dredged.

LSUfan,

Are you saying the silted rivers caused the August floods? Dredging would have solved flooding?

IMO over 30" of rain in three days over the Amite river basin that starts in south MS cause the August flooding.

All dredging and or channelization will do is put water on folks down river faster. By increasing the current you will speed up the erosion of the banks of the river.If you look at the RR tracks that run north of 190,HWY190,and I12 now with a safety wall to boot. All act as a dam which forces the water under the few bridges along those routes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lsufan1188

My guess is that the reason this bill was started is the August flooding. Prior to August, I would have been against this bill. Since I flooded from the Amite River last year and supposedly they've found major silting problems downstream, I wish they would have already begun dredging and be finished before hurricane season. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this bill and there's a better reason why I should be against it. If you aren't from the Baton Rouge area, take a ride by any Amite or Comite River bridge. You'll understand why these rivers need to be dredged.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jig rig

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

---

Well said, I agree.

Thank you Paw Paw. I didn't do the math but they'd probably have to dredge the entire river out to make a much of a difference. Seems like building the diversion canal and hopefully the reservoir might be the best options.

FYI Update
Sen. Sharon Hewitt to remove St. Tammany rivers from bill easing dredging restrictions | Environment | theadvocate.com

Way back when I was a young man they had proposed a reservoir up around Clinton, LA, but it never came to be... I wanted to buy a lot and build a home there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CliffordN

Way back when I was a young man they had proposed a reservoir up around Clinton, LA, but it never came to be... I wanted to buy a lot and build a home there...

---

Some of these diversions are likely needed, but what takes them so long to get going is figuring out where to put them (in other words, who gets to make the $ from it). There is BIG BIG money in this. If you own the land near the diversion, you are set for life. The swamp land you own will now be high ground and worth tons of money. Houses will pop up on them left and right (see Blind River for example)

As far as reservoirs, we have enough groundwater in Louisiana where we dont need any more reservoirs. How in the world a politician can convince the state that we need to spend a bunch of money to build a reservoir under the disguise of economic development to a region known as "poverty" point is beyond me. And better yet, how they can sleep at night knowing they put the screws to the taxpayers by buying up the land all around the reservoir ahead of time. If that isn't inside knowledge, I dont know what is.

end rant:bash

The Same thing is done Building bypass loop roads around towns === especially very large towns where they are controlling the area where they want the growth... there are 20 and 30 year plans showing where the future roads will be located .... only the Politicians in power ever get to view those plans.... and they do buy hundreds of Acres at several key areas then make Zoning changes to get Richer than Rich