beautiful false river
listening

AOL

#61 Oct 29, 2009
runoff from the rain will not be gone just because of dredging,there would have to be silt fences for futher runoff because it does't just stop happening.holding ponds could be built in sections controlled by levees and as one filled the runoff may be directed to the next pond a while the full pond could be mined to remove material to prepare for the time when pond two fills.that would allow less space required for ponds and material could be used for fill in low areas of property that is low if the ones who desired fill would pay for trucking.
Historian

Baton Rouge, LA

#62 Oct 29, 2009
amigodilago wrote:
Here is, in response to Historian, an attempt to describe the stage control opportunity that may be the by-product of the proposed dredging of the muck-layer in both Flats.
The Present Situation is such, that the "normal" stage is set at 16 ft while the flood stage is 18 feet. This means, that "2 feet worth of run-off" can be absorbed within False River before it reaches flood stage.
The procedure adopted earlier this year by the Police Jury involves opening gates at the Lighthouse canal up to 5 days before the rain starts, based on Precipitation Forecasts.
You may not have followed it closely. But if you did, you probably noticed that it worked very well. The stage remained in excellent control, even low piers did not get submerged a single time and none of the fears about "leaving the lake at extremely low levels' materialized. Right after each rain event the stage almost immediately returned to 16 feet, or very close to it.
The main enabler was the fact that quantitative and watershed-specific forecasting tools are vastly improved over the TV weatherman's "chance of precipitation is ...%" during the 10:00 PM News.( google Hydrometorological Prediction Center of NOAA for reference).
But equally important: the Parish Administrator took ownership and made it happen.
In consideration of this, what I meant to say in my previous post is the following.
Dredging the "muck-layer" out will mitigate the navigational access problems that caused/forced the jury to raise the "normal" stage from 15 feet to 16 feet over the last 10+ years. If you would consider just the possibility to be able to return a "normal" stage to 15 feet again while continuing to employ exactly the same Stage Control Procedure in use today, you could expect to be able absorb "3 feet worth of run-off" ( an increase of 50%) before reaching flood stage.
As far as bulk-heads. Dredging to stop Eutrophication will remove the very loose black muck layer only (maybe 2 feet, in spots maybe a bit more). It is a mix of very fine soil particles and of partially decomposed organic matter. Dredging would not remove any of the "firm" older bottom material and would therefore not materially impact the structural integrity of a properly built bulk-head. After all, many of those bulk-heads have been in place longer than 10 years and have therefore "experience" with a "normal" stage of 15 feet.
Thanks for your comment. I hope I addressed your concern.
response to amigodilago
Good explanation. I cannot take issue with your response. The addition of your comment identifying that a change to a normal stage of 15 instead of 16 thereby creating a total of 3 feet of buffer with which to assist in the forecast precipitation does work. That clarification was not made initially in your first post (or I missed it) but with this addition I can buy your premise. The bulkhead remark on my part was based on the concern that I heard about lower lake stages could place additional hydrostatic pressure on marginal bulkheads and could cause failure due to stage lowering to much and too fast not allowing for any decrease in pressure to stabilize.(rapid draw down) Had I made that point more clearer then you would have not found yourself in the same position with my comment as I found myself with yours. So yes I find your total comments to be valid and plausible when considering the issue.
touché
Jarreau89

Covington, LA

#63 Oct 29, 2009
amigodilago - Once again, you are right on point. While FRCA was trying to pursuade the jury to adopt the Flood Stage Control Procedure, we addressed the same issues raised by Historian. And, as you stated, it has worked quite well. And yes, Jimmy Bello has been stellar in making sure that the procedure is being followed. One of our members is constantly in contact with Jimmy and monitors the NOAA site at the first hint of a weather event that may bring us rainfall.

While we all realize that we cannot prevent every flooding event on the river, we can certainly minimize the numbers and severity of the flooding through the use of technology.

Once again, I would like to extend an invitation to you to attend an FRCA board meeting. We meet the first Tuesday of every month at 6 PM at the Cottonport Community Center. You obviously have a lot to offer and we certainly can use the help and expertise. Hope you don't mind, but I may steal some of your comments from here.......

My invitation to attend an FRCA meeting is also extended to any concerned citizen that would like to participate.
Melody

Lafayette, LA

#64 Nov 2, 2009
Love U Theresa, wish we could all be more like You... beautiful person, with an amazing spirit.. proud to call you my friend..
Theresa

Baton Rouge, LA

#65 Nov 3, 2009
REMINDER!!!

False River Civic Association Meeting
Tuesday, 11/3/09
Cottonport Community Center
6:00 p.m.

Corps Project Update
Theresa

Baton Rouge, LA

#66 Nov 3, 2009
Thanks Mel - a little background on her - she was one of the two people who rode TIRELESSLY on a jet ski for hours looking for survivors the night of the May 09 fatal boating accident on False River.

She also was the person who assisted Kenny Rowell, the gentleman who used his firm's sonar equipment to find the young men and bring them home.

They worked dusk til dawn until they were found.

She is a hero.
inquiring mind

Houston, TX

#67 Nov 5, 2009
Islander wrote:
<quoted text>The water level is being held at a higher level that it use to be, that's a fact that can easily be documented. It was raised and held in 1948 and again recently.
The island was not flooded after the river level was raised, the island is still several feet above the present level of the river. If you look at a topo map it will show you that basically there is a ridge all the way around the river on both sides.
If you do some title research (abstracts) on the land adjacent to the flats you will find that on the north end at least the property descriptions say 'bound on the north by the north chenal'. Another words the property owners on the island side own almost all the way across the flats. No doubt it would be a court battle if they tried to claim what their title says they own but it could be a problem for any proposal made. Technically according to their titles the flats are private property. I know that's a very unpopular idea but that's what the court house records of the titles say if you research them back some years.
You mean Jim's Bait Stand owns the northern flats? Will he be able to fill it in and put in even more trailers? Where did you find this info?
Islander

United States

#68 Nov 5, 2009
inquiring mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean Jim's Bait Stand owns the northern flats? Will he be able to fill it in and put in even more trailers? Where did you find this info?
Long before Jim's, back in the 60's that area was filled in by Lance Lemoine, as he was doing it a case was filed in court claiming that it was state land, he prevailed because his title said it was his. If you have time and know how you could look that up at the court house. I happen to remember it because some of my family was involved. He filled it in and now you have Jim's there.

The property lines run north and south in that area just like the streets run from Island Rd.there. They were all originally land grants in about the 1830's to 40's. They were 40 arpent tracks, one arpent wide at the river and fourty arpents deep, plus the batture land. An arpent is about .85 of an acre.

If you do an abstract (title search)of the land past Jim's (west)and search back far enough their titles say the northern boundary is the North Channel which runs just a couple hundred feet off the New Roads side just off of the piers on that side. This is also a matter of public record if you want to and know how to look it up. So no Jim doesn't own the North Flats, the people with land West of him do. I'm sure that if anyone tried to claim it there would be a court battle, but Lance won his.
speaks

AOL

#69 Nov 5, 2009
i would like melanie to address the flooding in frisco ridge subdivision that has increased backup by 50% in the last two years.why is there a holdup when plans were developed butnot acted on.i heard that one landowner was the problem and rather than deal with him we are left with no relief.what about temporary domain for the contractors that bid so they will be able to complete the project without fear of lawsuits.now a 6" rain is what a 12" rain used to be.we are a developing community who needs some concrete action befor we flood .
Noah

Baton Rouge, LA

#70 Nov 6, 2009
Build you house higher or build a boat. Sometimes it rains a lot! You are responsible for protecting your family
speaks

AOL

#71 Nov 6, 2009
oh really,i thought this project was the job of the police jury.they put it out for bids but no sane contractor would do this project with a landowner just waiting for a lawsuit when dirt is put on the bank.and i already have a boat its just not big enough to hold my home.this is police jury domain and no joking matter.course if you have time and extra lumber noah start building,its gonna have to be a really big boat for many homeowners.
Noah

Baton Rouge, LA

#72 Nov 6, 2009
speaks wrote:
oh really,i thought this project was the job of the police jury.they put it out for bids but no sane contractor would do this project with a landowner just waiting for a lawsuit when dirt is put on the bank.and i already have a boat its just not big enough to hold my home.this is police jury domain and no joking matter.course if you have time and extra lumber noah start building,its gonna have to be a really big boat for many homeowners.
I am so tired of everybody wanting the government to fix something. Leave them out of our lives. If you would have spent a couple of thousand dollars more on your land and house you would be doing something else right now with your life instead of crying.
just a neighbor

Folsom, LA

#73 Nov 7, 2009
Noah wrote:
<quoted text>
I am so tired of everybody wanting the government to fix something. Leave them out of our lives. If you would have spent a couple of thousand dollars more on your land and house you would be doing something else right now with your life instead of crying.
not crying for damn sure but what about all of the taxes we people in la pay. we are taxed on everything. we do not have a money problem our government has a spending problem.
Annuit coeptis

United States

#74 Nov 8, 2009
just a neighbor wrote:
<quoted text>not crying for damn sure but what about all of the taxes we people in la pay. we are taxed on everything. we do not have a money problem our government has a spending problem.
I think you have hit the nail on the head and helped make Noahs point. The more you ask the government to do something for you the more they say they can't unless they raise taxes. There was a time in this country when we didn't pay all these taxes and we were a lot better off. If someone floods and they have to pay for it they build higer next time. Look at all the old houses that are still standing. They are all on pillars. You put a house down on the ground in an area where "Flood Zones" are even discussed and you can't blame anybody but yourself if it floods. You ask the government to do something you should do for yourself and the first thing they will do is stick their hand in your pocket. Are you all blind? Look whats happening with our government now. Your taxes are about to go through the roof.
Tired of Waiting

United States

#75 Nov 8, 2009
Annuit coeptis wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you have hit the nail on the head and helped make Noahs point. The more you ask the government to do something for you the more they say they can't unless they raise taxes. There was a time in this country when we didn't pay all these taxes and we were a lot better off. If someone floods and they have to pay for it they build higer next time. Look at all the old houses that are still standing. They are all on pillars. You put a house down on the ground in an area where "Flood Zones" are even discussed and you can't blame anybody but yourself if it floods. You ask the government to do something you should do for yourself and the first thing they will do is stick their hand in your pocket. Are you all blind? Look whats happening with our government now. Your taxes are about to go through the roof.
Just curious, but at which time are you referring?
amigodilago

Folsom, LA

#76 Nov 8, 2009
"Annuit coeptis" is right in principle. Government is not the answer and often it is the cause of the problem. False River is unfortunately a case in point. Government changes to the watershed, by improving drainage of about 50,000 acres of farmland into the lake, caused damage to its ecology by dramatically increasing the inflow of sediment and flooding by significantly increasing the amount and the speed of run-off. Since this project was implemented 20 years ago the base flood elevation had to be changed twice upwards. And the "normal" stage of False River has been raised from 15 feet to 16 feet, bringing it 33% closer to flood stage. Allowing on-going development and future changes within the watershed without consideration of the effects on the whole will likely make things worse.
Is this inevitable? I am afraid it would be unless government is being held accountable for the consequences of its actions. And the best way to do that is to become involved and to speak out before damage is being done, regardless whether it is to our properties by worsening flooding or to our pocket books by increasing taxes to pay for mitigation of the same.
Islander

United States

#77 Nov 8, 2009
amigodilago wrote:
"Annuit coeptis" is right in principle. Government is not the answer and often it is the cause of the problem. False River is unfortunately a case in point. Government changes to the watershed, by improving drainage of about 50,000 acres of farmland into the lake, caused damage to its ecology by dramatically increasing the inflow of sediment and flooding by significantly increasing the amount and the speed of run-off. Since this project was implemented 20 years ago the base flood elevation had to be changed twice upwards. And the "normal" stage of False River has been raised from 15 feet to 16 feet, bringing it 33% closer to flood stage. Allowing on-going development and future changes within the watershed without consideration of the effects on the whole will likely make things worse.
Is this inevitable? I am afraid it would be unless government is being held accountable for the consequences of its actions. And the best way to do that is to become involved and to speak out before damage is being done, regardless whether it is to our properties by worsening flooding or to our pocket books by increasing taxes to pay for mitigation of the same.
Another example along the same lines is the vegetation. In about 1973 I think it was, False River was the number on lake in the whole country for pounds of fish per acre. And had over twice the amount of the lake that was number two in the country. At that point in time coontail grass grew on the whole perimeter of the lake to a dept of about six foot deep. It was limited to that dept by light penetration into the water. All of the piers were built out to about the eight feet dept so their main deck area was in clear water, good for swimming and boats. Powered boats did not go anywhere on the flats on either end of the river or within the six foot dept all along the shore and never had. This vegetation was the hatchery that kept the fish population so high and the river to be able to handle the sewage that ran into it. The clarity of the water was several times what it is today. With the boom of people buying and building camps on the river some of those folks not knowing any better complained about the grass hurting their fishing off of their piers because their hooks got tangled in it. And the looks and smell of the grass when it came slightly above the surface in the middle of the summer for a little while.
Islander

United States

#78 Nov 8, 2009
A lake commission was formed, I don't remember what it was called though. Anyway a local person I will not name who just happens to be a cousin to another local with business interest on the flats was the head of that group. They got the La. Wild life and Fisheries to come in and kill all of the grass on the north flats and all along the shores around 1980 or so. This ruined the hatchery for the fish and gave powered boats access to the flats where they never could go before except for a short time during the winter when the grass died back. Prior to this killing of the coontail fishermen went into the grass beds of the north flats either paddling or fighting the grass on their trolling motors to fish the crystal clear pockets in the grass most of the year. Boat riders, skiers etc. never went into the flats except by mistake when the grass was slightly below the surface. By the mid 80's False River was the number seventeen lake in the country for fish population. I doubt it's in the top one hundred today.

This is another example of people asking government to do something and only making things worse except for a few special interest in this particular case.

Cletus can also show you old maps and early aerial photos of the north flats that show the area of open water was much smaller than it is today. The flats have been expanding not contracting for the last one hundred years at least. This goes to further explain the stories of crossing there long ago with mules and wagons and the old titles saying 'bounded on the north by the north channel. The flats were mostly dry land except in high water and after the first ware was placed at lighthouse canal holding the level at 15' msl.

Most of the time government and hidden special interest are the real problem, not the solution.
Islander

United States

#79 Nov 8, 2009
The flats were mostly dry land except in high water and after the first ware was placed at lighthouse canal holding the level at 15' msl.

'after' in the above should be 'before'
tell me

AOL

#80 Nov 8, 2009
maybe they should actually hire a specialty company with actual experience than keep speculating on solutions.from what i see if you hire someone to STUDY a solution,they do not keep making money if its solved.hire a competent company to provide real data and lets all quit speculating.also i believe this has been studied to death with no concrete workable solution.ha,maybe allow the land that was drained to return to its natural state and take the silt and put it back where it came from.maybe on you know who's property.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New Roads Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Presidential debate 21 min Abatha G 4
Storm damage Sun Odetta 10
4 mill tax Sep 23 more education 45
Bayou Sara Creek Road Sep 19 Mike 2
Home Rule Charter is not for West Feliciana Sep 19 Cee Cee 47
Hospital Sep 19 Paul 2 9
Wake up America Sep 13 WAFB 5

New Roads Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

New Roads Mortgages