Losing Louisiana

Sea-level rise, subsiding lands in the delta will claim 10 percent of state by 2100

Posted: June 29, 2009

By Sid Perkins, Science News

Residents of Louisiana, take note: If engineers don't divert sediment-rich waters from the Mississippi River to help replenish a sinking river delta, about 10 percent of your state will slip beneath the waves by the end of this century. However, even if the engineers do try to abate the subsidence, the Mississippi doesn't carry enough sediment to offset more than a small fraction of that loss, a new analysis suggests.

Over the past few centuries, about a quarter of the wetlands in the Mississippi River delta have been lost to the ocean, says Harry Roberts, a marine geologist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Several factors have contributed to that loss, he notes, including sea-level rise and the settling of land as ancient sediments gradually become compacted under their own weight. Now, Roberts and colleague Michael Blum--now at the ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company in Houston--use computer models to estimate the effect that these processes will have on the Mississippi delta in the next few decades. The news, reported online June 28 in Nature Geoscience, isn't good.

Tidal gauges at Grand Isle, La.--near the tip of the Mississippi delta, where river-dumped sediments lie about 60 meters thick--indicate that land there is sinking as much as 8 millimeters each year. At Baton Rouge, about 250 kilometers upstream, sediments are thinner and the land subsides up to 3 millimeters per year. In Roberts and Blum's new analysis, regions between those points sink at intermediate rates.

Not only is the land sinking, but the sea is also rising. Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that since 1993, sea level has risen about 3 mm/yr. That rate is expected to accelerate as the planet's climate warms, heating Earth's surface waters and causing them to expand, says Roberts. The melting of land-based ice such as glaciers will also contribute. So, the researchers presume--conservatively, Roberts says--that in the year 2100 sea level will be rising 4 mm/yr.

Roberts and Blum estimate that between 2000 and 2100, the combined effects of subsidence and sea-level rise will swamp as much as 13,500 square kilometers--about 10 percent of the area of Louisiana.

"Geologists have known about [these effects] for a long time, but only in a qualitative way," says Roberts. "For a lot of people, this will be shocking news."

"This is an outstanding study," says Torbjorn Tornqvist, a coastal geoscientist at Tulane University in New Orleans. He suggests that some researchers may quibble about the team's relatively simple approach to a complex problem, but he adds that even if a more sophisticated approach had been used, "it's unlikely that the results would have been fundamentally different."

Finally, Tornqvist notes, the estimates for future subsidence and sea-level rise used by Roberts and Blum are conservative--meaning that Louisiana could easily end up losing more than a tenth of its coastal lands this century.

Today, the Mississippi River carries only about 205 million tons of sediment to its delta each year. That's less than half the amount it transported in the era before people built dams upstream that interrupt that material's journey to the sea. Also, only 40 percent or so of a river's sediment accumulates in a delta; the rest washes out to sea, the researchers note. So, even if engineers began to divert sediment-laden water from the Mississippi into the marshes at the head of the delta, they'd only save about 900 square kilometers of land from sinking beneath the waves in the next century, the scientists estimate.

Roberts and Blum "have come up with a result that we should clearly be concerned about," Tornqvist says.

NM & KS, Why not same rules for California?

Some are quick to say let's not waste money in Louisiana, but why not use the same standard for all coastal areas (CA, esp) where each year we experience the same pattern of fires, floods, mudslides with million dollar homes sliding into the muds, the mountainside, the water. Wealthy Americans somehow get millions paid out by national insurance companies who get their money from the rest of the citizens who don't live perched precariously on mountains, or on Atlantic and Pacific Seaboard in million dollar beach homes.

No one cries out for us to wise up and abandon all the coastal areas which have been destroyed over and over. Yet after an event that was nature-inspired but whose destruction was multiplied by government error (i.e., Army Corps of Engineers) suddenly people say, "let's not waste money on Louisiana".

Double standards are wrong by any name. This is just the same old system of the rich can do whatever and we pay for it, but the poor are unattractive, unwanted, and we'll ignore them until they go away.

For any who bother to know the physical realities, the original and early additions to the city of New Orleans lie on higher ground and did not flood or would not have flooded during Katrina without the errors of the army of dishonest businessmen who view a federal contract as a license to steal by shoddy workmanship and producing substandard products.

The entire nation should discuss all the problems with coastal areas and let our scientists come up with a fair solution and our political leaders devise a financially reasonable way to handle the inevitable destruction of untenable beach homes, mountain homes, flood plain homes in a way that treats the poor of the Gulf Coast States in the same manner as the rich of the coastal states from California to the Carolinas.

Note: It is pathetic really that whatever the topic, there are poor souls who cannot help themselves from Clinton bashing. And, how can we live without our daily dose of, "Global Warming is an ungodly, liberal myth." Yep, fellas. I think it'd be more fun to believe that Global Warming is a Clinton strategy for him to become Supreme Ruler in his own Universe. Maybe he joined that religious group out .... never mind.

Elizabeth of VA @ Jul 01, 2009 00:18:30 AM

re: G. Ham

That makes absolutely no sense. Findings are reported as research is conducted, papers are published in scientific journals, and these are then re-written for a general audience.

Terence H. of GA @ Jun 30, 2009 10:51:10 AM

I Agree

with Al of NM.

Why have we spent all that money to rebuild Louisiana when all estimations seem to state that the bottom part of the state is not sustainable?

All of that building could have been relocated to a better and safer area.

Joan Dalton of KS @ Jun 30, 2009 09:51:10 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

National Science Foundation

NSF

Wolves, Moose and Soil Nutrients: The Unexpected Connection

Researchers were startled to discover "hot spots" of forest fertility.

Predicting Who Will Survive Skin Cancer

Using new techniques, researchers may now be able to predict the survivability of skin cancer.

Record Highs Far Outpace Lows Across U.S.

Daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the past decade.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!