Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cajun

Comite Diversion Canal.....time to take it seriously

35 posts in this topic

 

Quote

 

Recent floods rekindle interest in long delayed Comite River Diversion Canal

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_38b19dc1-d303-546d-b179-604aebcfb86d.html

The floods were a brutal reminder of the Comite River Diversion Canal, or rather, the place on the map where the canal is supposed to be. Residents have grown old waiting for the canal to be dug and, 30 years later, have yet to see results.

 

Talk of a canal began in earnest after the destructive flood of 1983. Two years later, the state went to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to come up with a solution.

The plan calls for a canal through the Baker area connecting the Comite to the Mississippi River, which will help drain the area during high water. The project also will affect the Amite River, which joins with the Comite near the U.S. 190 bridge at the Livingston-East Baton Rouge parishes line.

At present, the Corps estimates the project will end up costing $211 million, which Central Mayor Jr. Shelton called “a drop in the bucket” compared with the cost of rebuilding the basin after a major flood or two.

 

Comite_Diversion_Canal.jpg

 

 

Article is from a previous flood event.

 

 It's been awaiting funding for over 30 years now.....and would help mitigate the impact of flood events like what is happening in Baton Rouge, Central, Baker, Zachary, and Denham Springs this week.

Edited by cajun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This needs to happen ASAP. To a larger point, there are a lot of infrastructure projects that need to happen NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say maybe this can be like the Green Light plan but more than EBR would need to pay for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah it came up <_< This Great Flood of 16' is a GAME CHANGER.....They will re-draw Flood zones after this...plenty places that have NEVER seen water got it....It's stunning

Claims made that the Canal would divert 45% of the Comite's water.....My QUESTION is....The Amite River is easily TWICE the SIZE of the Comite...if this Canal had been completed...HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE would it have made for a Record 46.2'ft Crest for the Amite at Denham Springs?? At the confluence of BOTH rivers?? Something is better than nothing...

How many years ago did they start this project??  They had started this 20 years ago?  This PHASE ONE was all that was  done

Comite-River-Diversion-Project-1.jpg

Baton-Rouge-Comite-River-Diversion-Map.j

Edited by richyb83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also talk of a retention lake in St. Helena parish on the Amite.  If they could keep development off of said lake, that would also be a huge help....and a nice recreation area as well.  During floods water would flow over a "fuse plug" levee and slow the flow of water downstream.   

Would be nice to have water not rise so quickly after storms like this.  

Also...taxpayers have already been paying taxes for 16 years on a flood control canal whose progress still hasn't even made it from the Mississippi to highway 61.  While this was a 500-1000 year flood and the canal would not have prevented all the flooding, it would have saved thousands of homes from water intrusion in this past event by lowering river levels as much as 6 feet....and likely saved lives.  They suspect that 25% of damaged homes in this event would have stayed dry...but the reality is that they aren't sure yet.   The flood maps do not even take back flow from the Amite and Comite into account.  I suspect that when they release maps including back-flow scenarios, the canal will become an even more obvious solution.  

 

Quote

 

Official: Unfinished Comite River canal could have saved damaged homes in Zachary, Baker, Central

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_4e4317b6-63f0-11e6-972c-bf6caf7108d4.html

The design for the project calls for a canal from the Comite across the Baker area which would allow the river to drain into the Mississippi. It would be located north of the confluence of the Comite and Amite Rivers and would also lessen flooding along that waterway in southern Livingston and northern Ascension parishes, though to a lesser extent.

About 16 years ago the Basin Commission successfully lobbied East Baton Rouge, Livingston and Ascension voters, who approved a 3-mill property tax to help fund the canal. In their pitch, the commission said the canal would reduce river levels along the Comite by up to six feet. Even in French Settlement, miles downstream, the canal would have caused a nine-inch reduction in Amite River river levels.  

 

Edited by cajun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, they start tracking all the bayou and creek levels too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently working with students at CHS affected by the flood to come together to push this legislation and try and build the canal. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt the Comite Diversion Canal would help Zachary, Central & Baker substantially.....then down to French Settlement a 9" reduction...does this mean maybe a 2 foot reduction for the Amite @ Denham Springs?? Instead of 46' ft...would it be  44' ft??  Every little bit helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


On 8/19/2016 at 2:11 AM, richyb83 said:

No doubt the Comite Diversion Canal would help Zachary, Central & Baker substantially.....then down to French Settlement a 9" reduction...does this mean maybe a 2 foot reduction for the Amite @ Denham Springs?? Instead of 46' ft...would it be  44' ft??  Every little bit helps

2-3' is what I've seen thrown around for Denham at the confluence of the Amite and Comite.   This past flood was just so unusual that it would have stressed the system significantly even with the Diversion canal (at least's with the original design....which may need to be modified).....but there's no doubt that it would have helped in a big way.

Unfortunately none of the maps and estimates out now are for the 500-1000 year level or for back flow scenarios.  It's clear that it would have helped....but how much is uncertain.  It's been estimated that 25% of the flooded homes in EBR, Livingston, and Ascension would not have flooded had the diversion canal been in place.   That's pretty significant.   More significant is the diversion canal's impact to floods similar to the 1983 event.   It would help the Denham Springs area a lot in that scenario although the biggest impact would be to Zachary, Baker, Baton Rouge, and Central.

 

Comite River at White Bayou

                10 year flood             6.2 feet lower

                25 year flood             6.1 feet lower

                50 year flood             6.3 feet lower

                100 year flood          6.2 feet lower

 

  Comite River at Hooper Road

                10 year flood             6.0 feet lower

                25 year flood             5.7 feet lower

                50 year flood             5.1 feet lower

                100 year flood          4.4 feet lower

• Comite River at Comite. LA. (Joor Rd)

                10 year flood             4.8 feet lower

                25 year flood             4.8 feet lower

                50 year flood             4.3 feet lower

                100 year flood           3.8 feet lower

 

  Comite River at Hurricane Creek

 

                10 year flood             4.2 feet lower

                25 year flood             4.4 feet lower

                50 year flood             4.1 feet lower

                100 year flood           4.1 feet lower

 

  Amite River at Denham Springs

                10 year flood             1.5 feet lower

                25 year flood             1.5 feet lower

                50 year flood             1.4 feet lower

                100 year flood           1.2 feet lower

 

  Amite River at Port Vincent

                10 year flood             0.8 feet lower

                25 year flood             0.7 feet lower

                50 year flood             0.6 feet lower

                100 year flood           0.6 feet lower

Edited by cajun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for  the stats Cajun...an example i will use is my in-laws that had 13 to 14" inches of water in their house...if it was truly a 100 year flood...that makes it VERY CLOSE...Maybe the sandbags work at the doors foundation??  Maybe 1/3 of the houses that got water would not have?

Also...in 1983 (41.5')there was not near the development with neighborhood's & businesses etc as there is now...less room for the water to go....cement can't drain water...46.2"ft is the New Bench-mark...still a Record Breaker like you said

Not many drainage systems would be equipped to handle 11" inches of rain in a 8 hour period

Man did that water STINK too...toxic, bacteria, etc :sick:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got back from Baton Rouge this morning.   We helped remove drywall and flooring at my cousin's home and another relative's business and took a look around.   

All I can say....is WOW.  :tw_cry:

 

Edited by cajun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, all the trash piled up on the side of the road and the smell makes me think of "the valley of death".

Edited by dan326
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the mire: Meeting environmental rules for long-delayed Comite Diversion Canal is a bureaucratic slog

It's a comforting thought — a canal that whisks high water from the Comite River into the Mississippi, reducing destructive flooding from Central and north Baton Rouge down through Denham Springs and even parts of Ascension Parish. But to build the long-delayed Comite River Diversion Canal, construction crews will have to dig up and trample on wetlands in the northern areas of East Baton Rouge Parish.

And when wetlands stand to be harmed, federal environmental law requires that the developer — in this case a joint group of local, state and federal agencies — must offset that damage by protecting or restoring wetlands elsewhere.

For a project like the canal, which will require an estimated 1,600 to 1,700 acres of such "mitigation" land, the process of buying the property has become a bureaucratic and political slog.

#rest of article

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_7d9c877a-6fc8-11e6-8053-f39613910654.html?sr_source=lift_amplify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Critical flood mitigation projects should get some kind of waiver for wetlands mitigation IMO.  Government never fails to trip over their own *%$k.

Edited by cajun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cajun said:

Critical flood mitigation projects should get some kind of waiver for wetlands mitigation IMO.  Government never fails to trip over their own *%$k.

Flood mitigation projects don't win reelection like ALIVE might have. :tw_grimace:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Man ALIVE! Would have fit perfectly between River Park, IBM & River Place....Oh well...that's 1 out of 4 <_<

Some(not all) of what is considered wetlands in some places is ludicrous...a few palmetto fans scattered along the ground could constitute as wetlands

Time to get nerdy: hydrologist says government needs to learn true risks of flooding in the Amite Basin

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_b0d857aa-7f67-11e6-b6a4-8ff07cb00178.html?sr_source=lift_amplify

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2016 at 11:50 PM, richyb83 said:

Wanted to give a "Bump" to this Topic before it falls back to 2nd page...Story on WAFB tonight,,,here's the article not sure if Video comes up?

SPECIAL REPORT: Delayed Diversion

http://www.wafb.com/story/33650967/special-report-delayed-diversion

I can't blame people for being distrustful of government after this debacle.   They've taxed themselves to pay for this flood control project....and NOTHING has happened.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the state government does not ask the feds for funding for this canal (along with MRB funding), JBE should be taken out back behind the governor's mansion and beaten senseless.   The new administration is literally looking for infrastructure projects to build.   The feds have already made it clear that they intend to allocate a lot to flood control, river locks, public/mass transit, and highway infrastructure.    

IMO the capital area priorities should be as follows:  

-Get construction for this canal going again.  

-Start laying the groundwork for the new tolled MRB in Plaquimine.  

-Get funding for I-10 and Airline Hwy widening in the city

-Begin construction on the new street car lines.  Maybe even start purchasing running gear.

Edited by cajun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwards is meeting with Trump this week.   If he doesn't take this opportunity to ask for funding for the diversion canal, he should be kicked out of Baton Rouge.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2017 at 0:38 PM, cajun said:

Edwards is meeting with Trump this week.   If he doesn't take this opportunity to ask for funding for the diversion canal, he should be kicked out of Baton Rouge.

So apparently we need to kick John Bel Edwards out of Baton Rouge.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to be cynical but I figured that canal wasn't going to be built. What's their rationale for the hold up though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dan326 said:

I try not to be cynical but I figured that canal wasn't going to be built. What's their rationale for the hold up though?

The canal does not benefit New Orleans, therefore state tax dollars or political capital should not be spent on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cajun said:

The canal does not benefit New Orleans, therefore state tax dollars or political capital should not be spent on it.

I shouldn't laugh but I did cause it's true , lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.