is anyone else concerned about the water they pumped into Lake Pont. ?

[fleabert]

seems like that might make it a bit polluted...anyone know anything about this?

and by this I mean: It's disgusting water, why did they pump it into a lake, knowing that the water was horribly polluted? (I should have added the 'sarcasm' smiley, apparently)

[ken_g]

1. I think it's going to be an eco disaster..

That water is so incredibly polluted, as in off the charts. Listen for cover up.

[fleabert]

5. I so agree, why is no one discussing this or questioning the rather

fast decision to pump it into the lake?

[starmaker]

10. Known before they started pumping

the ecological consequences.

[RockaFowler]

17. AGREE

I will not be eating any type of fish that comes out of the Gulf for a long time.
My mom is in the Pensacola area and she says that the water looks terrible now. We have to wake up people! It is time to save our environment. With the schmuck we have in the White House we will never live in a clean environment AGAIN

[VADem11]

2. The water is very polluted

It's filled with oil, waste, and who knows what. Eventually all the water will go into the gulf of mexico and could devastate lake pontchartrain. Fisheries, animals, and anyone who depends on the water could be affected.

[fleabert]

7. no doubt. - so why is no one questioning this decision?

it's readily admitted that the water was putrid... why can't people put 2 and 2 together anymore?

[uppityperson]

18. Fish and animals are dead along the shores already

There have been large amounts of dead fish and dead water mammals (water rodenty things, comparable to our muskrats here) washing up dead on the shores. The "water" is actually a mixture of toxic chemicals, dead animals (people are animals), houeshold chemicals and much raw sewage that was mixed in and it all has been sitting and mixing and stewing in 90 degree heat for weeks.

[Lisa]

3. yes -- all kinds of contaminants in there

Persistent Organic Pollutants like PCBs, heavy metals like mercury, and bacterial counts which seem to be tens (hundreds?) of times above allowable levels.

The fact that there are people who make their living from the ecosystem in the lake, and downstream from it (oyster beds etc.) makes it even more tragic. I suppose they'll have to wait for the all-clear from the authorities, before being able to eat/sell their catch.

It was a terrible choice to have to make -- because the alternative, letting the water sit there, would have created a public health nightmare (and the risk that the water would seep into the coastal aquifer and poison the groundwater ... not easily reversed, if at all).

And coming at a time when they had spent years cleaning up the lake, it's sad news.

[fleabert]

9. was there not another alternative?

like pumping it into semi tanks and then transporting to water treatment sites? or taking it to water tanks that had not sustained damage? I am grasping at straws here...

that's my beef with the whole thing, it's like NOTHING was even considered besides pumping into the lake, come what may.

[Lisa]

12. how much water would they have had to move?

And were there any working treatment sites nearby (not just primary and secondary, but capable of handling heavy metals etc.)? I don't know enough about the situation to suggest alternate courses of action.

I don't have the potential evapotranspiration data for the area, but my guess is that it wouldn't have dried up on its own -- at least, not before seeping into the aquifer.

If I'd had to choose between contaminating the food chain or the groundwater ... I'm lucky I've never had to make that kind of call.

[fleabert]

14. yeah, I have no idea either, but it would make me feel better if we knew

what alternatives (if any) were considered before they started pumping... that's all I'm saying.

[BOSSHOG]

4. I'm extremely concerned

however, the latest word from officials in New Orleans is that the water and detritus and toxins which will be and has been pumped from NOLA into Pontchartrain is far less than 10% of the Lakes capacity. And the lake has been incredibly resilient after years of neglect (the neglect occurred several years ago) and it was on the precipice of becoming another family destination for swimming and fun. It will be in a sorry state once again for awhile.

[ClintonTyree]

6. Lake Ponchartrain is going to be a huge dead zone.......

for some time to come. This as all washing down the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico as well. Since most shrimp consumed in the U.S. is imported farm raised, it won't hurt the consumer much. But the Gulf Shrimpers won't be able to give their catch away for quite a while. I LOVE fresh caught Gulf Shrimp, I used to go get them in Tarpon Springs right off the boat. Not any more.

[Johonny]

8. It's polluted

and I don't see any cover up of this since just about every news outlet I've hear talk about it says "It's very polluted water".

[fleabert]

no shit.

I didn't ask if the water being pumped was polluted, I was asking why this didn't seem to be a concern when the decision to pump it into the lake was made. Now the lake is clearly polluted, and the gulf will be too, why THAT isn't being discussed is more my main issue.

[the_spectator]

11. Why isn't anyone questioning this? -- BECAUSE...

the water isn't going to disappear! You either leave it in the streets and homes of New Orleans, where it will get more and more deadly over time - because it is STAGNANT water. Or you pump it into Lake Ponchatrain, where it can begin to flow again. Two choices only. Only one makes sense. And kudos to the Corps of Engineers in their de-watering efforts. The city is essentially de-watered as of today - much faster than anyone expected. One of the few bright spots in this whole mess.

[fleabert]

13. really? only two choices?

I am no hydro geologist, but I thought of two more...

[the_spectator]

15. Sorry - edited after reading your post above:

I think the reason your options were not possible is simply the VOLUME of the water. There is NO WAY you could remove all that water with tanker-trucks or somesuch.

[fleabert]

16. "view all"

see above

[the_spectator]

19. Again, sorry for missing your suggestions up thread

Here's some more info: according to the Corps of Engineers people, during the de-watering, they were pumping about 6.5 billion gallons of water out of the city each day during the height of the project. There's no way you could remove this kind of volume of water with tanker-trucks.

(Link on the statistic, from the LATimes):
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-na-corps13sep13,0,17250.story?coll=la-tot-promo

[fleabert]

21. yeah. but...

perhaps SOME of the water could also have been diverted this way? I just get freaked thinking about the ecosystem and the apparant lack of officials even considering something else...

naive and idealistic, I am.

[Lisa]

20. 220 cubic meters per second

That's how much the pumping rate had to be, to get to where things are this week (and I don't think the city is completely dry yet).

http://www.physorg.com/news6375.html

That would mean 220 x 60 x 60 x 24 - more than 19 million cubic meters per day. Even with a whole fleet of tanker trucks (and working roads) that wouldn't be enough to move it. The flow for even a fraction of a second would overfill a tanker truck.

By comparison, the total oil storage for the port of Houston is something like 900,000 cubic meters.

http://bulktransporter.com/mag/transportation_oiltanking_gmbh_makes/


One would need a pipeline -- but even then, I don't know whether there were any facilities there which were able to process that much water. So one would need a secure place to hold it, to keep it from leaking into another body of water, or seeping down into the aquifer.

When I first heard about this, I had wondered if there was any way to divert the water directly into the Gulf, rather than into the lake -- which also would have been bad for the ecosystem. But they would have needed to slap together a pipeline, to deal with that much flow.

p.s. sorry about the delay -- I was working on the math.

[fleabert]

22. interesting...

thanks for the math work, it's beyond me.

sucks that there seems to have been no other alternative, sure would have liked to hear this discussion took place among those responsible...just seems they never even consider the ecological impact of their decisions.

[Lisa]

24. I'll bet the EPA people had something to say ...

Weren't they involved in the multi-year cleanup of the lake? The employees must have been upset, that all their work would be undone. But in an emergency situation they can be overridden.


On their website, they say that they are trying to skim off the oil etc. -- and those aerators should help give the organisms more oxygen. It's not much, but it's better than nothing.

http://www.epa.gov/katrina/faqs.htm#2



Thing is -- if there had been proper funding to clean up those toxic industrial sites earlier, things would be a bit better (not the sewage contamination, but still ...)

[fleabert]

23. it's cool.

thanks. seems that is correct, and I was just offering the ideas that instantly popped into my head, is there no other alternative that could have been considered that might have been somewhat workable?