Grass banks, wetlands and the Delta Blues

During the early days of Exxon Valdez as we watched Exxon bumble about trying to mount a response, I often thought what they needed to do was get a few skookum Alaska fishermen together, let them look at the problem, scratch their heads a little and then come up with a plan to attack the problem with the same natural savvy they use when faced with difficulty on the grounds far from where you can call for help. It is the kind of mindset I used to argue with first aid instructors about. What do they tell you to do first? Call 911. Many of the places we go there is no 911, teach me how to deal with it with what I have. Some creative ideas were developed, employ the fish pumps generally used for sucking salmon out of fish holds to vacuum up oil, logs chained together end to end can work as makeshift booms, peat moss absorbs oil.

So, the other day I watched Rachel Maddow with a couple of scientists who know the wetlands south of New Orleans and they were pretty much talking about when the oil destroys them. They also talked about how even before the spill the area was losing something like 25 square miles of wetlands/marsh every year. I remember flying over them in a helicopter several years ago and seeing some straight what looked like waterways through them. In the natural world nothing is straight. I was told they were pipelines under the water, but cut straight through the swamp grasses. That lets salt water flow unimpeded deeper inland and is one of the reasons the area is losing 25 square miles a year. Another reason I have read, is that channeling the Mississippi River behind dikes and levies prevents what used to happen over the delta which was spreading the flow over a wide area before it enters the ocean, depositing soils and nutrients carried down river from as far away as Minnesota and the Dakotas. (These days it also carries a lot of fertilizers and waste and other chemicals that might not be so good. Supposedly that creates a dead zone out in the Gulf of Mexico.)

Years ago I participated in a project to develop an oil spill response plan for the Copper River Delta and flats, an incredibly rich area on the south coast of Alaska. It has some similarities to the Mississippi, but also hosts a red salmon run from which the fish are considered the finest in the world. Along the coast at the river mouth are what are called grass banks. I suspect they are somewhat similar to the wetlands in the Mississippi Delta. What we eventually decided was we have to get the oil before it gets to the grass banks because there was no way you were going to clean in that kind of area.

With that in mind, and not much else, while I was cleaning house yesterday, I got this idea. Is it possible to open selected areas in the dikes and levies channeling the Mississippi and let the river flow back into traditional areas of the delta? If it is, an outgoing current across the wetlands might be enough to keep the oil offshore where it can be intercepted before it gets into the grasses. (As a side note, I have never believed the only oil damage is when it hits shore. Just because you can't see it in the ocean doesn't mean it isn't harming something. Just ask Alaska herring fishermen about that one.) At any rate an outgoing current over a wide area might just push the oil offshore where there is a better chance of catching it, might help clean those areas that are already oiled, and serve to add protection from a storm surge should a large hurricane blow into the area. It sounds like it could be a huge job. But, the spill is already a huge job, and as such demands huge solutions.

At any rate I sent my idea to the EPA via email last night. I did not send it to BP because my experience with Exxon and what I hear from the Gulf, they do more to discourage innovation than they do to use it. We can try a lot of things, but this needs to be understood: Once the oil is in the water, we have already lost. Everything from now on is simply save what we can.