Did they not learn anything from the 9th Ward? The Corp is steadily dropping in my estimation of capability. Lowe's in Waveland got an expedited approval from the Corp - I can almost understand that. But who will be able to build to FEMA elevation or afford the yearly insurance premium on filled in wetlands? Would that be deep pocketed developers, casinos, condo units? One more instance where I firmly believe that moneied interest is working in back rooms in every political entity along the Coast. Check what our local planning and zoning boards, our code enforcers, our politicians are really doing - many times without anyone noticing, since the everyday guy is still trying to put his own home/life back in order. Add that to the Corp/Feds pulling stunts like this and we will wake up to an unrecognizable Coast. What we really need MSNBC is a thorough investigative reporter to accept the tips from the public and then pursue the truth. Give us a "tip line" and I am sure you will get the material. Many of the locals are afraid of small town retribution - but hey, you guys don't have to live here. Who profits from filling in the wetlands? Who is endangered from the loss of natural storm protection? Too many questions, without adequate answers.

What an informative eye-opening post! I hope Derrick Evans' group and other environmentalists and citizens opposed to filling in the wetlands have some sort of recourse to block this proposal.

I'm not familiar with Mississippi's wetland situation, but have read quite a bit about Louisiana's. Her wetlands have been vanishing at the rate of a football field every half hour. According to the latest US Geological Survey report, Katrina and Rita caused 217 sq.mi. of Louisiana's wetlands to be washed away. This is larger than all of New Orleans or 3 times the land area of Washington DC. And that's on top of the coastal lands she has lost since the 1930's--an area roughly equivalent to the state of Delaware.

Back to Mississippi--it was surprising to read in the article that developers find it cheaper to buy a couple of hundred acres of wetlands and fill them in than build on solid ground. Filling them in seems like a lot of work. And as it said in the article, anything built on filled-in wetlands would have an increased chance of flooding in future storms.

It's unfortunate that developers think this would speed rebuilding and that the Corps plans to relax the restrictions on such building. It would be a better idea to redevelop downtown areas, as Evans suggested. I wish him and his group every bit of luck.

We are in a kind of "catch 22" situation here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast- we need private investment to help finance a portion of our recovery process, but the current pricetag attached to most properties available for this private development and redevelopment puts them out of the range of all but the most deep-pocketed investors. The path of least resistance for some developers looks to be circumventing the old regulatory processes that were in place to protect the wetlands from unchecked development, with this new "easing of restrictions" by the Corps of Engineers.
Coastal Mississippi is an area criss-crossed with wetlands. They are a way of life for us. The Pascagoula, Escatawpa, Tchoutacabouffa, Biloxi, Wolf, Jourdan, and Pearl Rivers, as well as many other smaller creeks, all empty into the gulf marshes within our three-county coastal area. Because of this, a lot of what has been classified as a "wetland" is not really a wetland but more a lowland, adjoining a recognized and accurately designated wetland. These lowlands do flood during periods of tidal surge with hurricanes, and when the river waters are elevated during heavy raining. However, filling some of them in, raising them to the required elevation and allowing development on them would not altogether be a bad thing. I do not agree with the 5 acre size, though, as I think this is excessive and is being done with the primary goal of attracting and encouraging large-scale development.
The stands of pine trees that lined our bays, bayous and marshes have all largely been destroyed by the Katrina tidal surge that deposited high concentrations of saltwater contamination in the soil; the trees probably could have withstood this contamination, as they have had to withstand periodic previous saltwater contaminations, except for one thing- the drought following Katrina caused the saltwater contamination to remain in the soil, so many of the trees that would have recovered instead slowly died. Large areas of our lowlands and wetlands now have no living trees on them, trees necessary to maintain the pre-Katrina ecosystem, trees whose root systems anchored the soil and held erosion in check. Even if replanted, these trees would require at least 25 to 30 years of uninhibited growth to return to something close to their pre-Katrina size. Couple this fact with the global warming scenario that the level of the oceans will rise by a MINIMUM of three feet by 2100. So, our treeless wetlands and lowlands, with unanchored soil expediting the erosion process exponentially, and a gradually-rising ocean level, combine to make a recipe for a brewing disaster for not just Mississippi but for similarly affected areas of Louisiana. I think this is the where we need to put some of our focus, not kicking up sand over some limited development of some areas of low quality wetland, because if the scenario described comes to fruition, ALL of our wetlands will be low quality, and we may have an ecological disaster possibly comparable to the strip-farming going on in Africa, or the deforestation of South America.

The Bush Administration will stop at nothing to use the heartbreak and loss of good Americans to cover their real goal- fill the pockets of the rich even further.

When another administration comes into office who can we blame things on? You really don't think that things are going to change do you?

Per Mike's remarks on the global warming scenario that has the oceans rising a minimum of 3 feet and his remark about us possibly having a large-scale ecological disaster in the future:

I just finished reading Mike Tidwell's book "The Ravaging Tide" which goes into what will happen when (not if) the oceans rise 3 feet or more. It describes how Louisiana's wetlands and coastline have been disappearing under water, not only due to being washed away, but due to the land's sinking, and how this had already been ruining the fishing and shrimp industries along the coast even before Katrina and Rita came along. He also says New Orleans sank 2 feet during the last century. Tidwell says the flooding of New Orleans and Louisiana's coastal erosion and sinking are only the beginning and that coastal areas around the world will be facing similar disasters as the seas rise and global warming causes more and stronger hurricanes. He describes what could happen were a hurricane to strike New York City--which, he points out, has subways, tunnels and other infrastructure below sea level. (As part of this nightmare scenario he wonders if New Yorkers would descend into subways and other underground places to escape the onrushing water filling up their streets, and meet watery graves--but I somehow have trouble picturing most streetwise New Yorkers as doing something that dumb.)

Live miles inland? You still have plenty of worries--droughts, forest and wildfires, tornadoes, etc. that are ever increasing due to global warming. Not to mention how this climate change will impact the world's food supply.

Tidwell goes into the politics not only of what happened during and after Katrina but also the Bush Administration's extremely short-sighted stance regarding global warming and the environment in general which, if it continues, is a sure road to disaster. He mentions that President Bush is aware that climate change is going on--but that he's not doing anything about it.

The bright spot in this book is how he describes everything he did to make-over his home--including adding solar panels and a corn-burning stove in order to make it energy-efficient. Would that every homeowner, or at least the majority, had the time, ability, physical energy, and above all the money to do so.

Anyone concerned about the fate of this planet, even short-term, should read this excellent book. Tidwell says these changes will happen sooner than you think if nothing is done.

Here's what the Army Corp of Engineers has to say:

http://www.gulfcoastnews.com/GCNnewsKatrinaCorpsWetlands.htm

Anyone who lives along the Gulf Coast region will be, not could but WOULD be, in danger of more devistation the next time a hurricane hits. The wetlands acts as a buffer between the ocean and the mainland. We saw what kind of devistation a hurricane 5 can do. If the wetlands, especially along the southern coast of Louisianna, hadn't been ravaged by erosion due to over development issues, then Katrina wouldn't have had as much damage. Every year 30 plus miles of coast line disappear along the LA coatsline due to errosion. That's a fact.

To find out more about how important saving the wetlands is check out http://www.voiceofthewetlands.com/updates.htm

All you have to do is look at the aerial views. That says it all.

I just don't know what is best for Mississippi.........if I did I suppose I would run for State office. Those guys don't know either....they just pretend!

Reality is that this change will have very little impact on the environment but will have a big impact on recovery. These type "wetlands" are a product of overzealous designation and have provided a financial bonanza to "environmentalists" who provide overpriced plots to "mitigate" damage. Many of these "wetlands" are peoples back yard, a wet spot on the grounds of the Kiln, MS library, etc. Most of the opposition comes from the same group that opposes Habitat for Humanity, any multifamily housing, etc. They are simply against everything; many don't know the local area. One group has some guy in New Orleans running a money collection operation claiming to be interested in Waveland and Bay St. Louis, etc. For once the Corps has proposed something reasonable

I took a look at the Voice of the Wetlands' website's aerial views and the difference between them is truly startling. It should be a wake-up call to anybody like the Bush Administration who's in denial regarding what's happening to Louisiana's coastline. Here's a Bush Administration atrocity described in "The Ravaging Tide" that anyone who cares abouit saving Louisiana's wetlands ought to know about: Circa 2003, they wanted to start a project to restore IRAQ'S wetlands so the "Marsh Arabs" who'd been displaced by Saddam Hussein could return and go back to their unique wetlands-based livelihoods and culture. They even hired LOUISIANA experts on wetlands to help with it. This when Bush has consistently been opposed to efforts to restore LOUISIANA'S wetlands and protect the unique culture of the Cajuns who live there and their fisheries and seafood industry, which now are even more imperiled due to Katrina's and Rita's ravages on the coastline. Obviously Bush, with his seriously misplaced priorities, doesn't seem to care about restoring, preserving, and protecting an important part of this country.