Samuel Nunez: If we had no canals at all would we still have a problenn? Would not 

 subsidence still result in land loss? 



R. Eugene Turner: I think that at least 50% of the wetland loss is directly or indirectly 

 attributable to canals. Disruption of the natural hydrology seems to be the primary 

 mechanism causing wetland loss indirectly as a result of canals. 



Donald Moore: A recent presentation was made concerning the use of hovercraft for 

 accessing oil and gas locations in wetlands in order to reduce the need for canals. 

 Several companies are ready to build such craft, but apparently no one in the 

 industry is willing to make a commitment to use them. 



Kai Midboe: When 1 worked with the House Coast Guard Subcommittee we studied the 

 use of hovercraft by the Coast Guard. Hovercraft are very expensive to build and 

 operate. This is probably the main reason for the reluctance to use them for oil and 

 gas activities. 



Donald Moore: Hovercraft are already being used in oil and gas development on the 

 North Slope of Alaska. I think they are certainly worth looking at in this instance. 



Sue Hones: Regarding the effects of major Corps of Engineers projects compared to oil 

 field canals, while reviewing a 5-mile canal in the Barataria Basin we found nearly 

 56 miles of oilfield canals within a small triangular area. The Corps does build some 

 canals, but oilfield canals are so much more extensive. 



Samuel Nunez: The Corps' Mississippi River Gulf Outlet is probably the largest canal I 

 have ever seen dredged. 



Peter Howxhurst: The Corps only builds canals when asked to, they don't do it on their 

 own. To get these constructive efforts, such as river diversion, off the ground is 

 going to take a concerted and coordinated effort by Federal, State and local 

 government as well as the users of the marsh areas. We need to view our activities 

 in a broad context with respect to resources. As was mentioned earlier, we need to 

 evaluate the social costs of individual activities. For example, an oil company 

 wishes to dredge a canal because it is cheaper than directional drilling. We need to 

 set limitations on activities, such that all the quantifiable costs and less readily 

 identifiable social costs are considered in cost-benefit analysis. At one time the 

 Corps could consider such social well-being costs, but I understand revised 

 regulations under the Reagan administration will make that more difficult. 



Charlotte Fremoux: What agency will resolve whether privately owned lands will be used 

 for a purpose such as river diversion? 



Gerald Voisin: Right now we have to deal with about 14 agencies, but no one has 

 proposed a better marsh management plan than that we developed with the Soil 

 Conservation Service in 1952. The regulatory agencies operate independently, 

 sometimes with different objectives. 



Sherwood Gogliono: The property right considerations depend on the type and magnitude 

 of the project. The existing freshwater diversions on the east side of the river are 

 cooperative efforts between local land owners and local government and, to some 



243 



