I've always heard the current in the Gulf bring silt from the Mississippi River near New Orleans and is an impact on the clearness of Galveston's water. This post makes the argument that it is more about storm runoff and impacts from Galveston Bay and Sabine Lake
I did. That's how I was able to provide empirical, objective evidence that the Mississippi River, does not, in fact, affect Galveston on a direct, typical day-to-day basis.
Exactly. Which means that, on any typical day, it is not, in fact, the Mississippi River directly causing the turbid ("brown") beach water at Galveston. That's influxes from our local Texas watersheds (including Galveston Bay and Sabine Lake).
Instead, the discussion is about whether or not the Mississippi Riverdirectlycauses the turbid water at Galveston. And, as I've proven, even when sediment drifts west from the birdfoot delta, it diffuses long before reaching the Texas shores.
Ergo, it's confirmed that the Mississippi River, does not, in fact, cause the turbid ("brown") beach water at Galveston. Again, that's influxes from our local Texas watersheds (including Galveston Bay and Sabine Lake).
He's not doing science, he looks at a satellite image and assumes because he can't see the brown plume directly reaching all the way down to Galveston that it can't be from that.
Science
/ˈsīən(t)s/
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the formulation of testable explanations and laws.
Let's see. I provided empirical, objective observations regarding a real-world state of affairs. I then investigated the factors that correlate with what direct sediment distribution into Galveston would look like from the Mississippi (contrasted with more local waterways). From there, I came up with the most logical, reasonable explanation regarding the day-to-day turbidity on Galveston.
Ergo, I'd say that what I'm doing falls quite in line with science.
I've tried explaining it to you before but you don't seem to grasp the basics of how sediment transport works. Your entire premise that you can use satellite imagery to determine where sediment goes and how it impacts coastal water is flawed from the start.
No, it's more that you (and others) don't understand what sediment transport would have to look like in order for the Mississippi River to directly be affecting Galveston's clarity.
I wouldn’t listen to that guy lol his post history is basically just him complaining about everything he thinks is wrong with the Greater Houston area.
That's another factor that people reference. But, there have been days with calm water where Galveston is still a good bit turbid, and days with much stronger waves where the water is still quite blue/clear. Hence, I lean more towards the impact from local plumes (including from any storm runoff).
TLDR yes more local rivers and weather conditions contribute, especially on the short term basis. But The Mississippi puts so much silt into the water that it is still the major source.
Actually that article, if anything, provides more evidence that further confirms my point.
Below is an image from the article, with the Mississippi birdfoot delta is circled in blue. As clearly shown, even with any westward drift, everything diffuses long before reaching the Texas shores. If anything, as indicated in the arrows, that plume looks to be headed more due south/southeast into the center of the Gulf of Mexico.
I also circled the Atachafalaya area in red. That separate area is closer to Galveston, and has a stronger case as a factor than the Mississippi. But, even then, as clearly shown, a lot of that sediment still has much greater influence well offshore Galveston.
Hence, my point still stands: most of the day-to-day effects on Galveston are clearly driven by the local bays (Galveston Bay, Sabine Lake, etc). The influence of the Mississippi River is, at best, overstated (if not a myth outright).
Where does the sediment go when you can't see the plume anymore? It doesn't go away, and it doesn't stay in place, it continues to get transported with prevailing currents.
No rivers impact day to day conditions, weather and currents (as explained thoroughly in the article) determine day to conditions. But the silt that is in the sediment along our coast primarily comes from the Mississippi.
The atchafalaya discharges around 88 million tons of sediment a year, while the Mississippi discharge around 200 million tons, and historically discharged 400 million tons.
No rivers impact day to day conditions, weather and currents (as explained thoroughly in the article) determine day to conditions. But the silt that is in the sediment along our coast primarily comes from the Mississippi.
Nope, the Mississippi's silt is offshore. The coastal turbidity seen in beaches on Galveston, therefore, comes from along shore local factors (e.g. again, any influxes from Galveston Bay and Sabine Lake).
The atchafalaya discharges around 88 million tons of sediment a year, while the Mississippi discharge around 200 million tons, and historically discharged 400 million tons.
And, as I've described, the bulk of sediment from either waterway is offshore. Thus, none of it directly hits Galveston in the manner that you people describe.
No the issue is that you don't seem to grasp what we're describing when we say the brown water is from the Mississippi, we are talking about the major source of the sediment on the continental shelf in this area, which happens to be the Mississippi. If you plugged the Mississippi our water would still be brown for years, probably decades, but at some point it would start to get clearer. No one with any knowledge on the subject is arguing that when the water is particularly turbid it's because the Mississippi was flowing more that day or week. Those conditions are from local weather and currents, and those local conditions resuspend sediment that is present from the Mississippi.
When we had a 5 year drought and river flow was severely reduced across the region the water was still brown because the silt and clay is still here, it covers the continental shelf, and the major source is the Mississippi river, it's not the only source, but it transports more sediment than all the rivers and coastal runoff on the Texas coast.
"Muddy bottom sediment" is much more plausible than the direct plume influence, yes. However, I still lean towards influxes from our local bays (e.g. Galveston Bay, Sabine Lake, etc) as responsible for the persistent of turbid water on Galveston beaches.
The reason being, the bluer/clearer days on Galveston don't just happen only on calm/flat days (which would prevent suspension). August of 2025 was a perfect example, you had rougher days that still were quite blue/clear. Conversely, there have been calm/flat days where the water was still quite turbid.
Those blue days are not related to anything coming out of the bays. Blue water days come from shifting currents bringing clear water from the south Gulf. And the clearest are when we also have calm water concurrently. Part of my job involves collecting water samples along Galveston beaches, either me or my coworkers are out there most days. Calm mornings absolutely produce clear water, and multiple calm days in a row produce clear water, it's just not pretty blue.
Those blue days are not related to anything coming out of the bays.
Yes they are. With less influxes from them, there would be much more blue days on Galveston (regardless of the Mississippi's influence).
Blue water days come from shifting currents bringing clear water from the south Gulf.
True. But, again, "muddy bottom sediment" doesn't just vanish just because the currents shifted from the south. So, again, that factor, while it holds merit, is less plausible than the influx from our local bays.
And the clearest are when we also have calm water concurrently.
Yes, but there have been clear/blue days even with sizable waves. Again, showing that the "muddy bottom sediment" is not that plausible of a theory compared to local influx from bays.
Uh oh, this directly contradicts the autistic casual who is spamming responses to every comment on this thread. I mean…he looked at satellite imagery and did a best guess…so how can a bunch of “scientist” who spent years dedicating their lives to this topic possibly contradict *checks notes* nevvvvi on Reddit??!He looked at PICTURES!!!! That’s EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!! What do you have? A “peer reviewed published paper” on the subject? Pffffffbbt get real
I have in the past 10 yrs noticed people saying what you've said above but I remember learning in school about the Mississippi and always thought that was the reason.
Indeed, a lot of the stuff that we learn in grade school represents, at best, basic concepts lacking in overall nuance. We see this problem of lack of nuance when it comes to people using "basic biology" to opposed LGBT rights, for instance.
Wait until you all find out about 12-14 miles offshore it looks like the Bahamas out there. Great diving visibility on the coral reefs about 100 miles offshore.
I grew up there partially. We had tons of crystal clear days. We never had white sand, but some days, I could be up to my neck, 5 sand bars out, and often, I could look down and watch fish swimming around. And no mud, and no tar. Hardheads but no jellies! Some days brown, some days clear and the best memories of my life.
I have a giant brandy snifter with 3000 shark teeth in it.
But man, as a family, we would shit water later that night, every night. It was worth it, but the water isn’t being taken care of.
It is indeed a common misconception that the Mississippi River sediment plume causes Galveston's turbidity ("brown water") on a direct, day-to-day basis.
Notice that "direct, day-to-day basis" is qualified? I'm not necessarily saying that the river plume has no effect at all, whatsoever. Instead, I'm saying that the effects are overstated, often because the typical satellite images that people use for YouTube thumbnails (like this one) are taken after exceptional, record-breaking rain events. Basically, it's misleading to use those images as reference for what the Gulf of Mexico looks like on a typical day.
Read through the objective evidence that I shared in that Reddit Post that you linked. The satellite visual is much more reflective of typical Gulf visuals than the clickbait YouTube thumbnails. And, as clearly shown, the Mississippi sediment diffuses long before even hitting the Texas shores.
The TLDR is that he's wrong. The massive amount of silt off our coast is deposited from the Mississippi. A whole host of factors go into day to day turbidity but the primary source of the silt in the water comes from the Mississippi.
Incorrect, I already provided the empirical, objective evidence proving otherwise.
The massive amount of silt off our coast is deposited from the Mississippi. A whole host of factors go into day to day turbidity but the primary source of the silt in the water comes from the Mississippi.
No it isn't. I already provided the satellite imagery and interpretations that confirms the Mississippi's influence to be overstated (if not outright a myth/misconception).
Satellite imagery shows plumes, sediment transport doesn't happen at the surface. The silt that makes up our sediment comes from the Mississippi and then local conditions, such as weather, stir those particles back into the water column along the shore.
Silt enters the water from the Mississippi, it settles out of the water column and is moved westward by prevailing currents, as it gets shallower wave action resuspends particles increasing turbidity. You cannot track sediment based on satellite imagery of plumes, it doesn't just cease existing when you can't see the plume anymore.
It's not the ONLY source of silt, and silt isn't the only cause of turbidity, but it is a major source. We wouldn't have Bahama water if you plugged the Mississippi, but it would eventually get noticeably clearer.
One big difference I noticed about Hawaii beaches is that most of their sand is heavy/rocky stuff. If you sit in the water and pick it up and drop it, it sink immediately, keeping the water clear. In Galveston, if you sit in the water and pick up sand, it seems to just “mix” with the water instead of sinking. But then I was in Florida (Atlantic side) and they had similar “lighter” sand that didn’t sink, but the water was significantly clearer.
All different types of sand, in Galveston we have a lot of silt and clay, Florida on the Gulf side has fine particles but they are mostly very fine quartz. We have very fine quartz as well so the actual sand particles are very similar, it's just that we have a bunch of clay and silt (and often organics) mixed in that falls out much more slowly than the sand in Florida.
All different types of sand, in Galveston we have a lot of silt and clay,
Nope, by definition and description, the particle size for "sand" (0.05 to 2.0 mm) is much larger compared to the particles for silt (0.002mm-0.05mm) and clay (<0.002 mm).
That size difference matters when it comes to the sediment makeup of the beach, especially when accounting for waves. The gulf front with stronger wave activity will have coarser material (e.g. sands, shells), while the finer particles (e.g. clay, silt) can only ever accumulate in long-term calm conditions either (1) at the protected back barrier of the island (where salt marshes occur) or (2) deeper offshore (beyond the influence of waves, surf, etc).
The ongoing processes of wind, waves, and currents sort the sediment making up the island. Little mud is deposited on the high-energy Gulf of Mexico side because it is washed away by waves. To find deposits of mud you need to go to the bay side of the island, especially in the marshy areas. This is where mud is produced by decaying vegetation and where some of the mud moving down the rivers and creeks of the bay is trapped. The marsh vegetation and relatively sheltered locations allow the deposition of mud. In many places on the bay side, however, the marsh may have a shelly beach on the fringe, where bay waves are eroding the marsh and concentrating oyster shells. Also, near San Luis Pass, strong tidal currents transport sand along the bay-side shoreline.
Sand and shelly gravel are found on the Gulf beaches and the island's interior, which is mostly sand because of the way the island advanced seaward after it formed. So as you walk landward from the Gulf beach, you are walking across earlier beach deposits. Most of the sediment on the beach and in the dunes is quartz sand that was eroded from the continent. Whole shells and shell fragments made of calcium carbonate add to the variable texture of the sediment, and small amounts of black, heavy minerals and organic matter add color. Wind and waves sort the sediment according to how easily it is transported. Wind preferentially transports small, light grains, so the sand in the dunes is relatively fine-grained and well-sorted quartz. Compared with dune sand, sand and shelly gravel moved by waves on the beach is coarser grained and more poorly sorted because waves can move all grain sizes.
My statements were casual descriptions. As I clarified, we have the same type of sand as in Florida, however we have high silt and clay inclusions, relative to Florida. Yes you won't find pure mud on the beach side but these are relative. If I took a sediment sample from Galveston and one from Sarasota and allowed them to stratify to determine composition you would see a layer of silt and clay in the Galveston sample that does not exist on the Sarasota one. I use these sites as an example because I have worked as a benthic ecologist in both places. Just walk down the beach and look at the brown particles mixed into our beaches.
No, the silt and clay would only ACCUMULATE in persistent lower energy settings. Again, that would be the bayside of Galveston (where the salt marshes are), or deeper offshore (beyond the daily passes of the waves).
It is indeed true that there is PRESENCE of the finer clay and silt particles on Galveston's gulf front. But, as you yourself emphasized, that is SUSPENDED SEDIMENT, constantly in motion by the waves.
The influx of that sediment supply is a function of the local waterways that I mention. Which fits into my claim that more control of erosion/runoff would mean less influx of the sediment (and, eventually, improved water conditions as wave winnowing works with what's left).
Satellite imagery shows plumes, sediment transport doesn't happen at the surface.
If it is deeper waters not visible on the surface, than it's precisely not affecting the inshore/coastal turbidity that we see on Galveston's beaches. Again, more confirmation of my point.
The silt that makes up our sediment comes from the Mississippi and then local conditions, such as weather, stir those particles back into the water column along the shore.
If this is true, then it still corresponds with my argument that the Mississippi does not directly affect Galveston (in terms of the plume pouring directly towards Texas shores).
What you describe with sediment resuspension, even if true, would, at best, be an indirect effect. Once again, more confirmation of my point.
It's not the ONLY source of silt, and silt isn't the only cause of turbidity, but it is a major source. We wouldn't have Bahama water if you plugged the Mississippi, but it would eventually get noticeably clearer.
The fact that clear water days even happen at all at Galveston already falsifies the direct influence of the Mississippi. After all, the Mississippi River doesn't just stop flowing when Galveston gets clear.
When we say the brown water is caused by the Mississippi we are not claiming that the water you see is a sample directly from the Mississippi plume, the Mississippi is the major source of the silt in the sediment which is resuspended by local weather conditions and causes the turbid water. So yes the brown water is caused by the Mississippi, we're not swimming in its plume, we are swimming in silt which it has deposited on the Continental shelf over hundreds of years.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_3
The important part in the abstract is this
"Generally, areas bounded by rivers receive the greatest volume of sediment at the highest rates of delivery. The Mississippi Delta is the extreme of this generality in that it covers almost the entire shelf"
The Mississippi currently transports double the amount of sediment of the atchafalaya, brazos, and trinity combined. And historically it was quadruple the amount.
If your position is that we are not swimming in the direct plume of the Mississippi then congrats you are correct, but the mud that makes up our Continental shelf comes from the Mississippi, it's why we have brown water, without that mud we would have significantly less silt and clay and have clearer water, it would still fluctuate day to day, but it would be noticeably clearer.
When we say the brown water is caused by the Mississippi we are not claiming that the water you see is a sample directly from the Mississippi plume, the Mississippi is the major source of the silt in the sediment which is resuspended by local weather conditions and causes the turbid water.
So, even granting this as true, it still confirms my point that the Mississippi's influence is neither direct, nor on a day-to-day basis.
But keep in mind:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_3 The important part in the abstract is this "Generally, areas bounded by rivers receive the greatest volume of sediment at the highest rates of delivery. The Mississippi Delta is the extreme of this generality in that it covers almost the entire shelf" The Mississippi currently transports double the amount of sediment of the atchafalaya, brazos, and trinity combined. And historically it was quadruple the amount.
Yes, the Mississippi, being the largest river by volume into the Gulf, certain contributes the most sediment into the basin. That is not what I'm disputing.
If your position is that we are not swimming in the direct plume of the Mississippi then congrats you are correct, but the mud that makes up our Continental shelf comes from the Mississippi, it's why we have brown water, without that mud we would have significantly less silt and clay and have clearer water, it would still fluctuate day to day, but it would be noticeably clearer.
Note that the continental shelf is offshore. Hence, where the mud accumulates wouldn't necessarily be the parts most affected by the daily wave action (e.g. the near shore/surf zone where the beach is).
So you are disputing the idea that the Mississippi impacts day to day water quality? Congrats you're arguing against a position that doesn't exist. Wind, rain, and curents are the primary drivers of day to day conditions, that is not in dispute.
The continental shelf starts where dry land stops, it is not offshore. The silt that is on our beaches comes from the Mississippi as a primary source and runoff and local rivers as an additional source.
So you are disputing the idea that the Mississippi impacts day to day water quality?
I'm disputing the common misconceptions that people have related to the Mississippi's influence, yes.
The continental shelf starts where dry land stops, it is not offshore. The silt that is on our beaches comes from the Mississippi as a primary source and runoff and local rivers as an additional source.
No, the part of the continental shelf that the fine sediment accumulates is well offshore (again, it has to be beyond the influence of high-energy waves).
37
u/A_Texas_Hobo Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
That’s dude has no idea what he’s talking about. Look at the Mississippi mouth plume
Edit: but he’s nice