5 ms·

"We thought we could engineer nature… huge mistake," the general manager of the Colorado River District says

jacquesm 4y ago
That's interesting. Here in NL that is also pretty much the attitude, and it so far seems to be working out reasonably well except that we get the occasional surprise. The latest large infrastructure project ("ruimte voor de rivier") is an unqualified success and has seen many other countries following the example. I think one big difference is that it all happens on a much smaller scale in a much more densely populated country. What happens 'upstream' outside of the borders of NL could well have massive effect.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  If by "Smaller Scale" you mean "17% of total land area"...
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    No, I mean that NL is simply much smaller than the US.
    - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
      Wouldn't the more reasonable comparison be America to the EU or CO to NL?
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        There isn't a transnational unified water management policy in the EU. It would be nice but unfortunately I don't think that will happen any time soon. There are various treaties for particular rivers though. For example: https://www.vnsc.eu/over-de-vnsc/scheldeverdragen-en-memoranda/ https://www.vnsc.eu/over-de-vnsc/scheldeverdragen-en-memoran...
        AlchemistCamp 4y ago
        It's similar in the US, AFIK. The Colorado River Compact was a treaty between nearby states that has nothing to do with the federal government.
- Denvercoder9 4y ago
  I wouldn't really consider "Ruimte voor de rivier" to be engineering nature in the way that's discussed in the article. Most of the projects were about removing human-made constraints on the rivers and giving it more land to flow freely.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That's literally what it means. "Space for the river". In the past NL tried to contain the rivers in smaller basins so there would be more land to build on, but this backfires when there is a lot of water at once (such as two years ago). It's engineering nature but this time in favor of nature, rather than in favor of the humans occupying the borders next to the rivers, which falls under 'watermanagement', which includes controlling the flow and the level of water throughout the country.
    - Denvercoder9 4y ago
      Ah yeah, you're right, I do agree; I misread which comment your original comment was a reply too.
- WkndTriathlete 4y ago
  Well, to be perfectly honest, well-engineered projects manage rivers in the US as well - e.g. the system of locks and dams all along the Mississippi courtesy of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The two big problems with the management of the Colorado River water are big disincentives not to lose legal water rights, resulting in farmers growing water-hungry crops in the desert just to preserve those rights; and water allocations that were larger than even optimistic Colorado River flow rates during a very wet season in the 1930s. In order to preserve the river basin and reservoirs, both of those issues have to be addressed, concurrently, and there are a lot of stakeholders that are going to be very angry about whatever solution is proposed to them (or imposed on them very soon, out of necessity, to keep the lights on.)
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Well, they might want to have their cake and eat it and find themselves without cake at all. That's mostly a matter of time at this point and irrigation for crops is secondary to drinking water.
    - Ekaros 4y ago
      On other hand moving people is much simpler than moving crop land... So why shouldn't the people be ones to move?
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Oh they will move. Just not voluntarily, but move they will. That's one of the biggest effects of all this climate stuff: people will end up displaced. Millions / year already.
- worik 4y ago
  I think the NL is a more civilised place. (Sorry Mid West USA, but if the cap fits....) People have been eking out a living, together, in those swampy lands for so long they have learnt much more than even they realise. In the Mid West USA the requirement for civilised behaviour (listening to reason, getting along with your neighbours, compromise) was much less.
hinkley 4y ago
But we can engineer nature. Beavers did it for tens of thousands of years before we showed up. There are groups experimenting with reestablishing beavers on tributaries of the Columbia river, with positive results. We really need to be doing these on the upper reaches of the Colorado.
- orionion 4y ago
  How much water does generating electric power waste? Or does the system suck everything dry?
  - Denvercoder9 4y ago
    Power generation doesn't generally waste water, it just extracts the potential energy from discharges that would've happened anyway.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      It does however increase the carbon footprint of the river. Submerging forests to create reservoirs has created huge methane releases that nobody who thinks hydro is green power wants to talk about. As someone living in the West, we have another reason to dislike dams: loss of salmon breeding grounds.
      - pvaldes 4y ago
        > loss of salmon breeding grounds. There are technology available to alleviate this problem. Not easy, but solvable
    - googlryas 4y ago
      The angel's share might account for a fair bit, most importantly if people are expecting water downstream. eg 20 kAF yearly at Lake Mojave with expectations in Mexico for the water.
- stirbot 4y ago
  you can build the largest reservoir in the world, but if water consumption and evaporation exceed precipitation in the watershed you're on borrowed time.
majormajor 4y ago
Seems like the problem is more "we thought we could do some stuff and then stop" while meanwhile adding a ton of population AND fucking with the atmosphere. We're gonna have to do a lot more engineering of SOME sort soon.
- xbar 4y ago
  If packing up and moving out of the Southwest is engineering, then I agree.
Aarostotle 4y ago
What a pessimistic view from the person managing the River District. How many people would the river basin have supported without damming and irrigation? Far fewer than 40M. In other words, the engineers clearly engineered nature and made it much more hospitable to human life in the arid West. Sounds like they might have overshot and can't meet tomorrow's demand, but even so, the status quo is certainly far superior to an un-engineered Colorado River Basin.
- voz_ 4y ago
  > but even so, the status quo is certainly far superior to an un-engineered Colorado River Basin. Making an uninhabitable area, habitable, at the cost of a total destruction of natural resources does not seem like its "far superior".
  - Aarostotle 4y ago
    That depends on your standard of value. Do you justify things in terms of human life? Conversely, is your standard that nature should be left untouched? As for me, I would say that flooding the valleys that are now Lake Mead and Lake Powell, enabling tens of millions of people to live, is worth far more than whichever critters and plants were displaced. Besides, the issue here is not "total destruction" it is over-allocation. We have not destroyed the Colorado River. Rather, it seems like we just have too much demand for its supply. Did I misread that?
    - voz_ 4y ago
      We have absolutely different perspectives here. I do not justify anything in terms of quantity of human life. The destruction of critters and wild plants to me is as painful as the destruction of human lives. Also, we rob future generations of that nature. > Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money. That quote is oft-posted, and cliche at this point, but it has a ring of truth to it. Life in an area that cannot sustain in long term (1000+ years?), in balance with nature, is not really life but an exploitation of the environment for short term gain. Why? Because what happens when, in your own (terribly chosen, btw) words, we run out of supply? What happens to those people? Do they die? or do they move on, like locusts, elsewhere? What's the endgame there?
icegreentea2 4y ago
I would love to know the quote's original context. I think that the manager was speaking specifically about the Central Arizona Project, in the context that the negative impact of the project was already predicted.
drewcoo 4y ago
That's what engineering means. "We thought we'd had smarter officials in place." - me

That's interesting. Here in NL that is also pretty much the attitude, and it so far seems to be working out reasonably well except that we get the occasional surprise. The latest large infrastructure project ("ruimte voor de rivier") is an unqualified success and has seen many other countries following the example. I think one big difference is that it all happens on a much smaller scale in a much more densely populated country. What happens 'upstream' outside of the borders of NL could well have massive effect.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
GauntletWizard 4y ago
If by "Smaller Scale" you mean "17% of total land area"...
- jacquesm 4y ago
  No, I mean that NL is simply much smaller than the US.
  - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
    Wouldn't the more reasonable comparison be America to the EU or CO to NL?
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      There isn't a transnational unified water management policy in the EU. It would be nice but unfortunately I don't think that will happen any time soon. There are various treaties for particular rivers though. For example: https://www.vnsc.eu/over-de-vnsc/scheldeverdragen-en-memoranda/ https://www.vnsc.eu/over-de-vnsc/scheldeverdragen-en-memoran...
      - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
        It's similar in the US, AFIK. The Colorado River Compact was a treaty between nearby states that has nothing to do with the federal government.
Denvercoder9 4y ago
I wouldn't really consider "Ruimte voor de rivier" to be engineering nature in the way that's discussed in the article. Most of the projects were about removing human-made constraints on the rivers and giving it more land to flow freely.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That's literally what it means. "Space for the river". In the past NL tried to contain the rivers in smaller basins so there would be more land to build on, but this backfires when there is a lot of water at once (such as two years ago). It's engineering nature but this time in favor of nature, rather than in favor of the humans occupying the borders next to the rivers, which falls under 'watermanagement', which includes controlling the flow and the level of water throughout the country.
  - Denvercoder9 4y ago
    Ah yeah, you're right, I do agree; I misread which comment your original comment was a reply too.
WkndTriathlete 4y ago
Well, to be perfectly honest, well-engineered projects manage rivers in the US as well - e.g. the system of locks and dams all along the Mississippi courtesy of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The two big problems with the management of the Colorado River water are big disincentives not to lose legal water rights, resulting in farmers growing water-hungry crops in the desert just to preserve those rights; and water allocations that were larger than even optimistic Colorado River flow rates during a very wet season in the 1930s. In order to preserve the river basin and reservoirs, both of those issues have to be addressed, concurrently, and there are a lot of stakeholders that are going to be very angry about whatever solution is proposed to them (or imposed on them very soon, out of necessity, to keep the lights on.)
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Well, they might want to have their cake and eat it and find themselves without cake at all. That's mostly a matter of time at this point and irrigation for crops is secondary to drinking water.
  - Ekaros 4y ago
    On other hand moving people is much simpler than moving crop land... So why shouldn't the people be ones to move?
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Oh they will move. Just not voluntarily, but move they will. That's one of the biggest effects of all this climate stuff: people will end up displaced. Millions / year already.
worik 4y ago
I think the NL is a more civilised place. (Sorry Mid West USA, but if the cap fits....) People have been eking out a living, together, in those swampy lands for so long they have learnt much more than even they realise. In the Mid West USA the requirement for civilised behaviour (listening to reason, getting along with your neighbours, compromise) was much less.

hinkley 4y ago

But we can engineer nature. Beavers did it for tens of thousands of years before we showed up. There are groups experimenting with reestablishing beavers on tributaries of the Columbia river, with positive results. We really need to be doing these on the upper reaches of the Colorado.

orionion 4y ago
How much water does generating electric power waste? Or does the system suck everything dry?
- Denvercoder9 4y ago
  Power generation doesn't generally waste water, it just extracts the potential energy from discharges that would've happened anyway.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    It does however increase the carbon footprint of the river. Submerging forests to create reservoirs has created huge methane releases that nobody who thinks hydro is green power wants to talk about. As someone living in the West, we have another reason to dislike dams: loss of salmon breeding grounds.
    - pvaldes 4y ago
      > loss of salmon breeding grounds. There are technology available to alleviate this problem. Not easy, but solvable
  - googlryas 4y ago
    The angel's share might account for a fair bit, most importantly if people are expecting water downstream. eg 20 kAF yearly at Lake Mojave with expectations in Mexico for the water.
stirbot 4y ago
you can build the largest reservoir in the world, but if water consumption and evaporation exceed precipitation in the watershed you're on borrowed time.

majormajor 4y ago

Seems like the problem is more "we thought we could do some stuff and then stop" while meanwhile adding a ton of population AND fucking with the atmosphere. We're gonna have to do a lot more engineering of SOME sort soon.

xbar 4y ago
If packing up and moving out of the Southwest is engineering, then I agree.

Aarostotle 4y ago

What a pessimistic view from the person managing the River District. How many people would the river basin have supported without damming and irrigation? Far fewer than 40M. In other words, the engineers clearly engineered nature and made it much more hospitable to human life in the arid West. Sounds like they might have overshot and can't meet tomorrow's demand, but even so, the status quo is certainly far superior to an un-engineered Colorado River Basin.

voz_ 4y ago
> but even so, the status quo is certainly far superior to an un-engineered Colorado River Basin. Making an uninhabitable area, habitable, at the cost of a total destruction of natural resources does not seem like its "far superior".
- Aarostotle 4y ago
  That depends on your standard of value. Do you justify things in terms of human life? Conversely, is your standard that nature should be left untouched? As for me, I would say that flooding the valleys that are now Lake Mead and Lake Powell, enabling tens of millions of people to live, is worth far more than whichever critters and plants were displaced. Besides, the issue here is not "total destruction" it is over-allocation. We have not destroyed the Colorado River. Rather, it seems like we just have too much demand for its supply. Did I misread that?
  - voz_ 4y ago
    We have absolutely different perspectives here. I do not justify anything in terms of quantity of human life. The destruction of critters and wild plants to me is as painful as the destruction of human lives. Also, we rob future generations of that nature. > Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money. That quote is oft-posted, and cliche at this point, but it has a ring of truth to it. Life in an area that cannot sustain in long term (1000+ years?), in balance with nature, is not really life but an exploitation of the environment for short term gain. Why? Because what happens when, in your own (terribly chosen, btw) words, we run out of supply? What happens to those people? Do they die? or do they move on, like locusts, elsewhere? What's the endgame there?

icegreentea2 4y ago

I would love to know the quote's original context. I think that the manager was speaking specifically about the Central Arizona Project, in the context that the negative impact of the project was already predicted.

drewcoo 4y ago

That's what engineering means. "We thought we'd had smarter officials in place." - me