There are a multitude of present and coming threats to the human population’s water resources. The term ‘water crisis’ is used in the blog post ‘ “Business as Usual” Deepens World Water Crisis’ in a way that could be misconstrued. Analysis should be done to this phrase to determine the author’s meaning and how it could be taken differently, thus changing the meaning of the article.
A crisis can be interpreted in two different ways. It is defined in a general sense as either ‘a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events is determined’, or ‘a condition of instability or danger leading to a decisive change’. These are clearly very different ways to interpret the author’s meaning of ‘water crisis’, as one as clearly negative, and one can turn out better worse, ie is not always negative.
In this blog post, the view that is taken is that for the human population, a drop in fresh water resources and an increase in demand will result, or is presently resulting in disastrous consequences especially for populations living in poverty. The second definition is most likely the one meant by the author. A water crisis is a period of instability involving freshwater resources that leads to a lowered availability of clean, fresh water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial use.
The term could be misconstrued by someone reading the article with another view on what a ‘water crisis’ is. If crisis was interpreted to mean merely turning point, at which the trend of future events will be decided, it is uncertain as to whether or not disastrous consequences or instability will result. The negative aspect of crisis is implied by the author, but it may be ambiguous to some readers.
Another way to look at the positive or negative effects of the term ‘water crisis’ is to analyze to whom the effects will occur. The author takes a very human-biased view of the matter, and so states that it is indeed a negative occurrence. However, many of the things stated as worrying factors in the article, such as lack of freshwater for industrial and agricultural uses are purely worrying for humans, and not for other species of ecosystems (though human use clearly affects availability for other species’ as well)
In conclusion, the term ‘water crisis’ can be misconstrued or interpreted ambiguously in a few ways, but the author is relatively clear on what she means by it. If it is in relevance to humans (as in the author’s view), than surely a lack of fresh water ability is indeed a dangerous condition.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Hoover Dam To Run Dry
Water in the Colorado River has been decreasing over the past years, to prevent further water loss, the citizens need to reduce their water use as a whole. This article talks in detail about the long term effects of the water being held by the Hoover Dam and the shortages of water that are expected to come. In the article, the author uses some phrases and words that may be misunderstood.
The article asks the question, “Can the river deliver water at the levels currently scheduled if the climate changes as we expect it to. The answer is no.” in this question, there are a lot of variables that are unclear. It talks about the water levels being currently scheduled, but the water levels change so much and it is so hard to predict exactly how much it is going to rain in the coming year, so it would be tough to really answer this question.
Another quote that is difficult to understand in this article is “People have talked for 30 years about the Colorado being oversubscribed but no one ever put a date on it or an amount.” In this quote, it is very unclear who the people are who have been saying this, also it’s uses the word oversubscribed out of context making it difficult to understand. From this quote it seems like you have to have a subscription in order to get the water, this is a totally weird concept and makes the sentence very confusing.
In this article, there are a few parts, in which the author will say something and understand what he or she means, but when someone else read it, it is unclear and may be misunderstood.
University of California - San Diego (2009, April 27). Climate Change Means Shortfalls In Colorado River Water Deliveries. Science Daily. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182203.htm
The article asks the question, “Can the river deliver water at the levels currently scheduled if the climate changes as we expect it to. The answer is no.” in this question, there are a lot of variables that are unclear. It talks about the water levels being currently scheduled, but the water levels change so much and it is so hard to predict exactly how much it is going to rain in the coming year, so it would be tough to really answer this question.
Another quote that is difficult to understand in this article is “People have talked for 30 years about the Colorado being oversubscribed but no one ever put a date on it or an amount.” In this quote, it is very unclear who the people are who have been saying this, also it’s uses the word oversubscribed out of context making it difficult to understand. From this quote it seems like you have to have a subscription in order to get the water, this is a totally weird concept and makes the sentence very confusing.
In this article, there are a few parts, in which the author will say something and understand what he or she means, but when someone else read it, it is unclear and may be misunderstood.
University of California - San Diego (2009, April 27). Climate Change Means Shortfalls In Colorado River Water Deliveries. Science Daily. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182203.htm
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Maybe Save Lake Ontario, don’t eat lettuce
By Samantha Zaluski
In the article “Water Crisis Ends! Summing Up What Happened...” Mr. Heimbuch’s main point is that everyone needs to conserve water to help with global water shortages. The author says, “Learning more about water issues is vital to the conservation effort.”(Heimbuch, 2009) Conservation is to conserve, which is defined as “to use or manage (natural resources) wisely” (dictionary.com). Effort is defined as “an earnest or strenuous attempt”(Dictionary.com). These two definitions would lead you to believe that conservation effort is a sincere undertaking of knowledgeably managing one's consumption of water.
Mr. Heimbuch never defines what he means by conservation efforts and only instead gives examples. His first example is that we should know the amount of water it takes to produce the items that we buy, such as a pair of jeans. His second example is to know the amount of water used in making our food. Both these examples might lead you to believe that just by knowing how much water is used to produce your food or consumer products, you will be conserving water. This is false, since managing consumption requires not only knowing the amount of water used in production of your food or products, but then also being able to assess the relative benefits and risks of making different choices. If it takes a litre of water to grow a medium apple and 5 litres to produce a banana of similar weight, should we never eat bananas? Also, does it not matter how far the fruit had to travel to our homes? What other factors might need to be weighed? What if by having a shower every other day instead of every day you save 60 litres of water? His final statement on water conservation is that we cut back on water consumption. Once again, cutting back is not truly conserving, since managing implies determining all alternatives and making a long-term plan.
Well thought out, effective conservation is a difficult and complex endeavour. It requires a great deal of understanding between the relative benefits of our consumer choices and the water consumption choices in our home. By not fully exploring the complex and difficult nature of truly managing water resources, readers of this article might be mislead into believing that by choosing to eat lettuce instead of beef, they can help poor, drought stricken East Indians. If only it were so simple!
References:
"conserve." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 28 Oct. 2009.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conserve
"effort." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 28 Oct. 2009.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effort
Heimbuch, Jaymi. “Water Crisis Ends! Summing Up What Happened...”. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (water). San Francisco, California. 06.30.09. Accesses October 26, 2009
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/water-crisis-ends-summing-up-what-happened.php
Changes in the Great Lakes
by Laura Van Vliet
The article, “Greatest of Lakes Hit by Climate Change” by Adrianne Appel, discusses the recent changes in the Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. The article, which generally clearly describes the causes for the severe changes in the lake ecosystems, is sometimes ambiguous in its use of language, detracting from the value of the argument.
One ambiguous phrase used by Appel is “profound environmental stress” (Appel, 2009), when referring to the condition of the lakes. It is unclear what the true definition of “environmental stress” really is. The main definition of stress, in the biological sense, refers to external factor(s) which is causes the ecosystem (in this instance) to act in response, changing (Dictionary.com, 2009). However, stress can be viewed positively or negatively, as can change. After all, the theory of evolution depends mainly upon the positive effects of change and environmental stress. While there is the possibility that the author is referring to positive change and stress, it is fitting with the tone of article that stress and change are depicted as negative.
A second ambiguous expression used in Appel’s article is the description of the “ailing Great Lakes” (Appel, 2009). This is not ambiguous in what it implies – illness, death, and danger – but in the idea to which it is being applied. The “Great Lakes” encompasses as vast network of organisms, species, food webs, and ecosystems. While the static states of these ecosystems are not being preserved, one cannot necessarily decide this indicates a loss of good health and is a negative incident. Change is not necessarily bad. For example, many species – such as the algae focused on in the beginning of the article whose population is exploding – certainly benefit from the “ailing” health of the Great Lakes. While other species may decline in population, and this may be the overall trend, is this automatically harmful? Nothing remains in static equilibrium; even through our own knowledge of the history of living things this can be seen. With this in mind, we must decide if the “Great Lakes”, a term which begs clarification for the reasons outlined above, can be said to be “ailing” and be unambiguously understood.
However, it can be assumed, because of the general nature of this article, what is meant by the above phrase. What Appel attempts to discuss, I believe, is the overall health of ecosystems of the Great Lakes, analysing it by comparing the present state of the ecosystem to the previous state of the ecosystem. In this sense, if the drastic changes which have occurred are viewed negatively, it could be said that the ecosystem is “ailing”.
While the clarification of the above phrases would strengthen Appel’s argument, I recognize that this is not always feasible. An article aimed at the general public is meant to attract attention, not go through a detailed analysis of every ambiguous term. Overall, this article presents a convincing view of the changing water quality and ecosystems of the Great Lakes.
References
Appel, Adrianne. ENVIRONMENT-US: Greatest of Lakes Hit by Climate Change. 22 October 2009. Accessed on: 26 October 2009. Available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48956
Dictionary.com. 2009. Stress. Accessed on: 26 October 2009. Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stress
The article, “Greatest of Lakes Hit by Climate Change” by Adrianne Appel, discusses the recent changes in the Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes. The article, which generally clearly describes the causes for the severe changes in the lake ecosystems, is sometimes ambiguous in its use of language, detracting from the value of the argument.
One ambiguous phrase used by Appel is “profound environmental stress” (Appel, 2009), when referring to the condition of the lakes. It is unclear what the true definition of “environmental stress” really is. The main definition of stress, in the biological sense, refers to external factor(s) which is causes the ecosystem (in this instance) to act in response, changing (Dictionary.com, 2009). However, stress can be viewed positively or negatively, as can change. After all, the theory of evolution depends mainly upon the positive effects of change and environmental stress. While there is the possibility that the author is referring to positive change and stress, it is fitting with the tone of article that stress and change are depicted as negative.
A second ambiguous expression used in Appel’s article is the description of the “ailing Great Lakes” (Appel, 2009). This is not ambiguous in what it implies – illness, death, and danger – but in the idea to which it is being applied. The “Great Lakes” encompasses as vast network of organisms, species, food webs, and ecosystems. While the static states of these ecosystems are not being preserved, one cannot necessarily decide this indicates a loss of good health and is a negative incident. Change is not necessarily bad. For example, many species – such as the algae focused on in the beginning of the article whose population is exploding – certainly benefit from the “ailing” health of the Great Lakes. While other species may decline in population, and this may be the overall trend, is this automatically harmful? Nothing remains in static equilibrium; even through our own knowledge of the history of living things this can be seen. With this in mind, we must decide if the “Great Lakes”, a term which begs clarification for the reasons outlined above, can be said to be “ailing” and be unambiguously understood.
However, it can be assumed, because of the general nature of this article, what is meant by the above phrase. What Appel attempts to discuss, I believe, is the overall health of ecosystems of the Great Lakes, analysing it by comparing the present state of the ecosystem to the previous state of the ecosystem. In this sense, if the drastic changes which have occurred are viewed negatively, it could be said that the ecosystem is “ailing”.
While the clarification of the above phrases would strengthen Appel’s argument, I recognize that this is not always feasible. An article aimed at the general public is meant to attract attention, not go through a detailed analysis of every ambiguous term. Overall, this article presents a convincing view of the changing water quality and ecosystems of the Great Lakes.
References
Appel, Adrianne. ENVIRONMENT-US: Greatest of Lakes Hit by Climate Change. 22 October 2009. Accessed on: 26 October 2009. Available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48956
Dictionary.com. 2009. Stress. Accessed on: 26 October 2009. Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stress
Water distrubution!
In the The Jerusalem Post the article tittled “Water Authority: Amnesty Didn’t Consult Us Over Critical report” written by Ehud Zion Waldoks provides a few points that required the use of conceptual analysis. The Israel and Palestinian governments are having difficulties dividing up the water resource that are shared between their land. Due to this concern, both the Water Authority and Amnesty International were involved in the debate. Here are a few points I would like to highlight the idea of conceptual analysis:
“Revoke all outstanding orders for demolitions and prohibit further demolitions of water facilities” (Waldoks, 2009)
The phrase above taken from the article is the final recommendations the Amnesty International suggests. The keyword that is of focus is: Demolitions. By using this word I think the Amnesty reporter is referring to the illegal wells and pollution that the Palestinians cause damage to. However in another perspective the word could also refer to the continuous debate the two counties (Israel and Palestine) are having over the water. Due to this the problem it must come to an agreement so future arguments will not occur. As you can see the word can have two different meanings all together; the word demolition in general means explosives. This can cause misunderstanding to the meaning of the phrase, since no explosives or weapons were mentioned in the article.
The second term that conceptual analysis is required is: Outstanding orders. The Amnesty reporter could have meant a few things. The first meaning of what the reporter is trying to convey is that both groups (Israel and Palestine) have disagreements and need to be worked towards an agreement. For this reason the reporter has referred to it as outstanding orders seeing as the agreement is the first step towards any change between the two groups. Another meaning the reporter could be relating is the actions taken by the Palestinians to illegally obtain water. This term could also be misunderstood because in the context of the phrase it does not say what is outstanding. There could be many outstanding issues between the two groups. When using the term outstanding the phrase could refer to anything of importance that is occurring. Since the phrase does not refer to anything important it could be easily misunderstood.
The idea of a conceptual analysis is the understanding that if a certain condition is not met it can affect the condition that is being applied to be applied improperly or perhaps misunderstood. However if the condition is met, the condition will be applied with clarity. Just like the example that was chosen, the condition was that: all outstanding orders must be demolished. Without understanding what the reporters definition of those words can lead to confusion or misunderstanding of what he/she is attempting to do. Therefore conditions must be clearly constructed to define its meaning with words that may be misinterpreted.
Reference:
Waldoks, Ehud Z. "Water Authority blasts Amnesty on report." Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem Post. Web. 27 Oct. 2009..
“Revoke all outstanding orders for demolitions and prohibit further demolitions of water facilities” (Waldoks, 2009)
The phrase above taken from the article is the final recommendations the Amnesty International suggests. The keyword that is of focus is: Demolitions. By using this word I think the Amnesty reporter is referring to the illegal wells and pollution that the Palestinians cause damage to. However in another perspective the word could also refer to the continuous debate the two counties (Israel and Palestine) are having over the water. Due to this the problem it must come to an agreement so future arguments will not occur. As you can see the word can have two different meanings all together; the word demolition in general means explosives. This can cause misunderstanding to the meaning of the phrase, since no explosives or weapons were mentioned in the article.
The second term that conceptual analysis is required is: Outstanding orders. The Amnesty reporter could have meant a few things. The first meaning of what the reporter is trying to convey is that both groups (Israel and Palestine) have disagreements and need to be worked towards an agreement. For this reason the reporter has referred to it as outstanding orders seeing as the agreement is the first step towards any change between the two groups. Another meaning the reporter could be relating is the actions taken by the Palestinians to illegally obtain water. This term could also be misunderstood because in the context of the phrase it does not say what is outstanding. There could be many outstanding issues between the two groups. When using the term outstanding the phrase could refer to anything of importance that is occurring. Since the phrase does not refer to anything important it could be easily misunderstood.
The idea of a conceptual analysis is the understanding that if a certain condition is not met it can affect the condition that is being applied to be applied improperly or perhaps misunderstood. However if the condition is met, the condition will be applied with clarity. Just like the example that was chosen, the condition was that: all outstanding orders must be demolished. Without understanding what the reporters definition of those words can lead to confusion or misunderstanding of what he/she is attempting to do. Therefore conditions must be clearly constructed to define its meaning with words that may be misinterpreted.
Reference:
Waldoks, Ehud Z. "Water Authority blasts Amnesty on report." Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem Post. Web. 27 Oct. 2009.
Three Minutes
By Geneviève Lalonde
Venezuela is in serious danger. Their water supplies are abnormally low causing multiple power failures within the nation. According to President Chavez, “The low rainfall caused by the El Niño weather phenomenon meant water levels were critically low in the El guri reservoir, one of the world’s largest dams.” This is a strong and definitive statement, on his part.
On October 22 2009, the Globe and Mail published an article about the Venezuelan president urging the population to “shower in three minutes”. The article provides the background of this story. The nation is suffering from black outs due to a water shortage and they must change their habits or be affected by a national drought.
The article in the Globe and Mail is very conclusive. It gives a brief description of the issue and highlights, “No singing in the shower, three minutes is more than enough” in the words of President Chavez. He has called on Venezuelans to wash in three minutes because the water levels in hydroelectric dams are insufficient.
Chavez uses a “catchy” comment to emphasize the need for the population to conserve water, and a very clear analogy on why the water shortage exists. However, if we look into the meaning of these comments, do the two pieces really fit? Are there underlying issues that are being overlooked?
By analyzing the text, you can separate it into many pieces. President Chavez claims, “Low rainfall is caused by El Niño”. This is an overgeneralization, and just a reason to explain why he wants his citizens to conserve water.
The second statement, of showering for three minutes, also has little meaning. One person could use the same amount of water in three minutes that another may use in five. This is an odd way to discuss the control of water quantity.
The declaration that water levels are critically low in one of the world’s largest dams is likely not just an effect of El Nino, or how long the citizens of Venezuela are showering. The article hints that under spending and poor maintenance may have caused a loss of volume and retention capacity in the dam. In addition, water use by the population has never been properly regulated, which is a lack of initiative by the government. However, the strong quotations by Chavez “I shower for three minutes and I do not stink” overshadows these issues.
Chavez uses some powerful statements to influence his people, and avoids mentioning some of the shortfalls of his government. There are many reasons why there is a water shortage and a lack of electricity. When we see the headline that Venezuelans need to stop singing in the shower, the seriousness of this issue-is erased away.
References
Venezuelans urged to stop singing in shower to save water
Published in the Globe and Mail on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/venezuelans-urged-to-stop-singing-in-shower-to-save-water/article1333323/?service=email
The Return of the Aral Sea
The article, From Ecological Soviet-Era Ruin, a Sea Is Reborn, the author, Peter Leonard describes the effects of the disappearance of the Aral Sea on local fishing villages and ecosystems. The Aral Sea, located in Central Asia was the world’s fourth largest body of water until the nations around it became part of the Soviet Union. With their interest only in making money, they diverted the rivers that fed the sea, causing it to shrink to 10% of its original size. The sea is now slowly reverting back to hopefully, its original state.
In the article the author says, “Now fresh water was lapping at his boots, proclaiming an environmental miracle- the return of the Aral Sea”. The use of the phrase “environmental miracle” may lead to some discrepancy depending on how it is interpreted by the reader.
First of all, the phrase “environmental miracle” insinuates that the return of the sea was a spontaneous action and that no human assistance was required. A miracle is officially defined as an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin (dictionary.com). However, the slow rehabilitation of the Aral Sea is due to the environmental efforts of the Kazakhstan government. In 2001 the Kokaral dam was built to channel the water from one of the main rivers into the Kazakh section of the sea, rather than let the water flow further south were it would be wasted by other countries. The use of this phrase may mislead some readers into thinking that there was no human assistance.
Also, readers might misunderstand the use of the phrase “environmental miracle” because it leads readers to believe that the sea has reached its full potential and is the same as it was before it was drained. This is not the case at all. Even though efforts have been in place to reestablish the sea, there is still environmental degradation occurring. One section has shrunk by 80% in the last 3 years. It is a possibility that the sea will never be able to sustain an ecosystem again, and it most certainly will never be the same as it once was. Uzbekistan has decided to keep taking water from what is left of the Aral Sea for irrigation of cotton fields and will also continue to look for gas and oil under the exposed seabed, making it extremely unlikely that the sea will return to its full potential.
Therefore, it is seen that there are several ways that the reader could interpret the phrase “environmental miracle”. Perhaps the author chose this phrasing for emphasis- meaning that it is so incredible that this sea may be improved from its recent desert like state. However, if the countries that use the water don’t agree on an action plan, there will be no “environmental miracle”. If the countries implement laws about shared water usage and continue to revive the ecosystem, then there is potential for this “environmental miracle” to occur.
Leonard, P. (2009 Oct. 26). From Ecological Soviet-Era Ruin, a Sea Is Reborn. ABC News. Retrieved 2009 Oct 26 from,
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WireStory?id=8914467&page=1
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Flow of Canada's Rivers Threatened
A recently published study by the WWF has been reported in several news outlets, including the Vancouver Sun. According to the report, without ‘serious action’, Canada’s rivers may be facing serious threats. Demands on water flow have increased in proportion to energy demands, and city expansion.
The WWF is taking the side that without action taken, the rivers of Canada may fall into environmental degradation. Though they published a study, they are clearly an environmental rather than a scientific organization. Many people could argue about the scientific validity of WWF’s report, and therefore, the precautionary principle applies. Precautionary thinking requires some scientific uncertainty, and yet a desire to act to protect the environment (or whatever else one believes requires protection).
The point of view the WWF is arguing that even without full information, action must be taken now or else long term environmental harm could result. There are valid reasons for arguing the opposite way. One could say it would not be cost effective to act, as according to the article the WWF seems not to have suggested valid and economical ways to ‘fix’ the rivers.
I feel that precautionary is definitely a logical way to approach this issue. Fresh water is an invaluable resource in these dry days, and Canada is one of the richest in it. However, if we don’t protect our waters, it could mean not only economic but serious industrial, domestic, and environmental effects. Logical thinking is necessary in any case to sort out this issue.
References
De Souza, Mike. “Canadian rivers in trouble, study warns” (Oct 15, 2009) Canwest News Service. Accessed October 21 from http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canadian %20rivers%20trouble%20study%20warns/2104100/story.html
The WWF is taking the side that without action taken, the rivers of Canada may fall into environmental degradation. Though they published a study, they are clearly an environmental rather than a scientific organization. Many people could argue about the scientific validity of WWF’s report, and therefore, the precautionary principle applies. Precautionary thinking requires some scientific uncertainty, and yet a desire to act to protect the environment (or whatever else one believes requires protection).
The point of view the WWF is arguing that even without full information, action must be taken now or else long term environmental harm could result. There are valid reasons for arguing the opposite way. One could say it would not be cost effective to act, as according to the article the WWF seems not to have suggested valid and economical ways to ‘fix’ the rivers.
I feel that precautionary is definitely a logical way to approach this issue. Fresh water is an invaluable resource in these dry days, and Canada is one of the richest in it. However, if we don’t protect our waters, it could mean not only economic but serious industrial, domestic, and environmental effects. Logical thinking is necessary in any case to sort out this issue.
References
De Souza, Mike. “Canadian rivers in trouble, study warns” (Oct 15, 2009) Canwest News Service. Accessed October 21 from http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Canadian %20rivers%20trouble%20study%20warns/2104100/story.html
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Chlorine; Good or Bad?
The residence of Sherborn, have been very worried recently because their drinking wells have been contaminated by a coloform bacteria. The town said that the water is now clean but precautionary steps are still being taken to clean the water. This is an explicit use of the precautionary principle. The use of the precautionary principle in this case is very good. There was a risk of E-coli and fecal matter in the water, causing the Board of Selectmen to start adding chlorine to kill the bacteria. The Board is taking precautions because the bacteria in the water can possibly kill people or make them sick. By adding the chlorine to the water to kill the other bacteria, it is making the water safer to drink. However, the long term use of chlorine is not healthy to the human body or soil where it is used. Because the chlorine is so harmful, it will only be used for a small period of time and the ultraviolet lights, iron filters, and water softeners will be replaced. The precautionary principle is very good in this situation for both the people’s health and the economy of the town. If no action had been taken, people may have gotten sick and needed health care. This would cost the government money and they might have been sued. I think that using the precautionary principle here to chlorinate well water is a very good idea and I strongly agree.
Cronin, Jon. "Sherborn Selectmen deal with Woodhaven water woes." Wicked Local 21 Oct 2009, Print.
Cronin, Jon. "Sherborn Selectmen deal with Woodhaven water woes." Wicked Local 21 Oct 2009, Print.
Petitcodiac River Restoration: Keep your Fingers Crossed!
The Petitcodiac River system with a tidal bore that once flowed through Greater Moncton, to the Bay of Fundy is going to be revived and restored, or is it?
As broadcast on CBC News, the Province of New Brunswick plans to spend an initial $20 million on what is said to be "Canada’s biggest river restoration project ever". A recent publication from the local newspaper The Times and Transcript states that restoration will begin in the spring of 2010. In addition, it will require a bridge to replace the existing causeway, as well as erosion protection and remediation work.
This is great news for environmentalists. The causeway is said to have "choked" the river's tidal bore and blocked the passage of fish. "This is an environmental disaster that needs to be fixed." However, the causeway has existed since 1968, so it is unlikely that things are going to improve quickly.
If we apply precautionary thinking to this argument, many questions arise. How will the restoration affect lakeside communities and resources that have developed since 1968? Will the original Tidal bore return? If this project fails, could it cause drought in the region? These are key issues that need to be assessed. This is an expensive project. Where will the funding come from to complete it? One would hope that since it has taken so long to realize the river is in need of restoration, that many of these questions have been resolved.
References
By unknown, CBC news
July 8, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/07/08/nb-river.html
By Craig Babstock, Times and Transcript
September 26, 2009
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/804626
Petitcodiac Riverkeeper’s Third Annual List
January 31, 2005
http://www.petitcodiac.org/riverkeeper/english/Campaigns/News_Articles/list04.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)