The Future Mississippi: A “Gardened” Landscape?
This is more or less the vision put forth by John Anfinson a couple of weeks ago at his talk inaugurating the John E,. Sawyer Seminar at the University of Minnesota. Anfinson, superintendent at the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and a historian by training, led the audience through three eras in the human manipulation of the river’s biological and physical systems. He argued that the river’s future, in the face of a changing climate and threats such as invasive carp and other species, will see us managing the river’s systems “constantly and indefinitely.”
The video of Anfinson’s talk and the robust question session is available here.
Anfinson offers a provocative vision, one that may not sit all that well with advocates who argue for “restoration” of the river’s biological and physical systems. Literal restoration, of course, is not possible for many reasons; is there a term that better, more precisely, expresses the goals of preserving systems more or less intact and functioning?
I think another important point from Anfinson’s talk is more subtle. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we could somehow obtain all the scientific data on the Mississippi River that we wanted, and that federal and state policymakers were willing to make the river a national priority. Then what? How would we find a way to navigate among the multiple competing, overlapping, sometimes conflicting interests on the river? If Anfinson is right, as I believe he is, that the river cannot be “all things to all people,” then how do we figure out which “things” it will be, and for which people?
Here is where a deeply humanistic study of the river is critically important. What is it that people have said about their relationships with the river, and how have those been expressed? How have they changed over time? Whose voices and visions have been heard, and whose have not been? The study of history, literature, art history, religion, landscape architecture, and related disciplines that are grounded in the nuanced study of what makes people deeply human–the humanities–is necessary to uncover those vital insights and perspectives.
We know a great deal about the Mississippi River from the perspectives of multiple sciences and policy perspectives. But those views cannot tell us what we want, or what we ought to want, and for that reason science and policy will forever be necessary but not sufficient for understanding the river’s future.