It seems that if you are living in the United States you have to be making a conscious effort not to know about the events that have been transpiring in Ferguson, MO, or who Eric Garner is. If you’re not on social media much, or at all, you may not have heard of the #blacklivesmatter trope that is sweeping the country, both in physical as well as digital space.
#blacklivesmatter for those of us concerned with rivers, place-based thinking, and our shared environmental future. I won’t make the case fully or extensively today in this post, in part because I haven’t fully sorted it out myself and in part because there are many, many complicated threads involved. For some, the question of African-Americans and “the environment” is a question of raising environmental justice issues to the top of our agenda. For others, the primary concern is including African-American populations in the communities that we seek to engage with our programming. The Twitter account @Outdoorafro is part of some of the conversations, as is the planner Kristen Jeffers, who tweets at @blackurbanist. Serious inquiry into the issue has to take into account the work of Dr. Robert Bullard, the “father of environmental justice.”
Two recent blog posts highlight the fraught and complex relationships between African-Americans and the environmental community. Michael Brune, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, writes of his recent experience when the Sierra Club spoke out in solidarity with groups protesting the deaths of Eric Garner and others. Some commenters wrote back that the Sierra Club had no business becoming involved in these issues; Brune argues cogently that it does.
Writing in LA Observed, Jon Christensen summarizes Brune’s argument and extends it, pointing out the need for the “big green organizations” to diversify their membership, their employee ranks, and their boards of directors. To date, many but by no means all of them have. Christensen argues that when they do, and when the environmental movement looks a lot more like the population of the United States, that development will be very good for the environment, as well as for the people who care about that environment.
All of us who think about stories and the Mississippi River have to think about Mark Twain. Often that means an almost ritual citation of one of a half dozen or so passages, or a reference to the river as “Mark Twain’s river” as if it didn’t exist before he wrote about it. Of course it did, and it continues to exist, albeit with a host of meanings, only some of which are associated with his writing.
It’s that question of the river’s meaning that interests us in the “Making the Mississippi” seminar. Last week we spent a good deal of time talking through a perspective that the literary scholar T. S. McMillin raises in his book The Meaning of Rivers. McMillin concentrates on the chapters in Life on the Mississippi where young Sam Clemens begins his education as a pilot. The boy realizes that his previous understanding of the river, which was all bound up in romantic notions of freedom and faraway places was an “overlooking” of the material facts of the water. This idealized, abstract knowledge was worse than useless; it actively interfered with the knowledge that he had to develop to navigate a boat.
Unfortunately, on having learned his pilot’s trade, such that he could “read” the river going upstream or down, by day or by night, Clemens comes to realize that the romance of the river was lost. He no longer cared what the river means, or if it’s a passage to mysterious places; he only knows what he has to in order to get his steamboat around the next bend safely.
McMillin suggests, and I concur, that true river literacy comes at a point in between the two ends of the spectrum that young Clemens experienced. We have to know enough about how the river works to deal with it respectfully as a system in the “real world.” But we should never lose our awe at its power, its mystery, indeed, its magic.
So what is river literacy? Are there specific bits of knowledge, or perspectives, or points of view that are necessary for us to have a “literate citizenry” with regard to the Mississippi? What do we have to know to interact with the river in a way that is sustainable, inclusive, resilient, and healthy?
The Mississippi River corridor contains many places that are widely recognized as having national or international significance. But the stories of places where “ordinary” people have made their homes in proximity to the river are, often literally, overlooked.
This week, we begin a series of blog posts written by recent graduate Rachel Hines, an archaeologist who has conducted extensive study on the various “flats” communities along the Mississippi in the Twin Cities. These low-lying areas were subject to regular inundation by foul-smelling river water, and were sometimes threatened by bigger than usual floods. The people who lived in “Bohemian Flats,” “Little Italy,” “Swede Hollow” and comparable sites were often new immigrants living where land was cheap. In the mid part of the 20th century, these communities often were romanticized as they were destroyed, for various reasons.
But these communities bear closer examination, largely because they have been so easily romanticized and overlooked. Rachel’s series explores the coping strategies that communities developed as they lived in this proximity to a large body of moving water, as well as investigates what happened to these communities and these landscapes after the people left. By studying particular sites closely, and seeing their development through time in detail, we can gain a measure of insight into what the Mississippi has meant to the communities here.
The series “Living with the Mississippi” takes readers through Bohemian Flats, Little Italy/Upper Levee, West Side Flats, and Swede Hollow: Who was there? How did the community change through time? Why did the people leave and where did they go? What has the land become subsequently?
In some if not all cases, these places are central to the future riverfront planning in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Our series explores themes of place and memory, the river in relation to the communities through which it flows, continuities and differences in ways people have lived in proximity to the Mississippi, and how the river has had variable meanings and uses to different communities through time.
The Mississippi is an iconic, mythic place, as well as a water system of almost incomprehensible complexity. But it is also a location, a place that is central to understanding where we are and what we might imagine our future to be.
The blog series starts on December 4, and is available here and at the River Life blog.
Some of you may remember prepositions from, oh, say 7th grade grammar class. Prepositions are the small words like “with” “to” or “in” that express relations between two things. Little surprise, then, that last week’s John E. Sawyer discussion on “relational ontologies” ended up being a discussion about prepositions.
To over simplify, “relational ontologies” is a matter of arguing that the relationships between things are more important than the things themselves. So for example, there is a river, and there is a community of people. Both are definable in any number of ways. But the important thing is the nature of the relationship between them. Taken a bit further, the idea would extend to an argument that our best relationship with the river entails obligations on us and that the river has existence and merit and value on its own, whether we are here or not.
Important concepts, and, like many important ideas, sorta hard to get your mind around.
So let’s think about prepositions a bit.
Some advocacy groups say they “speak for the Mississippi River.” I guess that’s better than speaking “at” the river or speaking “in” the river. But does speaking for the river imply that it can’t speak for itself? Maybe it “speaks” when it floods, reminding us where its proper domain is?
If we are going to develop a way of living “with” the river in an appropriate way, what does that ask of us? Is living with the river like living with a person? Aldo Leopold has argued that harmony with land is like harmony with a friend: you can’t cherish one hand while cutting the other one off. Do we “love” the Mississippi by restricting it within levee floodwalls, bunching it up regularly behind dams, and dumping our trash into it? Do we express our love for it by alternately stifling it and putting it on a pedestal to worship?
One of the important contributions of humanistic thinking in the academy is to ask us to question things that we commonly take for granted. We might think more closely about our language for the river, and what that language expresses about what we think the river is, who we think “we” are, and what the right relationship is between us and the Mississippi.
I think we’d find that the relationships are more complicated than we think, and that despite easy derision (“of course the river doesn’t actually talk”) there’s more to our relationship with the Mississippi than meets the eye.
Last week I gave a talk at the convention of the Minnesota chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIAMN). The room was full and the audience was attentive, asking thoughtful, informed questions about the ways design in urban space can have an impact on water. I was pleased to give the talk and thank the AIAMN folks for offering me the platform.
I won’t go through the whole thing here–it was a 90 minute talk after all. The abbreviated version is that I used the Mississippi River corridor in the Twin Cities as a proxy for water in urban design, and encouraged the audience to think of water as more than an aesthetic dimension to the space they are shaping. An abundant supply of clean water will be integral to our urban future.
We also spent some time talking about the Mississippi River Critical Area Program, managed by the state Department of Natural Resources in an effort to protect multiple resource values associated with the urban Mississippi River. The present iteration of the program pays some attention to water quality, but I argued that we need a more robust way for planners, hydrologists, and designers to pool their collective talents.
I closed with some hopes/guesses about Minnesota’s water future. After all, that was the title of the talk they signed up to hear, right? I suggest that in Minnesota’s water future:
- We will design cities as if rivers and water really matter, and that in order to do this, water management will be an important part of every professional designer’s training;
- Actions such as throwing trash or pet leavings down storm sewers will be regarded as socially unacceptable, as will blowing/raking leaves or grass clippings into the gutter, where they wash down the storm sewers into the nearby water body;
- Events such as the rain storms we had here last June, which dropped record amounts of rainfall across most of the Twin Cities region, will be expected, and preparing for them will be part of civic planning and design, rather than aberrant emergencies that disrupt our lives and cost millions of dollars to clean up after;
- Children will know their watershed address, where their water comes from and where it goes after they have used it, in much the way they now know their street address and how to navigate their town to get to school.
I will add one additional point here, and that is to suggest that these concepts will be applicable to all children, in all parts of the city and region, not just a few who have particular advantages. It’s going to take all of us to manage our water future.
Sometimes it’s like that: there will be a series of stories coming through the Google Alert thread that pertain to our river subjects. Sometimes, of course, there’s a lot of news but it all pertains to bass tournaments and so forth, We aren’t (yet?) writing about bass tournaments.
In northeastern Wisconsin, a plan to build a transport system that will allow boats to bypass a closed lock is causing concern. Even though there are several steps proposed that would supposedly clean boats passing through the system, as described in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, many people are wondering who would be benefited and what the risks would be in bypassing the lock. Currently the lock separates waters from Lake Michigan from waters in the Lake Winnebago system, an important Wisconsin sport fishery. Invasive species of concern include the sea lamprey, round goby and quagga mussel.
Farther south, the Sierra Club’s Three Rivers Project will team up with American Waters and the 1Mississippi campaign for a river cleanup on Saturday November 22 (must be a lot warmer there than here!). The Three Rivers Project hosts the regional outreach assistant employed by the Mississippi River Network to develop the 1Mississippi campaign. The purpose of 1Mississippi is to recruit 20,000 River Citizens, people who are committed to taking action to improve the health of the Mississippi River. Full disclosure: we are in the process of working out the details to become the 1Mississippi host for the Minnesota-Wisconsin region.
Here in Minnesota, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial board argues that plans for the 130 acre Ford truck plant site in St. Paul should be visionary, modeling what a 21st century community can become. The site’s location on a bluff overlooking the Mississippi River is one of its prime assets, and while there is general agreement that the site can be a model for the direction riverfront development should take, concerns remain on what exactly that direction should look like. How much public green space is appropriate? How tall should the buildings be? What ongoing safeguards will be in place against the site’s polluted history? The devil’s in the details.
Finally, again from the Star Tribune, there is a story reporting that Minnesota farmers are using more barges to transport their crop this year than usual, owing to the heavy use of rail cars by the North Dakota oil fields. Navigation use of the Mississippi is a contentious issue, with well established talking points by the barge industry and commodity associations on one side and by large environmental groups on the other. Both are partly right, in a general way, but the debate really needs to become much more specific and detailed before it can be understood properly. This article does provide some good contextual details, although the usual platitudes in favor of navigation improvements are included as well. Still, worth a careful, thoughtful read.
For most folks, pairing the words “agency” and “rivers” will mean that we’re talking about the Corps of Engineers, or maybe a state Department of Natural Resources. There are many federal and state agencies that govern parts of the considerations we have for rivers, and most of us who have been at this for a while can rattle off the “alphabet soup” pretty quickly.
For academics, though, “agency” has a very specific philosophical meaning, associated with will, or maybe intent. To say that something has “agency” is to say, over-simply, that it can act. I would love to know what this meaning has to do with “government agencies” as a general term; maybe someone can enlighten me here?
The point is that our John E. Sawyer seminar discussion last week considered the question of “agency” and rivers in the context of the Anthropocene, that much-debated term for the global era that we may be in now, where human beings are fundamentally altering earth’s geological processes.
I’m not well-read enough, and didn’t take good enough notes, to fully capture the ins and outs of our full discussion. But here are some points that I think we made, in context of how they help us think about the Mississippi River:
- To ascribe “agency” to a geological feature of the earth, such as the Mississippi River, is to say that the said feature is not stable, unchanging, a fundamental unalterable “fact” on the ground. Rather, taken in a long time horizon, we have to see the Mississippi as a dynamic, almost living, thing. It moves, and will always move, in obedience to physical laws, such as gravity.
- To attempt to alter the river permanently, as so many of the Corps of Engineers structures do, is to attempt to “stop history,” an expensive and time consuming effort to interfere with physical laws and stop a river from doing what physical laws (its “agency”) dictates. As a friend of mine used to say “Dams are just long term experiments on rivers.”
- Acknowledging that the Mississippi River is highly dynamic, and responsive to physical laws, means that we shouldn’t be shocked when it acts according to those laws, whether in an instance of breaking through a levee and rewatering a floodplain, or moving its main channel to the present Atchafalaya corridor in Louisiana. Engineers will tell you there are only two kinds of levees: those that have failed, and those that have not yet failed.
- If the above three points are true, then perhaps disputes over the physical future of the Mississippi River and its floodplain, the fight about the New Madrid Levee for instance, ought to be regarded as a debate between people who recognize the inevitability of physical laws such as gravity and people who think humans can outsmart nature or build enough concrete to stop water from flowing downhill forever. This would certainly be a more honest debate than the way it’s framed now, as between “interest groups” such as “jobs vs the environment” or “ecology vs navigation.” In fact, projects that propose to permanently alter the Mississippi (or any other large river) are simply unconscionable hubris and, ultimately, doomed to fail.
We didn’t get that far in our philosophical, theoretical discussion last week but it would have been fun if we had.
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorialized this morning in support of Water Works Park, and for the most part got it right. This iteration of a design for the west end of the Stone Arch Bridge and the section of West River Parkway for a block or so on either side is pretty good. It gets the most important element of any design for this place–protecting the historic water management system that pulled Mississippi River water out of the channel to power the mills–right through excavating and highlighting those structures. It moves the proposed new building, which rightly provides amenities such as restrooms and food service, away from the river and immediate falls area. It solves, at least for a while, the traffic confusion that has bicyclists, walkers, joggers, car drivers, and wedding photographers all sharing the same space, with sometimes fractious results.
We still need to see how a plethora of details are going to get solved, such as what kind of vegetative cover will go where. I’m not sure the closing of the adjacent Upper St. Anthony Lock has been adequately accounted for (the material is long on marketing sizzle, and not as strong in contextual process as a wonk like me would like). But this is arguably one of the most historically significant acres in Minnesota, so taking the time to think it through extremely carefully is certainly warranted.
Next Wednesday, November 12, our friends at the National Center for Earth-Surface Dynamics will host their monthly Sip of Science session on the topic “Drying Out: The Future of Water in the West.” The drought in California and Arizona is pretty widely discussed, but Wednesday’s talk, from hydrologist Gordon Grant of the USDA Forest Service, will look at river basins in the Pacific Northwest.
As the NCED press release says:
A SIP OF SCIENCE – the 2nd Wednesday of every month
Drying out: the future of water in the West
Gordon Grant, USDA Forest Service
A SIP OF SCIENCE bridges the gap between science and culture in a setting that bridges the gap between brain and belly. Food, beer, and learning are on the menu in a happy hour forum that puts science in context through storytelling.
November 12th Event –
The noted sage Yogi Berra once said: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Despite this warning, it is clear that the availability and distribution of water will look very different in 50 years than it does today. While this is likely to be particularly true for regions where water is already scarce, such as the dry American Southwest, it’s also true for regions where water is currently abundant – such as Minnesota and the Pacific Northwest. This talk will focus on what we’ve learned over the past 15 years about where water is likely to be in the western U.S., what factors control its availability and likely changes in the future, and what we can do about it. Drawing on recent studies in hydrology and geology as well as large integrated assessments of river basins in the Pacific Northwest, this talk will explore the uncertain and at times paradoxical future of water in the West.
The talk takes place during happy hour at the Aster Cafe || Food and Drink Available for Purchase
ABOUT THIS MONTH’S SPEAKER
Gordon Grant is a Research Hydrologist with the USDA Forest Service at the Pacific Northwest Research Station in Corvallis, Oregon, and also Courtesy Professor in the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University He began his career with the research branch of the Forest Service in 1985 with the overarching goal of advancing understanding of how stream networks, watersheds, and entire landscapes respond to changes in streamflow, sediment transport, and wood entrainment. Over the course of his career he has studied diverse drivers of fluvial regimes, including responses to natural disturbances such as fire and volcanic eruptions, changes in forest land use, effects of dam construction or removal, river restoration, climate change, and the intrinsic evolution of geomorphic systems.
ABOUT A SIP OF SCIENCE
A SIP OF SCIENCE is a science happy hour sponsored by the National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics (NCED). It is a chance to hear about new and exciting research over beer, in a cool bar. Come talk with the experts about their efforts to address some of the Earth’s most pressing problems. NCED’s A SIP OF SCIENCE brings the wonder of science to happy hour.
Get more information at: http://www.nced.umn.edu/content/sip-science-0
Last week we posted a short summary and links to some of the key University of Minnesota departments, institutes and centers associated with the study of water. Today, we want to highlight one of our community partners, Mill City Times, which is a “go to” source for knowing what’s what on the Minneapolis Central Riverfront.
Anyone who has a serious, multidimensional interest in the future of the Mississippi River in Minneapolis needs to know what is taking place in the Central Riverfront. Here is where the Upper St. Anthony Lock will close in the next few months, and where a number of hydroelectric projects are in various stages of review. Very particular land use and design and planning decisions are being made here that will affect the perception, feel, and attractiveness of the public space at the city’s “front door” for decades to come. From the plans for “Waterworks Park” to neighborhood association meetings, Mill City Times has announcements of what’s upcoming and comments on what has happened recently.
Bookmark the site, subscribe to the newsletter, follow it on Facebook or Twitter; if you’re serious about knowing the central riverfront, you can’t afford not to know what’s being written about in the Mill City Times.