Peru is sponsoring a project to divert river water from one region to another by constructing a 12.5 mile long tunnel through a 6000 foot high mountain. Is this a crazy abuse of human power, or a wonderful use of our capabilities?
The tunnel is part of the Olmos-Tinajones Hydroelectric-Irrigation Project and will divert water from the Huancabamba River of Peru’s Cajamarca region to the neighboring region of Lambayeque. It will be completed by year’s end, and will irrigate approximately 150,000 hectares of land (~ 375,000 acres) and generate up to 600 MW of electricity.
Despite the obvious benefits this project will provide, in addition to an estimated 10,000 jobs, I think that there is something ridiculous about how far Peru’s government has decided to go to manipulate nature to meet human desires. For instance, how is this going to affect the Huancabamba River and its ecosystems? What about the land that is going to be converted to agriculture? Will significant habitat be altered for the worse ecologically? And what about the mountain?
There are obvious criticisms to my pro-nature perspective. Peru is an impoverished, developing nation and people need means to improve their livelihoods. Someone might also say that building such a huge tunnel is inspirational about what we as people can do to improve our lives. Or that perhaps the negative ecological impacts will not be so great as to merit concern.
Finally, there is perhaps another intriguing and more compelling idea: perhaps the project will create a new ecosystem with significant biodiversity. I doubt anyone would use this thought as rationale for the project and its benefits. But in recent years I have been surprised to learn that the Amazon Rainforest–one of the largest and most important ecological areas of the world– was perhaps transformed from something else to be what it is today in part because of human efforts.
In a 2007 article from the magazine Conservation, Fred Pierce explains the reasoning and evidence that suggests the Amazon Rainforest is not a “pristine” ecosystem. In what might be his most concise summary of this idea he writes that
what goes for the Amazon appears to be true for most other tropical rainforests. The primeval, virgin rainforest is a potent modern myth. But it may be just that. The truth is that, far from being virgin natural ecosystems, many rainforests, perhaps all, are complex artefacts. They are partly natural but partly also created by human activity, much of it constructive and beneficial to the wider forest. Rather than wilderness, they are abandoned gardens.
Without covering Pierce’s article in great detail, he explains that Amazonian peoples were dramatically altering landscapes to their own benefit for a considerable amount of time (not hard to believe). After their populations were decimated by the diseases brought by Europeans, their communities and transformations to the Amazon became less noticeable, despite being recorded in some accounts.
I doubt the Olmos-Tinajones Hydroelectric-Irrigation Project will be creating another Amazon Rainforest. But at least it’s always good to keep in mind that human interaction with the natural world is not always harmful– and can in fact be beneficial. Nonetheless, I think carving such a long mountain tunnel in Peru for the purposes of irrigation and electricity is an abuse of our power as stewards of the Earth.
Photo Credit: Mr. J Doe on Flickr under a Creative Commons license
* Please note, photo is not of the Peruvian project.
Has the author of this piece actually bothered to visit the project and see what is exactly happening, then he would find out that the river in entiretity is not being diverted.
People should research the facts before writing factless articles like this.
Dear John,
I’m sorry that you are not happy with the content of this piece. I don’t recall ever writing that the river was being diverted in entirety.
And, by the way, there are plenty of facts that are in this article. Another fact that you seem to have missed is that the website I write for is called EcoWorldly. We like to present perspectives about environmental news– and yes, we are generally pro-environment.
Also– since you seem to know so much about this project, why don’t you enlighten us with some “facts?” At least practice what your preach, John.
Don’t complain about poor research and lack of facts and then make wimpy assertions of your own.
I read your article and as a Peruvian I find it missleading, because you do not inform the readers the goegraphical nature of the area to be irrigated. In that context that it is very arid region that needs to be integrated to the overoll development of an Agro Export Indstry that will create tounsands of jobs and colateral activity in a very underdeveloped region of Peru. Who badly needs Investment to improve the living standards of the Peruvian who live now under the peverty line. Please reseach more and put all the factors for a better understanding of the Project. Thanks
The US destroyed the southern portion of the Colorado River for irrigation and electricity. What does EcoWorldly think of that?
Re: Peru Building Crazy Tunnel……
Mr. Novey,
A previous writer criticized your article and was sternly rebuffed by you. After reading your article and enjoying previous articles you have written I must conclude that this is one of the more poorly written and poorly researched pieces you have done. Even the title of the article suggests it came from a high school newspaper. I am a believer if fair, unbiased, balanced and quality reporting and this article possesses none of these. Quite importantly, your article does not state the portion of the river flow to be diverted. It does not state the amount of water the river carries nor does it discuss whether or not the river is to be dammed and then lake water diverted. Your main arguements seem to hinge on a valid point that we don’t know the ecological costs of such a project. Did you check into this? Did Peru do Environmental Impact Studies? Peru does have intelligent, modern methods too so I imagine they did. Your final statement is that you think that simply due to the length of the tunnel, it “is an abuse of our power as stewards of the Earth.” Exactly how did you come to this conclusion? What standards of measurement constituted “an abuse?” If the tunnel had been only 8 miles, would this have been OK with you? What about the 30+ mile long tunnel between Italy and Switzerland? What about the 30+ mile-long tunnel still under construction to bring water to New York City from upstate. Are these “abuses” too? At what point in the tunneling does it go from an abitious program to aid the impoverished farmers of the region to an abuse of our stewardship? I understand, embrace and value your work preserving the environment but this piece shrilly shrieks of wild-eyed tree-hugger goofiness that turns most readers off due to a lack of research and substance. Its simply an unsupported off the cuff opinion without merit until I see more proof and scientific study that conjecture on what could go wrong.
Does the author have any suggestions on how lift these people out of poverty, or how to control the overpopulation on the planet as a whole, which is the real reason for the project?
My concern about the project is the speculation that will eventually occour on the land, large companies will buy up the land and the people it was meant to benefit will sell out for a quick buck, and eventually stay in poverty working for measly wages.
Well I would not worry about this project in the big scheme of things. The History Channel is running a show called Life after People and the one common fact is once we are gone the world will return to nature and remove all signs we were ever here.
I’ve read this “article” three times. Your only points are that it’s a good idea than an envioromess. You need to cite studies and facts to prove your armchair point that it’s a bad idea instead of merely raising questions. Pathetic.
From what I red in more serious articles is that the region in which the water is diverted from is constantly flooded and is in fact an environmental problem. The land is too swanpy to farm. By Damming the river, they can create electricity and irrigate dry land on the other side of the mountain and stabilize the water table on both sides therefore allowing them to farm each side. The author should be thrilled that for once, the 12 miles tunnel is not drilled vertically to pump oil out of the ground.
Tree huggers always start with the idea that all humans are evil and are out to destroy earth. Sometime they aren’t !!!
We can see that under the mask of protecting nature, big countries with theirs supported NGOs, try to stop development of poor countries.
I do not believe any more in the good faith of most NGOs.
This proyect is very important for Peru development.
30 years ago nobody said nothing about how USA or european countries polluted the world, while developing theirs countries.
Levi, I am encouraged by the fact that; though you do not support the project…you do attempt to take a balanced view of it. Many times, when we are oppposed to something, we fail to even mention the possible benefits of it. By mentioning the benefits, including even a long term prospect that it can create a new ecosystem similar to the way “Terra Preta” came about in the Brazilian rainforest, you illustrate your wisdom.
I think that it is wonderful what the Peruvians are doing, myself. We are nearing a worldwide energy crisis that will make food crises even more severe as we look for ways to supplant oil and natural gas as our primary fuels. Not only is climate change a big reason to move away from these fuels; so is the fact that we only have so much of these precious resources left and it would be a crime and travesty against future generations to squander them all ourselves. This means that bio fuels will need to be more utilized to help supplement the other renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. This will mean that we will need more land area for crops. And this dam and tunnel can provide it.
Mr. Lamare, while I do not agree with the author’s ultimate conclusion; I take issue with your final statement, “Tree huggers always start…”. I support ACES, but believe that it is only a beginning. I am concerned about climate change, deforestation, and loosing endangered species. I would thus be called a “tree hugger” by many.
Having said that, I think the project is a noble and great one. The tunnel, by turning desert into cropland, can prevent the destruction of rainforests. It will also have a tiny positive impact on the level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere because the plants now growing will absorb some of the CO2 in the atmosphere, although not much because grasses and crops do not have as much of an impact on CO2 levels as trees and shrubs. But, farmers will inevitably plant trees and shrubs as protection against soil erosion. So even if the project as a whole has some negative effects on the environment, the net-environmental-effect will have been positive once this project is complete. I would also like to commend the author on his balance in writing this article by acknowledging that the project will have some benefits. To pretend that there will not be any negative impacts, as you like to do, is far worse than his being opposed to it after looiking at both the positives and the negatives. Projects do not have to be 100% positive in their effects to be worth doing; indeed, no project ever is. But as I said, I am happy the Peruvians are doing this. So, think again the next time you say, “Tree huggers ALWAYS start with the idea that all humans are evil and are out to destroy the earth.” As a “tree hugger”, myself, I take serious contention with that statement….
“We can see that under the mask of protecting nature, big countries with theirs supported NGOs, try to stop development of poor countries.
I do not believe any more in the good faith of most NGOs.” -
Alberto, you are way out of line, there. First off, as a proud American myself, I see the Peru project as having an overall positive impact on the environment…at least as to what means that would otherwise be happening. For example, without it…slash-and-burn agriculture would continue on the other side of the mountain at dangerous levels and lead to increased deforestation…destroying more habitats than the desert one that the project itself may change; leading to global warning; forcing some species into extinction, some of which may possibly be the cures for various diseases. The project will also provide power generation for part of the country, meaning they will not have to use sources which are more polluting.
I say this…as an American. So, be careful what you say about “big countries” and the people who live in them. As for NGOs, they often do not agree amongst themselves. For an example, take a look at the U.S. legislation ACES and the fact that, while the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund support it…Greenpeace opposes it because they do not feel that it goes far enough. NGOs do not collude; they cannot even agree on anything!
I would watch what I say, Alberto. As a proud American from one of the “big countries” you attack in your comments, I am a strong supporter of the project. That is because, if what would happen without it is at all considered in this debate, it becomes clear that the dam and tunnel is good for the environment overall. Without it, many poor farmers would continue slash-and-burn agriculture on the other side of the mountains. This would destroy more habitats and species than the project MAY end up destroying itself. Slash-and-burn agriculture also contributes to global warming, both from the standpoint of removing trees and shrubs as “CO2 scrubbers” and release of the Carbon stored up in those trees and shrubs. And to tell the farmers that they shouldn’t have land to grow crops on…that just isn’t a realistic approach. Anyone who tries to do so will just be ignored anyway.
I AM AN AMERICAN WHO REALIZES THESE FACTS, SO MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, YOU SHOULDN’T PAINT US ALL WITH SO BROAD A BRUSH!
Likewise, you shouldn’t paint all NGOs with such a broad brush. They can’t even agree on anything, much less collude with each other on anything. For an example of this, look no further than the U.S. legislation currently before Congress called ACES, American Clean Energy and Security Act. While the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund support the legislation because they realize that we have to start somewhere…Greenpeace is opposed to it because they do not think it goes far enough. So when it comes to both the people in developed countries, and to NGOs…don’t paint us with such a broad brush….
Mr. Rhodes,
I wouldn’t put too much stock in that History Channel program. I am not saying that the human race will go on in existence forever. I would argue, however, that the premise for that show is pretty ridiculous…even though I enjoy it as fiction. If the human race does not survive long enough to evolve into an entirely different species, it will not be because of anything that left buildings perfectly intact long enough for nature to take its course on those man-made structures.
If mankind does not survive long enough to evolve into a new species, it will be because of nuclear war; asteroid impact; Yellowstone erupting; a gamma ray burst; or, the most unlikely of the potential bringers of doom, a sentient extra-terrestrial invasion. In any of those events, man-made structures will be destroyed instantaneously. As for the other problems facing humanity, such as environmental catastrophies either natural or by our own hands; worldwide pandemics; etc., none have the potential to whipe out humanity in its entiretly…though they could end civilization as we know it. But there would still be people, so the premise of “Life After People” is pretty flawed. Of course, if your comments were tongue-and-cheek, I have really wasted my breath here….
I just finished watching the program “Build it Bigger” on the Science channel, regarding the Olmos Diversion Project, which described in great detail the efforts of the Peruvian government to move 500 billion gallons of water per year from the East side of the Andes mountains to the arid Western side.
The two main goals of this project are: first, and most obvious, to allow the Eastern side of Peru, which currently receives less than one inch of precipitation per year, to be cultivated, and two, to control the rampant flooding on the Eastern side.
While I agree with your concerns about altering the ecosystems of both sides, I cannot help but be impressed with the desire of the Peruvians to improve the lives of millions of their citizens by completing this project.
It brings to mind the efforts of the Chinese in the Three Rivers Gorge project, to control the flooding of the Yangtze that has plagued the Chinese for centuries, while at the same time providing electricity for a large part of the country.
It seems to be an innately human trait to alter the landscape to suit the needs of humanity, even if it negatively affects the ecosystem of the surrounding area. And, to be honest, it is hard to argue with the desire of these governments to save lives by controlling flooding, and to improve the lives of millions of people by providing cheap electricity to some of the poorest regions of the world.
By completing this project, nearly a third of a million acres of now dry, nearly empty desert can be transformed into a lush, green paradise, which will allow farmers to feed untold millions of people. Also, this will create a new ecosystem which will usher in several species of plants and animals which currently cannot survive in the harsh, dry desert in Western Peru.
Given the dangers of playing God in this matter, personally I think the rewards are worth the risk.
I agree with you, Mr. Vogue…and I appreciate your being more diplomatic in your approarch than some on this discussion board in your disagreements with the original author. I also would like to point out that, considering that these people will have to grow food for their own sustenance, or find energy to use, from somewhere…that this project actually is far better than the alternative.
Namely, deforestation and the use of fossil fuels for energy and food needs. A case that is illustrative of this is a class I took a number of years ago as an undergraduate, Environmental Problems in Metropolitan Areas. We had a guest speaker who was a biologist and told us about how he was part of a project to find and identify all the species in an area around a waterfall in Venezuala that was going to be used to create hydro-electric power. SOme in the class were concerned that those species were in danger due to the proposed project. But when you consider the steps taken to identify and collect samples of those species…but even more so, that, without the dam, the people who lived in a settlement near the waterfall would have continued to depend on a diesel generator for their power; it becomes clear that, on balance, the enviromental consequences of the dam were worth the risk because the greater risk to the environment at large was in doing nothing at all.
Now, the question for us now is, what do the Peruvians who are to gain this electtric power use as their chief energy sources, now? Human waste? Animal waste? Fossil fuels? All of these are pretty harmful to the environment. When we consider these factors, we come to the only logical conclusion, which is to understand the wisdom of the project.
Levi – You pose a number of “problems.” Lets take them one at a time.
1) “How is this going to affect the Huancabamba River and its ecosystems?” Answer: If will help the Huacabama River and its ecosystems by alleviating the devastating flooding that occurs on that river.
2) “What about the land that is going to be converted to agriculture?” Answer: It will change that land from a desert to a productive area. Did you know that 2/3 of farm-usable land in Peru is desert?
3) “Will significant habitat be altered for the worse ecologically?” Answer: Worse than a desert?
4) “And what about the mountain?” Answer: Huh?
Conclusion #1: Don’t worry too much about the affect on the Amazon River by a decrease of 1/2 billion gallons of water annually. That amount isn’t even measurable in the Amazon – it’s about 1/2 second of output from the Amazon. Remember – the output of the Amazon River is larger that the next 7 rivers in the world combined. The second largest river in the world by output is actually the Madeira which is a tributary of the Amazon.
Conclusion #2: The people of Peru don’t give poop about what you think – and rightly so.
The explosives and constant use of them to cut thru the rock to build this massive tunnel along with gigantic tunneling machines have either created or sped up the procecess sorounding the earthquakes that have recently hit Chile (or at least contributed). Chile lies south of Peru and is very well known for it’s huge tremmors. this is only my opinion and i am probably way off, but the timing (tunneling all thru 2009) and the huge effort in building such a large scale tunnel must create a lot of vibration from all the dynamite and machining being done. this in turn could multiply into say smaller effects to put pressure on an already unstable area. as this is one of the most earthquake prone areas in the world as we now know since about the 16th century when the spanish arrived there and started keeping records. I have not heard of any corolation between this theory yet and hope that i am wrong. peterg
It is real easy to set back in the comfort of your many amenities, warm house, food, water running everywhere and you set there and want to bitch about what little if any impact a dam and water tunnel is going to have on a third world country who really needs the water to survive. No one gives a rip about what you think about this and if you took the time to look at some of the things this will provide to the poor part of Peru you should be happy these people are going to get a chance at making a living and raising their quality of life. Good for them. They could have built several Russian nuclear power facilities to pump the water over the hill. Now that would have been an impact on the environment. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth!
You sure raised some controversy. I have been to peru and lived in the l”luxury” of Lima and Miraflores to the remote towns like Urubamba, and others. The fact that an environmental study might show some trade off, is inconsequential when you struggle to get maybe two substandard meals a day. My point is not to go there to see they are just tapping the river, go there with you family, no money in your pocket and then see how much you care about tinkering with the environment huh? To hell with your idealistic postulations, the river is just being tapped for water, and there will be 100 times more benefit than cost.
Novey states there is something ridiculous about how far the Peruvian government will go to manipulate nature to meet human desires. Novi is a FOOL, and himslf deserving of ridicule for making this kind of self serving statement. What planet are you from, moron?
After 732 days I did wrote you 21 bloggers did the same, to crush you for this naive article. Take my advice please. Research more please and put the all Pluses and minuses togeteher. Best wishes. Anibal