Looking back at my observation logs, I noticed that water is a theme that winds its way through all of my posts in one way or another. Given the name of this course, I am not surprised by the fact water is a constant theme, but rather surprised by the fact at how I can consistently find a way to relate water to various topics, and how each week, I can add to my knowledge by making more connections. Usually, I start my reflections by remarking about how the nature and appearance of a river can change so quickly, and then my mind wanders to the effect of the nearby riparian areas on the health of the river. In one post, for example, I noted how the water at Belle Isle churns angrily around rocks as it rushes downstream, but just a few miles away under the Huguenot Bridge, it glides smoothly and flatly toward the city. In another, I wrote about how the Westhampton Creek rushes down to meet our lake, but slows abruptly to an imperceptible crawl once it enters campus, and remains that way until it passes the spillway and starts to race onward again. I noticed this phenomenon most recently during last weekend’s trip to Henricus, because there too, the river looks different than the river that passes near our campus. I know that it is still the James and that humans have heavily modified the section at Henricus, but it was still hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that it can be part of the same river that flows past Pony Pasture and Belle Isle, when it has such a different attitude. My experience with rivers in the past has usually been limited to particular sections, and getting the chance to see different parts of the same river, and to later piece them together like a long and winding puzzle, has been an amazing experience.
Once I think of the water, its movement and its appearance, my mind is of course drawn to what is in the water and what it is carrying downstream. Unfortunately, pollutants are usually the first things that come to mind. Learning about the importance of riparian buffer zones in protecting our rivers has led me to think about the health of our watersheds more than I ever before, and even though it doesn’t usually lead to optimistic thoughts, I am grateful for this changed mindset. The articles we read for class made it seem as if it takes very little to protect our rivers from non-point source pollution, and if a hundred feet or so of vegetation is enough to clean up our waters, then it is a shame that we are not doing more to increase the presence of buffer zones.
I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts, but what comes to mind in particular when I think of the importance of buffer zones, is Belle Isle’s proximity to the city of Richmond. This part of the river is surrounded by concrete and other impervious surfaces, leaving it incredibly vulnerable to runoff, and the fact is, even if other parts of the river downstream from Belle Isle are adequately surrounded by riparian buffers, it does not matter because the pollutants that enter upstream will still affect the downstream flora and fauna. This kind of effect on the environment usually makes me shudder at the thought of cities and wish that these masses of concrete and dirt simply did not exist at all, but after reading the article “Urban Myths”, I have begun to think differently. The article argues that large metropolises are actually better for the environment because they allow for the efficient use of resources, but I cannot help but think this only gets at half of the truth. Yes, I am aware that suburban sprawl means increased resource use and human encroachment on nature, but today’s cities are hardly ideal models of efficiency. As Kevin Hargrave points out in one of his posts where he reviews “Urban Myths”, cities increase in efficiency as they increase in size, and most cities today (including Richmond) are not at this size. Since many cities are not of sufficient size, and given the impossibility of eliminating the American ‘suburbia’, it makes sense that we must take other actions to protect our rivers and the environment from harmful cities where pollutants are concentrated and impervious surfaces are abundant.
Some people, I am sure, would disagree with me and say that the only true solution is indeed to concentrate human populations in cities where they can use resources efficiently and have as little an effect on the environment as possible. This, I would in turn argue, is impossible given our basic human nature to want to be part of the natural world. The three ideologies of the frontiersmen, the sublime, and the homebodies represent basic human attitudes toward nature, and while they are different in how they view nature, they all share a common desire to be a part of nature. Like the homebodies, I believe that it is important to see nature everywhere, and not just in the grand vistas and wild outlands, but I also believe that we should be able to interact and live with all parts of the natural world in a sustainable manner without sacrificing too many comforts. It certainly will not be easy to transform our world, but I think it can be done through proper education. Education, especially of young children, is our greatest tool to improving the health of our environment in the future, because if people learn good habits at an early age, they will continue to act with our environment in mind throughout the rest of their lives.