Posted on 06/24/2008 2:03:54 PM PDT by neverdem
LITITZ, Pa. — Dorothy J. Merritts, a geology professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., was not looking to turn hydrology on its ear when she started scouting possible research sites for her students a few years ago.
But when she examined photographs of the steep, silty banks of the West Branch of Little Conestoga Creek, something did not look right. The silt was laminated, deposited in layers. She asked a colleague, Robert C. Walter, an expert on sediment, for his opinion.
“Those are not stream sediments,” he told her. “Those are pond sediments.” In short, the streamscape was not what she thought.
That observation led the two scientists to collaborate on a research project on the region’s waterways. As they reported this year in the journal Science, their work challenges much of the conventional wisdom about how streams in the region formed and evolved. The scientists say 18th- and 19th-century dams and millponds, built by the thousands, altered the water flow in the region in a way not previously understood.
They say that is why efforts to restore degraded streams there often fail. Not everyone agrees, but their findings contribute to a growing debate over river and stream restoration, a big business with increasing popularity but patchy success.
Many hydrologists and geologists say people embark on projects without fully understanding the waterways they want to restore and without paying enough attention to what happens after a project is finished.
In part because most projects are local and small scale, it is hard to say exactly how much Americans spend each year to restore rivers and streams. A group of academic researchers and government scientists, writing in Science in 2005, put the figure at well over $1 billion, for thousands of projects. Efforts are under way to bring...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Thanks....man has a habit of reworking his habitat...
Didn’t wetlands used to be called swamps?
Who cares what you call them. Nature's God, not gaia, made them for a reason. God gave us the ability to reason so we can learn from our mistakes. This world functions with a dynamic equilibrium that we have barely begun to grasp. In the meantime, we need cheap energy.
Draining swamps where land is needed for development is a mistake?
Anyhoo, I just asked a question. Are what is called wetlands today, the same thing that was/is called swamps? Or is it any wet ground such as estuaries, etc too?
One last thing. Nature has its own God? I thought we all shared the one true God?
Just being a smart### at the end there. I’m sure you caught that but thought I’d mention it just in case.
It depends. Is the development smart or dumb?
Anyhoo, I just asked a question. Are what is called wetlands today, the same thing that was/is called swamps? Or is it any wet ground such as estuaries, etc too?
Again, it depends. These wetlands appear to perform a number of biological, chemical and physical functions that we don't appreciate.
One last thing. Nature has its own God? I thought we all shared the one true God?
"Nature's God" was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which has three other mentions of or references to the Creator.
ping for later.
Good info. Thanks.
I’ll admit that when I hear “wetlands” I think swamp. And swamp means leeches, skeeters, malaria and creeping skin infections that just dont want to heal.
Not a big fan of swamps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.