[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Rhine River/Mississippi River Exchange



Rhine River / Mississippi River Exchange: A Few Reflections

by Loni Kemp, The Minnesota Project

(Upon returning from a tour of the Rhine River in Holland and Germany the week 
of September 21-28, 1996, I wrote these observations to share with others who 
may be interested.  I think we can gain insight into our own work on water 
quality and sustainable agriculture by seeing how other parts of the world 
respond to similar issues.)

The Rhine River of Europe and the Mississippi River share much in common.  Both 
have vast watersheds containing millions of homes, businesses, and farms which 
depend on the river for drainage, drinking water, shipping, and recreation.  
Unfortunately, both rivers also share common problems.  Polluted water, frequent
catastrophic flooding, loss of healthy ecosystems, and huge expenditures made in
attempting to control the river are shared concerns faced by the two great 
rivers. 
 
In hopes that the sharing of knowledge and successful strategies will benefit 
both rivers, the World Wildlife Fund hosted a delegation of 16 Americans on a 
week-long tour of the Rhine River.   From the delta at the port of Rotterdam in 
the Netherlands, upstream to Germany and France, the group traveled by motor 
coach and boat touring high-tech water control structures and nature restoration
areas.  Next year a group from the Rhine region will come to the U.S. to tour 
the Mississippi River.

The American group consisted of a provocative mix of people working on river 
issues.  It included environmentalists active in watershed management and 
coastal restoration, the head and two officials of the Army Corps of Engineers, 
state and local officials, staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and a representative of the Iowa 
Corngrowers Association.  

Our local hosts were the Netherlands chapter of the World Wildlife Fund, and the
Auen Institute for Floodplains Ecology of the German World Wildlife Fund.  They 
arranged tours and speakers from many agencies and organizations to share the 
story of the Rhine with us.

The Rhine River starts in the Alps of Switzerland and flows north, forming the 
border between Germany and France, and emptying into the North Sea through the 
delta of the Netherlands.  It is about one third the length of the Mississippi, 
and only a fraction of its watershed size.  Nevertheless the Rhine is extremely 
important in its region for shipping.  The Rhine has a steady stream of barges 
going  both directions, with boats filling up the locks all day long.  Rotterdam
is the largest harbor in the world, extending for many miles out into the North 
Sea.

Following are some highlights of what I learned from the Rhine River.

Elimination of ÒnatureÓ from a major riverine system is possible.
¥	The Rhine River was channelized and separated from its floodplains for 
virtually the entire length, starting in the early 1800s.  It is lined with 
double dikes, groins, power plants, and locks and dams, with dense development 
outside the dikes.
¥	Already an open sewer, the Rhine was totally killed off by a 1986 fire at the 
Sandoz pesticide factory in Switzerland, which washed chemicals from the 
headwaters down to the gulf.  All river life was eliminated.
¥	Two thirds of the Netherlands is land ÒreclaimedÓ from below sea level, 
requiring eternal pumping and damming at huge cost to maintain safety.  
Virtually no natural floodplains, wetlands, forests, or meadows are left in all 
of Holland, except for a few fenced off Ònature monuments.Ó  The people have 
little memory of native wildlife.
¥	Germany is famous for its 70% forest cover, but I was astounded to learn that 
the vast majority is in plantations of hybrid poplars and conifers.  Little 
natural mixed forest remains.  (And yet we seem to think we are inventing the 
idea of hybrid aspen monoculture in Minnesota -- It seems Germany has been 
planting hybrid aspen for 35 years!)
¥	Europeans may have gone too far in trying to control Mother Nature, only to 
find out she will lash back.  The results of such control include more frequent 
and higher floods; loss of numerous species including the salmon and the beaver;
and absence of natural areas for recreation.

Restoration of nature is also possible, albeit very difficult.
¥	The Rhine Action Plan, developed by an international commission, accomplished 
a 50% reduction in chemical emissions by industries and cities over the last ten
years.  
¥	Life began to return to the Rhine only two years after the Sandoz spill.  The 
disaster galvanized public concern, resulting in a commitment to a return of the
salmon by the year 2000, after an absence of several decades.  Indeed, salmon 
have already returned part way up the river.
¥	Several model demonstrations are partially restoring floodplains to natural  
dune, forest, and meadow ecosystems, while at the same time maintaining flood 
safety and the needs of navigation.  A holistic approach uses three zones: the 
river channel between the Òsummer dikesÓ is kept open for navigation; the 
intensively developed area outside the higher Òwinter dikesÓ is protected from 
floods; and floodplains between the two dikes can be restored for nature, 
allowing occasional inundation to re-create communities of native plants and 
grazing animals.  
¥	The reintroduction of a family of beavers to one nature area in Holland is as 
unusual and exciting to them as the return of the bald eagle is to us!

Europeans are very serious about reducing nonpoint pollution.
¥	Atrazine is banned in both the Netherlands and Germany because it was found to
move from farms into groundwater and surface water.
¥	Agricultural nutrients are aggressively managed in the Netherlands.  Every 
farmer with livestock must account for their manure with a nutrient budget, 
documenting numbers of animals sold, feed purchased, chemical fertilizer 
purchased, how many acres of which crops they grow, and thus nutrients can only 
be applied at rates that sustain crops.  All manure must be stored under cover, 
and must be incorporated into the soil immediately when it is applied.
¥	Europeans also are targeting gaseous nitrate emissions from cattle feedlots, 
confinement barns, and liquid manure spreading as an important source of 
nutrient deposition in water pollution.  This source is almost never mentioned 
in the U.S.
¥	Noxious algae blooms up and down the coasts have heightened awareness of 
nutrient pollution, unlike the MississippiÕs zone of hypoxia lying miles out in 
the ocean where it is largely ignored.

Curiously, the Europeans expressed almost no interest in erosion control.
¥	Although they spend billions on river dredging and contaminated sediment 
disposal. they seem to assume that erosion comes from mountains and riverbanks 
and is natural.  I find it hard to believe that agriculture, forestry, and 
especially development are not sources which could be reduced.
¥	Similarly, they seem to have rejected upland water retention as a strategy for
flood control, possibly because their denser populations make it more costly.

The Dutch have placed their bets on technology and there is no going back.  
¥	Two thirds of the Netherlands is below sea level and they will do and spend 
whatever is necessary to prevent floods from rivers or the North Sea.  
¥	Netherlands means Òlow country,Ó and indeed it was originally one huge coastal
wetland.  By 1200 the Dutch were already building dikes around the higher spots,
and in the 1500Õs started using windmills to drain lakes created by peat 
extraction. Steam pumping in the mid-1800s launched greatly expanded drainage of
ÒpoldersÓ, or shallow lakes created by dikes both inland and out into the sea.  
Today pumping continues around the clock to maintain cities and farms.  
¥	Channelizing of the Rhine River was intended to protect lands behind the dikes
>from  flooding and speed water flow, but the cumulative effect increases the 
volume and frequency of flooding because of the elimination of floodplains.  
Holland actually faces a double threat, because floods from the North sea caused
by high tides and storm surges are just as often the cause of floods as the 
river. 
¥	Each new flood triggers another soaring investment in concrete and technology.
¥	They accept less risk than we do, planning for one-in-1250 year storm events 
for the river and one-in-10,000 year events for the sea.  Although floods are 
getting worse and global climate change will lead to rising sea levels, they 
really see no choice but to keep investing in safety.

Europe is ÒgreenÓ.
¥	In the last decades public attitudes have changed dramatically.  Concern for 
the environment resulted in major shifts in government policy.  Without 
compromising flood safety or navigation, ways are being found to reduce impacts 
on the ecosystem, and bring back ÒnatureÓ.  This seems to be universally 
accepted by all sectors.


Dutch Agriculture is both high tech and small scale.
¥	Although not a primary focus of this trip, I was fascinated to observe the 
Dutch countryside, platted out into small 5-20 acre fields each bordered by 
water-filled ditches.  Dutch farmers own relatively small holdings and modest 
numbers of livestock, but they use the latest in genetics and production 
technologies.  Extensive greenhouses and fields of high-value fruits, 
vegetables, and flowers are interspersed with many fields of pasture and hay for
livestock.  While some livestock concentration is reported, the majority of 
Dutch farmers manage to use the latest technologies at a scale that fits a 
family-size farm.  In contrast to American propaganda, efficiency is not 
synonymous with farm expansion.

Marginal lands eyed for ÒnatureÓ.
¥	Environmentalists feel that overproduction of food is a problem, and that 
20-30% of Dutch farmland is marginal, due to increasing water levels, saltwater 
intrusion, or historically poor soils.  Some of these acres are targets for 
eventual purchase for Ònature restorationÓ, allowing wetlands, floodplains, and 
wet meadow ecosystems to be reestablished.  Of course other interests worry 
about the loss of rural culture and food self-sufficiency that could result.
¥	There really is little hope of combining nature and agriculture on each farm 
as we envision here, because farms there consist of disconnected fields with few
natural features to work with.

Food quality is revered.
Europeans seem to seek out fabulous quality foods, take the time to enjoy them, 
and make eating and drinking together a key part of their everyday quality of 
life.  Beef has all but disappeared from menus and stores despite the cow 
massacre of Britain, because people wouldnÕt dream of eating foods even tinged 
with bad associations.

What is sustainable?
¥	If the Dutch were able to raise food for 500 years on drained lands, was that 
not sustainable?  We tend to measure sustainability generation to generation, 
and on that criterion they may have succeeded.  
¥	Now it appears that such farms have become marginal, depending on constant 
investments of energy, chemicals and water control, and threatened by rising sea
levels due to global warming.  It brings a longer perspective to 
sustainability...

Europeans may have almost eliminated ÒnatureÓ, but they do beautifully at 
controlling development compared to us.
¥	Europeans know how to keep their towns vital, historic and beautiful.  The 
whole week I never saw a mall or a discount store.  Towns are compact with 
virtually no sprawl.  Gardens are a universal hobby.  Bikes are widely used, 
cars are discouraged from cities, and the streets are for people.  Even the 
famous German autobahn is lined with trees and shrubs for noise control 
virtually the entire length, minimizing impacts on surrounding areas.



Loni Kemp
Senior Policy Analyst, The Minnesota Project
Box A81
Canton, MN 55922
(507) 743-8300  Fax same
Chair, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture


Loni Kemp
Senior Policy Analyst, The Minnesota Project
Box A81
Canton, MN 55922
(507) 743-8300  Fax same
Chair, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture