Peru Building Crazy 12.5 Mile Tunnel Through Mountain for Irrigation & Electricity
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.
- » See also: Bioengineers Speed Up Evolution to Make Better Bacteria
- » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.
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.
[...] one reader did on another post I recently wrote about the almost-certain environmental impact of a crazy tunnel being built under a mountain in Peru. I’m not afraid to stand up for the environment when the cost is too high, even if it comes as [...]
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 !!!