Sixty percent of rain water that falls on land surface of the Earth reaches directly the oceans as surface run off due to human failure to use it efficiently to meet the genuine needs of living resources of the world. Is linkage or networking of all world water bodies, useful to drive out deserts and desertification process?
The history of hydrology includes many examples of man and civilizations modifying hydrology to suit various needs for expansion of productivity, self sufficiency and addressing needs of urbanization or centers of power in inhospitable places. There are many costs and benefits, complex effects, etc. to consider in analysis. Included in he analysis should be our reliance on streams as part of the natural life cycles, instream flows for fish, circulation of nutrients, transportation, water based recreation, etc. I have little doubt that man will continue some efforts to modify hydrology and redistribute water from areas of plenty toward areas lacking, and there are probably some examples of converting desert or arid areas to food production to help both learn from mistakes and take advantage of local opportunities that instances where this might be appropriate or at least less impactive, all things considered. It may also be presumtive to assume that deserts have little importance. Answers suggest specificity to circumstances as to ecology, politics, beliefs, economics, insteam flow needs, etc. rather than a broad brush approach.
Linkage of world water bodies, a solution to wipe out deserts? No! in my opinion it is nothing but an invitation to another disaster as “desert is unique ecosystem and play a significant role in our ecosystem cycles and process”. The idea which envisages the transfer of water from water ‘surplus ‘ from basins where there is flooding( be it my due to rainfall or etc) to water ‘deficit’ basins or desert where there is drought/scarcity, through linkage of water transfer projects. Digging further into the term 'surplus' seems that it is the extra water available in a river after it meets the humans’ requirement of irrigation, domestic consumption and industries thereby underestimating the need of the water for the river itself. But if we think environment point of view the term 'deficit' has also been viewed in terms of humans only and not from the river's or environment perspective, which includes many other factors. A small example is India’s National River Interlinking Project , which will comprise of 30 links to connect 37 rivers across the nation through a network of nearly 3000 storage dams to form a gigantic South Asian Water Grid. Also predicted out come of the proposed Ken-Betwa link, shows that it will causes a huge social and environmental cost. The project puts in danger over 4,100 hectares of forest land or 8% of the Panna National Park. Thus, if a single project of interlinking could accrue such an environmental cost, then one can only imagine how it will impact the country's biodiversity if all the 30 links are implemented. And if we will take it global level, it will definitely affect our water cycle and it will be nothing but invitation to another disaster.
We need to study the engineering of rain water catchment including the topography, the slopes, by doing so we will understand how to better build damns and use water more efficiently. By wiping out deserts, I believe there will be more economic and political stability.
Disastrous thinking. Everything in nature as it is created and existing is important to one or the other living being. Thinking only from the angle of wants / demands of human beings is hazardous. Let there be balance in nature. LIVE & LET LIVE.
Are climate change, global warming, floods, droughts, soil erosion, destruction of forests, earth quakes, tsunamis and finally ever growing human greed, natural on the Earth? If so, I withdraw my question unconditionally. To my understanding, planet Earth is a dynamic entity and never static. Whereas, human interference unabated to meet his ever growing demands and greed at the.cost of minimum necessities for food and shelter for plants and animals, has resulted to make living impossible and miserable for these lower forms of life on Earth in terms of both quality and quantity as reflected in toxification of land, water,air, fire and space. When the concept of 'Live and Let Live' is faithfully practiced by human species, the need for water distribution across the world becomes redundant. The very object of linkage of world water bodies suggested is essentially to meet plant and animal necessities basic to their survival and sustenance but not to further serve human greed and parasitism. If one third of the land space on Earth is apportioned to forest ecosystem with zero human interference and exploitation, there is no need for linkage of water bodies across the world. The rain water should be made not to run but to walk across the land surface to prevent top soil erosion, so essential to serve as life support system for domesticated plants and animals. Now question is, what is disastrous thinking? Ever growing unabated human greed or live and let live concept of life? Thank you.