“Civilization is hideously fragile,” said C.P. Snow. “. . . There’s not much between us and the horrors underneath. Just about a coat of varnish.”
Americans like to think of the military defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation of death camps as their answer to the most murderous outbreak of anti-Semitism in history. It has become part of our national lore: American soldiers escorting German locals to visit the Buchenwald concentration camp, forcing them to see the faces of those killed with their complicity.
Americans predictably forget that their initial response to attacks on Jews in Germany during the 1930s was utterly shameful. Horrific persecution was broadly reported in American media. Yet our country passed up opportunity after opportunity to accept Jewish refugees, including children. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said it was “not a governmental affair.” Cultural leaders such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh normalized anti-Semitic ideas and language.
Yet after the war, no one ever forced Americans to walk past the faces of those who needlessly died with their complicity.
“Away from the battlefield,” wrote Eli Wiesel, “the judgment of history will be harsh. . . . How many victims, Jews and non-Jews, could have been saved had we changed our immigration laws, opened our gates more widely, protested more forcefully. We did not. Why not?”
It is not my purpose to indict the dead. It is only to point out how close to the cultural surface prejudice has been and remains. It is not foreign to human nature; it is a disturbing facet of that nature. Religious people might say that human beings are fallen — inherently prone to selfishness and sin. Science reveals Homo sapiens as creatures programmed to serve our family and tribe, predisposed to dehumanize out-groups and prone to follow the crowd even when we know it is wrong.
The knowledge that men and women can be led to commit, enable and ignore great evil should underlie any realistic approach to governing. Certainly any conservative approach to governing. “Civilization is hideously fragile,” said C.P. Snow. “. . . There’s not much between us and the horrors underneath. Just about a coat of varnish.”
These are the ultimate stakes of the political enterprise. I am talking about something in a different category from tax cuts and regulatory reform. Do political figures recognize the fragility of decency and humanity and guard them from fracture? Or do they shatter them for their own purposes by demonizing some group or faith? The cascade of consequences following this kind of act is more rapid than it has ever been before, due to the speed and amplification of modern technology. Many find permission for their worst instincts and corroboration for pernicious conspiracy theories. Some advocating more overt hatred emerge from under their digital rocks and are granted new visibility. A few of the unstable are given a cause that carries them into violence.
The light of the sun and moon cannot be outdistanced, yet mind reaches beyond them.
Galaxies are as infinite as grains of sand, yet mind spreads outside them.
(Myoan Eisai – A Japanese Zen Buddhist)
INTRODUCTION
Whereas human consciousness, intrinsically arising from human being’s naturally evolved brain is still a mystery; artificial intelligence, algorithmically developed and up loaded in a Silicon brain of a machine is a feat of human brain. Human being has for ages been following and is still following the way human consciousness directs, but the thinking machine is following in a way that mirrors billions of years of evolving brain and its consciousness. From ancient time to this day the phenomenon of human consciousness has intrigued many philosophers, mostly discussed for many centuries in subjective terms. But for Steven Arthur Pinker (born 1954) a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular science author and a Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and computational theory of mind, “The brain, like it or not, is a machine. Scientists have come to the conclusion not because they are mechanistic killjoys, but because they have amassed evidence that every aspect of consciousness can be tied to the brain. . . Consciousness presents us with puzzle after puzzle. How can a neural event cause consciousness happen?” (Pinker in his work How the Mind Works p 132). Thus, the mystery of human consciousness, from the time of Cartesian cognition, “I think; therefore, I am,” became an open challenge for the neuroscientists. The idea of brain as a “thinking machine,” opened a window in human mind to create human brain’s digital double, capable of transmitting artificial intelligence. Toby Walsh in his book, Machines that Think remarks, “Not without irony, Stephen Hawking (1942-2018), [an English theoretical physicist, and cosmologist] welcomed a software update for his speech synthesizer with a warning that came in the electronic voice of that technology: ‘The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race’ (p. 8).”
Although the “cognitive revolution” has introduced pragmatic methods of studying thought and other inner experiences of our mind, neuroscience, even helped by modern technology, has not yet provided an easy way of finding an answer to the hard question of how does subjective experience of human consciousness arise from the objective activity of the human brain? How can our brain’s physical network of neurons, with all its chemical action, electromagnetic system, and interaction of billions of cells and circuits, create a mind that allows a unified awareness of our thinking, recognizing, remembering, feeling, predicting, cognizing, innumerable experiencing of our life and of the universe, repeating hundreds of millions of times in the neocortex, and finally, apparently giving birth to an instantly combined output of all inner experiences in the form of “consciousness?” While we haven’t been able to give a definitive or comprehensive delineation of human consciousness, a scientifically created and defined artificial intelligence is already around us—on screens, in our houses, and even in our pockets. One day it will be talking and walking with us as a family member.
We know that at the root of Artificial Intelligence’s technological appeal is the capability of the machine to be able to perform many tasks characteristic of human intelligence. According to Ray Kurzweil, a pioneering researcher in artificial intelligence, hybrids of biological and silicon-based intelligence will become possible and one day the contents of a human brain will be transferable into a metallic brain, as a CD-ROM uploads its software into a computer. Many thinkers, philosophers, and scientists have agreed that human consciousness is a unique human capability that arises when information is broadcast throughout the brain. But there is yet no central location in the brain identified as the seat of consciousness where—like a streaming data in the head— it can be mapped, copied and downloaded into a Silicon brain.
The pivotal question before us is still about the very nature of human consciousness: Is consciousness an input loaded into the brain through our sensory experiences, perception, memory, intelligence, and diverse media of subjectivity and objectivity that our cognitive process makes use? Or, is consciousness an extra entity that we humans have in addition to our abilities of perceiving, thinking, and feeling? Or, is it an intrinsic and inseparable part of a human being as a creature that can perceive, think, and feel? If it is an extra ingredient—as many of us think of our soul as an extra entity—then we are naturally inclined to ask, “Is it the distinctive telltale signature of a human being?” On the other hand, if we have evolved with it, then we want to know how and why only human consciousness has evolved? Further there is also an opinion that we all have three eyes—the third one inside the head, being the “pineal gland” in the human brain which has the structure of an eye. It has cells that act as light receptors, as the retina does. It has a structure comparable to the vitreous—a gel-like substance between the retina and lens of the eye similar to the shape of a lens. Scientists are researching to better understand the “pineal body”—considered in Eastern spiritualism and Western philosophy—as a possible seat of consciousness. Once scientists are able to develop an artificial pineal gland, the artificial intelligence then also be able to have an algorithmically working artificial consciousness.
HUMAN CONDITION AND INTELLIGENT MACHINES
Before we argue about the role of intelligent machines and their capability of consciousness that is the same or similar to that of humans, we need to understand more deeply about the nature of human consciousness. The Dictionary of Psychology of American Psychological Association tells, that the definition of consciousness is twofold:
The first describes consciousness as “the phenomena that humans report experiencing including mental contents that range from sensory to somatic perception to mental images, reportable ideas, inner speech, intentions to act, recalled memories, semantics, dreams, hallucinations, emotional feelings, ‘fringe’ feelings (e.g., a sense of knowledge), and aspects of cognitive and motor control.” The second part of the definition speaks of “any of various subjective states of awareness in which conscious contents can be reported—for example—altered states such as sleeping, as well as the global access function of consciousness, presenting an endless variety of the focal contents to executive control and decision making (1931).
History of man’s evolution reveals, that at a certain point of his evolution, when man transcended nature and ended his passive role of only a creature, he emancipated himself from the complete bindings of nature; first by an erect posture and second by the growth of his brain. The evolution of man may have taken billions of years; but what matters is that a patently new species to be identified as a human being arose transcending nature, recognizing life “aware of itself.” Self-awareness, reason and imagination, disrupted man’s harmony with nature that characterized his prehuman existence. Upon becoming aware of himself, the human being also realized the limitations of his existence, and his powerlessness at being a finite being. In his death he visualized his own end. But until today he is never free from this dichotomy of his existence. He cannot rid himself of his mind, even if he wants to; he cannot rid himself of his body as long as he is alive—rather his mind and body create in him a strong urge to be alive, and live an infinite life. He cannot go back to the prehuman state of his harmony with nature because he now views himself as a “special species.” He must proceed to develop his reason until he becomes the sovereign of his nature and a master of himself. But an awareness of his biological relation with the rest of animals poses a challenge to his conscious self. To assure himself that he is no more like an animal, he is tempted to demonstrate his merits as a special species through his unique physical advantage and exceptional intellectual eminence.
Human mind, an evolutionary product of his biological brain, is now changing the course of evolution by creating a digital double in his own image, equipped with artificial intelligence and emotions. Homo sapiens, from the time of their appearance on this planet, have used their neural mechanism in building tools which helped them to initiate a new form of evolution that brought about a social culture of sharing knowledge. As neurology gave birth to technology, the process of technology today has led us invariably to the creation of an amazing tool we call computer. The computer has enabled us to create an expansion of our knowledge base, permitting extensive multiple layers of links from one area of knowledge to another. Perceiving the distinctive appearance from other animals and the uniqueness of our intelligence, our power of communication, and our capability of acquiring and sharing knowledge on this planet, has given rise to a realization that humans are special creatures. But throughout our history of knowledge, scientists have mostly remained reticent to evaluate and prove with scientific reasoning our claim of being a special creature, fearing that they might not be supporting the religious doctrine of human exceptionalism of intelligent design. However, regardless of how humans got to be the way they are today, their intelligence with technology in their hands, has enabled them to overcome any biological hurdle to changing themselves in almost every aspect of their life. Hard scientific data is cumulated across vast spheres, ranging from ecology to epistemology, and cognitive psychology and consciousness, affirm that human beings are truly remarkable and are the only species we know that is achieving this. Today, by developing artificial intelligence, human beings are successfully changing the course of evolution by creating digital doubles in their own image. . . . to read full article please visit: https://independent.academia.edu/MirzaAshraf
If the water bureaucracy of Pakistan and Prime Minister Imran Khan are to be believed, the question of building dams has come to have the same import as its Shakespearean equivalent. To be or not to be was the question that Hamlet, the prince of Denmark, contemplated in the eponymous play as a choice between life and death. But is the choice really that stark as far as building dams is concerned? Can a piece of infrastructure, and that too as mundane as a wall in a river, be a matter of life and death for a country as large and diverse as Pakistan? My favourite analogy about the dam debate is the choice of transport between, say, Rawalpindi and Lahore. One could travel by airplane, train, car, bus, horse, foot and so on. In such a scenario, to declare that anyone thinking about traveling by any other mode but an airplane is an anti-development traitor and an Indian agent is simply madness. A madness that Pakistani society at this time is partaking in with a lot of gusto.
Every Pakistani should have adequate water to ensure their health and hygiene. The entire country should have enough water to support its food security and economic prosperity. But if the objective is to ensure water security, a dam is one instrument besides many others which can be applied to achieve this objective. Obsession with a single pathway to achieve water security, that is, dams, may not only be stupid but also downright expensive and counterproductive.
Many of the arguments supporting large dams are predicated upon a number of fallacies. Let us review the most salient of them. The first argument is that large dams are essential for water storage. It is not true. There are three types of water storage: glaciers, groundwater storage and surface water storage (through dams). From among these three types of storage, human beings cannot do anything about glaciers. Of the remaining two, surface storage is most expensive and wasteful because of evaporative and seepage losses as well as financial and environmental costs. Groundwater storage, on the other hand, is the most efficient and demand responsive. It is little wonder then that in the United States alone hundreds of dams are being decommissioned and water storage for the past 30 years has almost exclusively been undertaken in groundwater mode.
Pakistan is very fortunate to have vast aquifers underlying the Indus planes which provide up to 80 per cent of the crop water requirements in those areas where fresh groundwater is available. Wise management of those aquifers, and not mismanagement as is the case right now, could ensure up to 54 million acre feet (MAF) of stored water as compared to seven MAF that Kalabagh Dam could store in a year. So, the dam argument does not work as far as water storage is concerned because there are cheaper and more efficient ways of storing much more water.
The second argument in favour of dams is that we are running out of water and that we have to store water for when we have less of it. This also does not hold water. Firstly, we are not running out of water. There is no natural or physical process through which we can run out of water. The same amount of water we have had for thousands of years will be around for many more years. We just have to use that water wisely. Even after taking climate change into consideration, there is no scientifically legitimate scenario under which we run out of water. Also, dams do not create water; they store whatever water there is. If in another universe we were running out of water, dams would simply be empty in that case.
The third argument is that every year we waste 35 MAF of water that goes to the sea. For people in Karachi, it might be useful to visit Gharo and Keti Bandar to see what lack of water in the Indus delta does to land and lives. Water going to the sea is not wasted; it is essential for the ecology and livelihoods of people living in coastal areas. Also, a brief look at the amount of water flowing below Kotri Barrage tells a whole different story. For eight out of the past 10 years, the average annual flow of water below Kotri has been under 10 MAF; sometimes even less than five MAF. It is only in the flood years that enough water flows below Kotri Barrage to make up an average of 35 MAF over 10 years. Average flows are the most irrelevant number in the water sector, something that our engineers cannot seem to get their heads around. The upshot is that there is simply not enough water in the system for a large dam, the size of Kalabagh Dam or Diamer-Bhasha Dam, to become viable. If one cannot fill a dam for 75 per cent of the time over a decade, how does that make that dam financially or functionally viable?
The fourth argument is about energy: dams deliver cheap electricity. But given their capital cost, as researcher Hassan Abbas has calculated, a 100 watt bulb run on electricity produced from a dam will cost 100,000 rupees. We have abundant solar power potential using which means the cost of electricity can be 20 times cheaper than what we will pay for electricity from the Neelum-Jehlum project, for example.
Lastly, Diamer-Bhasha Dam is not so much a water storage dam as it is a hydroelectric dam with a projected cost of 14 billion US dollars which is likely to double over its construction period. All that one does with hydroelectric dams is to build an artificial waterfall. At the likely cost of 28 billion US dollars, Diamer-Bhasha Dam will probably be the most expensive artificial waterfall in the world. And that too on one of the most silt rich rivers and in the most seismically active zone in the world. The consequences of the dam’s failure in this case are too terrible to contemplate. It will mean the end of every infrastructure on the Indus and hundreds of thousands of lives. Do dams get built in seismically active zones? Of course, they do. But such dams, for example those built in California which are seismically active, tend to be of lower height, around 100 feet, to protect against their failure. We are instead proposing to build the highest dam in the world, at 933 feet, in a deep gorge. The foolhardiness of the proposal is simply stupefying.
The real cost of building Diamer-Bhasha Dam is likely to be 10 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Few countries in the world would spend 10 per cent of their GDP on a risky proposition.
Is there a water crisis in Pakistan? And what do we do about it, if not to build dams? There is certainly a water crisis in Pakistan and it is a lot worse than we think it is. And it has been around for decades. Children die of renal failure in Pakistan today due to lack of clean drinking water. In parts of Karachi, people have not received water in their taps for more than a decade. The crisis is urgent and it is here. The remedy suggests itself in the simple statistic from Pakistan’s water distribution policy — that 97 per cent of water in Pakistan is devoted to agriculture.
All human habitations combined in Pakistan, including large cities like Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi, can only lay claim to about two per cent of the available water. Industry also uses one per cent of the total water. Meanwhile, Pakistan is the second biggest exporter of cotton and one of the major exporters of rice and sugarcane. All three crops are major consumers of water, and all three, generally, are produced by large farmers. Simply removing subsidies on agricultural electricity, I would argue, will solve the problem of water waste in the agriculture sector in one go. Sensible crop choices could, furthermore, quadruple the amount of water available for the all-important domestic water supply sector.
To be or not to be, is not the question. Neither should the question be to dam or not to dam. The question should be: how do we give every Pakistani equitably access to water? How do we use water efficiently enough to get maximum economic benefit from it? How do we meet multiple expectations from water for our ecology, culture, economy and society? The biggest water crisis in Pakistan is its unjust distribution. Golf courses and exotic plants never face scarcity of water in big cities; only the poor have no water. Large sugarcane farms have plenty of water; small farmers do not have enough to grow food. These are the features of the water crisis that deserve immediate attention. And along the way if one needs to build a small dam here and there, to address the water crisis, then so be it.
posted by f.sheikh
The writer works at the department of geography at Kings’s College London.
This article was published in the Herald’s October 2018 issue. To read more subscribe to the Herald in print.
There’s a general rhetoric that, one, Pakistan is soon going to run out of water; and, two, building more dams is the ‘only solution’ to the crisis. Is this really the case?
Nature’s mechanism that brings water to Pakistan has three major components: the Indian Ocean in the south, the sun in the sky, and the high mountains—Himalayas, Karakorum and Hindukush (HKH)—in the north. When the sun shines on the ocean, it creates moist air (aka clouds) that moves north towards the land. When it strikes the mountains, it cools down and releases the moisture as rain or snow—creating glaciers, rivers and streams flowing into our landscape all the way to the Arabian Sea. This system is in place for millions of years and is not going away any time soon. For Pakistan to really run out of water, therefore, either the Indian Ocean should be dried up, the sun switched off, or the mountains flattened. As long as the sun, the ocean, and the mountains are there, Pakistan is not running out of water.
And global warming can only increase rainfall because it will provide more heat to the ocean which will result in bigger clouds – and more rains. This is evident from the data of Rawalpindi/Islamabad rainfall which has slightly increased in the past 115 years as shown in Figure 1. Global warming is not going to reduce the amount of water in our country.
Figure 1
Now let’s see how much water we need and how much nature brings for us.
After Pakistan permitted India to divert three eastern rivers of Indus Basin away from the country, we now get an average of 145 million acre-feet (MAF) of water in our rivers each year with which we have to manage all our needs. The primary needs are food production, drinking, hygiene, sanitation, municipal, and industry.
Pakistan is now a food-surplus country and we consume 104 MAF of water annually to grow our food. However, Pakistan’s current irrigation system is one of the most wasteful systems in the world. Compared to us, Israel produces 70 per cent more, California 50 per cent more, and even Indian Punjab 30 per cent more with the same quantity of water.
If we upgrade our outdated irrigation system, we can produce surplus food with less than 50 MAF of water.
According to international standards, a community needs 35 gallons per capita per day to meet drinking, cooking, health, hygiene and municipal needs. If we want to supply this amount of water to every community in the country, all we need is 12 MAF. Catering for growing requirements of 207 million individuals, our domestic requirements can be managed well within 17 MAF.
Finally, our industrial requirements at the moment are around eight MAF. With a combination of industrial growth and efficient use of water, our future industrial requirements can be met with 10 MAF or so.
Water availability in the country versus the demand is summarised in Figure 2. This shows that we have almost twice as much water as we need.
Figure 2
Then, why the crisis?
In the irrigation sector, which is the biggest consumer of available water, the wastage is too high both in state-managed distribution system of canals as well as on-farm practices by the farmers. The wasteful consumption has raised the demand in irrigation sector at least twice more than the need. But wastage of water aside, this is the prime reason that from neighbouring provinces to neighbouring farmers, every water user is fighting with the other over, so called, water rights and allocations. This has, therefore, compromised on the peace in the country, and thus has created a dangerous dividing line within the communities and the provinces.
The next major problem is pollution of water resources. Despite having enough water, our cities, industries and agriculture sectors, all have become engines of pollution for the natural water repositories. There is indiscriminate pollution of both the rivers and underground aquifers – leaving their waters unfit for use.
The third major problem is mismanagement and corruption within the water sector, both in the rural and urban settings. The rural sector suffers from head and tail disparities along irrigation canals where theft and manipulation of water by the powerful is common. In the urban sector, selling of public water supply through tankers is an everyday routine. Poor planning, leakage, theft, and pitiable maintenance of water supply systems in the cities deprive the citizens from getting water even when it is available.
And finally, our water managers are always lamenting that though there is enough water in the natural system, most of it is only available during the monsoons.
So, what is the way to go around these problems?
Dams don’t help
Let’s first consider dams in relation to the problems identified. Would dams fix wasteful irrigation practices? Would they control pollution? Would they help curb corrupt practices? Would they help manage excessive water supply of monsoon?
Except for the last issue, dams don’t seem to help at all. And even if the last issue is fully resolved through the construction of a large dam, the first three issues would continue to loom and our water problems would hardly improve. Moreover, dams have many downsides. Besides being exuberantly expensive, environmentally destructive and taking decades to build, they have a limited useful life before they silt up. But worst, they can act like a hammer on the dividing line between provinces on water issues and dangerously compromise peace within the country. In other words, dams do not provide a holistic solution to our major problems.
If dams cannot address wastage, pollution, mismanagement, and corruption issues, nor does their storage last long, do we have any alternatives?
The good news is, yes. Because we can think of Dam-Equivalents or DEs.
A DE comprises suites of contemporary technological, structural, and institutional interventions within a hydrologic regime, which mimic the purposes for which large dams are built, but avoid replicating their downsides.
Today’s knowledge, tools and technologies, together with a naturally-gifted hydrological regime of Pakistan, present us a grand opportunity to develop DEs in Pakistan and become the world leaders of contemporary water management.
DEs can help transform our outdated canal irrigation practices—which account for 95 per cent of all water consumption in the country—into modern systems, not only rivaling that of California’s in terms of smartness and productivity, but also raising the bar for the rest of the world in terms of sustainability, eco-friendliness, and low-carbon green-growth standards.
DEs can help us exploit the potential of Pakistan’s 3,500 kilometers of natural river network to be used as inland navigation waterways, connecting Lahore and Peshawar—and possibly Afghanistan—to the Arabian Sea, providing warm water access to the land-locked Central Asian States, thus adding billions of dollars in our economy through trades and tariffs.
DEs can help build urban water security in a way that not only every urban dweller, industry, and public utility gets enough clean water for drinking, health, hygiene, and other uses, but also provide sufficient water for horticulture that may be required for the greening and landscaping of public and private areas throughout the cityscapes.
To top it all, DEs in most cases are cheaper and faster to build as compared to building large dams, yet their functionality is way more sustainable and robust, compared to large dams – with much higher economic dividends.
Fortunately, the much-publicised water crisis in the country has nothing to do with the shortage of water. The real problem lies in obsolete infrastructure and outmoded management practices, resulting in the over-use, misuse, and pollution of our water resources.
Here’s how a DE could help
Take the example of the proposed Kalabagh Dam on the Indus River. According to Engineer Barkat Ali, a former consultant of The World Bank, the dam – at an estimated cost of $6,000 million – would provide water storage volume of 6.1 MAF (million acre-feet), bring 0.85 million acres of additional land under irrigation, and install a power generation capacity of 3,500 MW (megawatt). Annual revenue from the dam is expected to be $1,400 million from the irrigation sector and $1,500 million from power generation. However, the recent boondoggle of the Neelum-Jhelum hydropower project has cost us $5,150 million just to install 969 MW, without any storage capacity. Extrapolating from the recent facts, a project the size of Kalabagh Dam would safely be in the range of $15,000 million to $20,000 million today.
Leaving aside the politics and controversies surrounding large dam projects, let’s first consider a DE on the Indus River which may mimic the purposes of a large dam, albeit maintaining socio-economic and environmental sustainability and improved peace dividends in the region.
An opportunity for DE lies in Rohri Canal, which withdraws 8.5 MAF from Indus to irrigate 2.6 million acres. However, according to a study by the International Water Management Institute, the farmers of Rohri Canal area can only irrigate an average of 1.1 million acres in any given season (Kharif or Rabi) due to the insufficient supply of water to match the guzzling demands of the flood-irrigation methods given to the farmers.
For the suggested DE in Rohri Canal area, three interventions are proposed as illustrated in Figure 3. First, if farmers are provided with modern irrigation methods, wastage will be curtailed and water will be spared. Second, some of this spared water can be diverted to meet the chronic water supply problems of Karachi. Third, a navigation channel could be created between Kotri and the open sea, invoking the economic engine of inland navigation in the region.
Figure 3
Let’s elaborate on these interventions one by one.
A modern irrigation system for Rohri Canal command area would require the development of riverine well-fields, piped water supply systems, and all the doohickeys of modern farms like those of the Hunter Valley in Australia. The estimated cost for modernizing 2.6 million acres could range from eight to 10 billion dollars. Not only would this intervention enable farmers to cultivate the full area with just three MAF—saving 5.5 MAF—it would also increase per acre yields by at least 25 per cent, enabling farmers to earn an excess of Rs300,000 per acre annually. The overall agriculture economy of the canal command could thus reach $6,000 million a year.
This intervention alone addresses the storage and irrigation purposes of Kalabagh Dam – for the dam’s 0.85 million acres of irrigated area, the intervention brings in 1.50 million acres; and, for 6.1 MAF of storage, it provides 5.5 MAF. Interestingly though, the storage in DE is not achieved by blocking the water from reaching the downstream communities, but by releasing additional water downstream. So, while the dam would have deprived the downstream communities of water, causing conflict and discord, the DE intervention adds to peace dividends with the release of additional water for downstream users.
What about Karachi?
The second intervention suggests diverting water from the Indus River to meet the needs of Karachi – a population of 16 million or so. If we plan to supply 35 gallons per person per day of fresh water (an international standard), all we need is 1.7 MAF per year. However, to cater for storage and future needs, we can plan to divert 2.5 MAF.
Before discussing the details of transferring additional water to Karachi, a short stroll along San Antonio River in Texas could be a learning experience. San Antonio River runs through the city for 15 miles (24 Km) along which the ‘San Antonio River Walk’ has been created. Fresh flowing waters have always had an appeal for the humans. Taking advantage of the intrinsic value of its clean flowing waters, the city generates around $3,500 million worth of businesses along the River Walk. The river, however, is an illusion – a ‘tourist mirage’ as put by Robert Glennon in his account on America’s groundwater resources. It is an artificial river which receives its waters by pumping 10 million gallons per day from Edwards Aquifer to the northwest of the city.
The San Antonio River Walk model can be replicated in Karachi. As we divert 2.5 MAF to Karachi, it can be made to run through the cityscape as a carefully crafted ‘artificial river’. The river’s route could take the form of an interconnected course of lakes, streams, and ponds etc., surrounded by beautifully landscaped businesses and recreation areas. On the surface, this ‘river’ will be providing space for multi-billion dollar businesses in a beautified cityscape, but beneath its surface, this river will continuously recharge the aquifer with freshwater. Once the system is in place, it will take between two to three years to enable the city to draw water from the aquifer for day to day usage. The aquifer storage will ultimately reach its full capacity at 20 MAF or so, a staggering 10-year reserve for the city! This system will ultimately provide reliable access to clean and affordable water to every citizen of Karachi and make the city virtually drought-proof. Its cost will be more than offset by the development of water-front real estates and businesses. San Antonio River Walk earns $145 million per kilometre. If Karachi earns even half of it, the annual revenue from the intrinsic value of the ‘river’ would be around $20,000 million. Besides generating businesses and securing water for the city, the system will help turn Karachi into a clean and green city, offsetting heat waves and accruing many socio-environmental benefits. Of course, such a plan has to be implemented with carefully integrated considerations of sewerage and solid waste disposal systems under a unified authority for the entire city. The estimated cost of this intervention is in the tune of $5,000 million.
After diverting 2.5 MAF for securing Karachi’s water supply needs, we still have three MAF of water left that was saved from Rohri Canal. We can let this water flow all the way to the sea through the Indus River, but not without invoking another economic engine that runs with the flowing waters. Here we can go for the third intervention by turning the flowing river into an ‘Inland Navigation Channel’ – connecting the Arabian Sea to an ‘Inland River Port’ established at Kotri. A carefully designed and administered inland navigation system between the open sea and Kotri will help bring cargo worth millions of dollars each day at the inland port. This will not only relieve huge stress from the overcrowded port of Karachi but also free up the congested highway spaces within the city. The port will serve the industry and business within Karachi more effectively, while the cargo destined for areas north of Karachi will be more effectively handled at Kotri’s inland port. Of course, this intervention has to be preceded by meticulous design and development of state-of-the-art inland navigation and port facilities, as well as rules, regulations and by-laws of river navigation. The estimated cost of this intervention is about $4,000 million, while its per annum revenues are expected to exceed $10,000 million within the first five years of its operation.
(Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed DE interventions can create engines of water economy. The economic values assigned to these engines are conservative ballpark figures, used here only to expound upon the concept. These ballpark figures have been compared with similar figures for a large dam in Table 1. This form of comparison can guide us in future decision making for investment priorities in developing dam equivalents for the future.)
Figure 4
Table 1
* Non-consumptive use; projects can be built simultaneously
One of the biggest advantages of DEs is the ease of financing the interventions. Unlike large dams, which are unable to deliver any benefit until the whole project is complete from start to finish, any component of a DE intervention, as soon as it is complete, can start paying off its economic dividends. A DE, therefore, can start with a small seed funding and, with careful financial planning, its dividends can become the source-funds for the subsequent development phases.
We don’t need another mega project to solve our problems. What we need is a mega-vision to guide and coordinate smaller scale interventions into a grand vision—a “think global act local” approach.
Finally, it is worth noting that this DE illustration is applied to just one of the 42 canal commands in Pakistan, while the dividends already exceed 10 times the benefits compared to a large dam. We have at least another 41 similar opportunities to solve our own problems, and in Jinnah’s words, “let it not be said that we did not prove equal to the task”.
posted by f. sheikh
Abbas is an expert in hydrology and water resources.
