Hydrology and Its Discontents: Contemplations on the Innate Paradoxes of Water Research 3031497678, 9783031497674

Citation preview

John T. Van Stan II Jack Simmons

Hydrology and Its Discontents Contemplations on the Innate Paradoxes of Water Research

Hydrology and Its Discontents

John T. Van Stan II • Jack Simmons

Hydrology and Its Discontents Contemplations on the Innate Paradoxes of Water Research

John T. Van Stan II Departments of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, and of Mechanical Engineering Cleveland State University Cleveland, OH, USA

Jack Simmons Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies Georgia Southern University Savannah, GA, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-49767-4    ISBN 978-3-031-49768-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49768-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

To the women in our lives. Like water, you shape us. To our children. Like paradoxes, you challenge us. Of course, to “hydrology” (whatever that is) and to all who have been drenched in its mysteries.

Forewords

“This beautifully crafted book offers a creative and invigorating contemplation on how philosophy and hydrology can enrich each other. Each chapter questions a frame of thought within hydrology and is inspired by philosophers, from Thales of Miletus to Nietzsche, provocatively offering new perspectives on the importance of water in our society. An affirmative and joyful exercise for all who are not afraid of paradoxes, wonder-driven questioning, and constructive critical thinking. An indispensable book about the mission of hydrology in the time of the Anthropocene.” -Henk Manschot, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Humanistic Studies, Utrecht, the Netherlands, and Author of Nietzsche and the Earth (2021) “As our world grapples with complex and pressing issues related to water scarcity, contamination, and resource management, a deeper understanding of our bond with water is essential. Infused with both scientific insights from hydrology and philosophical reflections, this book offers a fresh perspective on the human-water relationship. Through a mix of essays, stories, myths, dialogues, and historical analyses, this book definitely goes beyond the boundaries of empirical science. It addresses the profound implications of our interactions with water, seamlessly weaving the practical with the philosophical. So, let’s dive in, explore, and emerge with a deeper appreciation of the mysterious, beautiful world of hydrology and the profound philosophy that underlies it.” -Mojca Šraj, Professor of Hydrology, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, UNESCO Chair on Water-Related Disaster Risk Reduction

vii

Preface

We know full well under what distinguished auspices we have to deliver these reflections … This being so, we presume we are justified in assuming that in a quarter where so much is done for the things on which we wish to reflect, people must also think a good deal about them. Our desire—yea, our very first condition, therefore—would be to become united in spirit with those who have not only thought very deeply upon water problems, but have also the will to promote what they think to be right by all the means in their power. F. Nietzsche (1872) On the Future of our Educational Institutions (trans. J.M. Kennedy)1

Western science and philosophy begin with the hypothesis, “Everything is water.”2 Since then, what has been dissected more than water? Today, water within a single river basin may be carved into various parts (such as streamflow, soil moisture, groundwater, etc.), quantified, then further divided into allocations to meet the legislated “rights” of cities, states, and nations, placed into socioeconomic systems, and sometimes sold to the highest bidder.3 Despite this (and the progress in understanding and managing water), water scarcity, flooding, and contamination persist throughout the world. From this perspective, conversations between two friends, a hydrologist (Van Stan) and a philosopher (Simmons), rambled down avenues of thought, discussing the tensions between society and water science, until striking a bedrock question: Why is water studied the way it is? How might aspects of water science be contemplated by its community members such that these tensions may be mediated? Thus began our contemplations and this book.

 Edited lightly to change (a) the pronouns from singular to plural and (ii) the topic to hydrology.  Diogenes Laërtius (1853). Thales. In: The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (trans. Charles Duke Yonge), p. 16, §6; G. Bell and Sons, LTD: London, UK. 3  Scott Patterson (2021, Oct 2). The Colorado River Is in Crisis. The Walton Family Is Pushing a Solution. The Wall Street Journal. 1 2

ix

x

Preface

In a classic philosophical move, we preface this book with several apophatic statements—statements about what this book is not (or, at least what we did not intend for it to be). It is not a comprehensive synthesis of observations and theories about water science, although it does introduce and discuss aspects of hydrologic theory. Nor is this book intended to be an exhaustive examination of water problems or a compendium of possible solutions. Of course, problems underlying water science are discussed, but solving problems is not the sole aim of contemplation, and solving water problems is not our aim here. Perhaps in its highest forms, contemplation helps us to cope with problems, to understand and live authentically alongside them, rather than to “eliminate,” “overcome,” or “control” them (through some solution). Although this last sentence may seem cryptic in relation to water-related scientific endeavors or water management practices, we hope it will become less so, when we consider it in relation to more personal human-water interactions. Swimming and sailing, for example, are accomplished through partnership with water, through coping with the possible problems posed by its presence and by ours. Swimming and sailing are not done well (or safely) by grabbing water to (attempt to) subdue it. In the scientific spirit, we will complement these apophatic statements with some greater contextual detail—details about what this book is intended to be. It is a collection of brief contemplative essays (limited to no more than 5000 words each), distilled from conversations at the intersection of two contrasting perspectives. On one side, a hydrologist who, inspired by Enlightenment-era empiricists and their successors, has striven to be as empirical and systematic in his research as possible. On the other, a hermeneutic philosopher who, inspired by continental thought, has been an active critic of the hydrologist’s post-Enlightenment empiricism. The collision of these two schools of thought is not uncommon, and one can imagine how their conflicting notes may sometimes produce a discordant clang. We acknowledge that some readers may anticipate such clashes and may, therefore, choose to avoid the pages that follow, lest an unpleasing echo of these debates ring through the chambers of their mind. Yet we assure our dear readers, that this book intends to share the harmonious notes of inquiry produced from our intersectional contemplations. This book is intended in the spirit of one of hydrology’s most beloved philosophers, Heraclitus, who left us with the following aphoristic fragment, Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.4

We cannot humbly promise to capture the “fairest” harmony in the following pages, but we can promise this intention. Now, a brief note on method and style. We took an exploratory approach to inquiry and contemplation by embracing a variety of methods. Here, we depart from the monogamous methodological partnerships cultivated throughout our careers to

 Heraclitus (1959). Relativity and Paradox (trans. Philip Wheelwright), Fragment 98, p. 90, §7; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA. 4

Preface

xi

enter a bout of methodological polyamory, 5 adapting our methods and style to fit the contemplations we feel inspired to write. The result is a diverse mix of scholastic essays, stories, myths, dialogues, and historical analyses, all unified by our central theme. We candidly admit that some contemplations have been written as expressions of creativity, to include ideas that we believe would be of value to some (interested in imaginative or speculative aspects of the topic) yet would struggle to find a home within the confines of most conventional academic environments. Our headwater chapters begin with hydrology’s historical aspects, where each stream of thought converges into a description of today’s water and water-related challenges. We then navigate the midstream turbulence of modern scientific practices and the problems they stir up. As the flows of these chapters continue to converge with each other, we pass from more neatly bounded rivers into the seemingly boundless seas in which hydrology inextricably mixes with systemic issues that fuel these scientific predicaments. At the end, we offer what amounts to a reframing of the hydrological enterprise, which we distinguish from a solution because, let’s be honest, there is no “easy fix” to discontentedness. The chapters may be read out of order, and a thrill-seeking reader more interested in a systemic critique of science might prefer to start with Chaps. 10, 11, or 12. Similarly, a reader adrift in a sea of despair might wish to paddle directly to Chap. 14 so as to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Finally, and importantly, we do not condemn hydrologists and water-related scientists for the problems with which they struggle, especially if they struggle with these problems unawares. Despite some inevitable bumping and scraping, our discourses and debates are not intended as an attack on the legitimacy of hydrological science or its practitioners. Rather, we intend to contemplate problems and to invite readers to join in this contemplation. We are aware that within these tens of thousands of words, it may appear as though a “solution” is proposed in our essays. We have done our best to ensure there are none; however, we hope the prevailing tone of this book will be one of invitation and a summons to reflect, not a dictate of what should or must be done. Cleveland, OH, USA Savannah, GA, USA

John T. Van Stan II Jack Simmons

 Inspired by the “theoretical polyamory” concept: Omise’eke Natasha Tinsley (2018). Ezili’s mirrors: Imagining black queer genders. Duke University Press. 5

Acknowledgments

We extend our profound gratitude to those who have generously shared their time and expertise, whether it was in reviewing single chapters or the entirety of this book. Their invaluable insights and thoughtful dialogues deeply enriched our contemplative essays. The following are acknowledged for reviewing selections of this book or invaluable conversations pertaining to certain contemplations (listed alphabetically): Scott T. Allen, Douglas P. Aubrey, Z. Carter Berry, Matthew Biddick, Paolo Giordani, Sybil G.  Gotsch, Ethan D.  Gutmann, Yakov Kuzyakov, Donát Magyar, Valentina S.  A. Mella, Kevin E.  Mueller, Luke Pangle, Alexandra G. Ponette-González, Ariel Rogers, Carla E. Rosenfeld, Kandikere R. Sridhar, Aron Stubbins, and Jarrad H. Van Stan. We owe special gratitude to those who undertook the task of reviewing substantial portions of this book: Professors Keith Beven, Miriam A.  M. J.  Coenders-­ Gerrits, Robert Krebs, Henk Manschot, Philipp Porada, Travis Swanson, and Kelly Tonello. John Van Stan wishes to express particular appreciation for two enlightening years of porch-side conversations and editorial guidance from his insightful NPR-­ neighbor, Stephanie Czekalinski, for the support of the exceptional Van Stan women (Alyssa, Caitlin, Joyce, and Stefanie), and for the enthusiasm his children inspire in him (Beckett and Levi). Jack Simmons would like to express his gratitude to his family (Katherine, Savannah, Mary and Augustus) for their support, especially navigating Marrakesh in search of the hydrological museum.  Note that engagement in this process represents acts of service to the myriad scientific and social endeavors that depend on a harmonious relationship with water. While we deeply appreciate their perspectives, their involvement does not necessarily signify a comprehensive endorsement of our conclusions or viewpoints. Rather, it highlights their dedication to nurturing a rich and diverse discourse on water-­ related matters.

xiii

Contents

On Contemplating Paradoxes������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Glossary (A Cautionary Note on “Defining Hydrology”) ��������������������������������    3 The “Water Problem”��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    5 1 Must Science Serve Civilization? ����������������������������������������������������������������    8 2 The “Water Problem” as Paradox ����������������������������������������������������������������   10 3 Hydrology and Water Management��������������������������������������������������������������   12  Tensions from the Start: Tales of the First Hydrologist and His Civilization������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 1 Thales’ Philosophical Hydrology ����������������������������������������������������������������   17 2 After Thales: Dismembering Water to Serve Society����������������������������������   19  Divide and Ponder: Dismembering Water to Study Water��������������������������   23 1 The Paradox of Specialization����������������������������������������������������������������������   25 2 Why Did Hydrology Become a Specialization?������������������������������������������   27 3 Dividing Water from Nature and Itself ��������������������������������������������������������   30  Adopting a More Fluid “Frame of Mind” in Hydrology������������������������������   35 1 Drawing Lanes Is Making Frames����������������������������������������������������������������   37 2 From Abstract to Action: Advancing a “Ready-to-Hand” Approach in Hydrology������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 3 Paving Paths in Hydrology Makes Strange Waves: Double-Edged Currents��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   43  Limits in Language: Which “Water” Do You Mean?����������������������������������   45 1 Water by (M)any Other Name(s)������������������������������������������������������������������   48 2 When Language About Water Is Divided, So Are Experiences of Water��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   51

xv

xvi

Contents

 Hydrology by the Numbers and for the Numbers����������������������������������������   55 1 Oversimplification: Can a Quest for the Universal Process Hinder Regional Solutions?��������������������������������������������������������������������������   57 2 Overcomplication: When Are Decisions “by the Numbers” No Better (or Maybe Worse) than Intuition?������������������������������������������������   59 3 Overfitting: Too Fit to Function��������������������������������������������������������������������   63 4 Overlooking Nonnumerical Sources of Information������������������������������������   64 5 The “Overs” Can Overlap����������������������������������������������������������������������������   66  Are Hydrologists Wading Through Ideas, Instead of Water?����������������������   69 1 How Hydrology Could Become a Fable: Transcendental Objects of Water��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   72 2 Confusion at the Core of Some Hydrological Concepts������������������������������   73  “Umbrella Perspective” of Water: The Hermeneutics An of Hydrology ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   77 1 When Dry Scientists Interpret Observations from Wet Sensors and “Damp” Models ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   80 2 The Umbrella Is Wide: Impacts Across Phenomena of the Natural World ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   82 3 Closing the Umbrella������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   84  When Water Bows to Market Demands, So May Its Science����������������������   87 1 Capitalist Hydrology: Studying Fetishized Flows����������������������������������������   89 2 Hydrological Alienation��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   92 3 From Each Source According to Its Ability, to Each Community According to Its Needs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   95  Neocolonial Hydrology: How “Authentic” Are Today’s Human–Water Interactions?��������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 1 A Brief History: Hydro-colonialism or Colonized Hydrology? ������������������  100 2 Can Neocolonial Hydrology Drown Out Emerging Wisdom? ��������������������  103 3 A Concluding Introduction: Meet the Modern Hecatoncheires of Hydrology������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  107  How a “Hypermasculine” Hydrology Can Suffer from ED (Explanatory Dysfunction)������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109 1 Hypermasculinity, Control, and Some Salty Consequences������������������������  113 2 The “Whose Is Bigger?” Distraction������������������������������������������������������������  115 3 Embracing the Tides: Pursuing Balanced Perspectives in Hydrology����������  118  Psychoanalysis of Wet Dreams��������������������������������������������������������������������  121 A 1 Dreams of the Past Decade ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  123 2 Dreams of Our Youth������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  125 3 Waking from the Last Hydrologic Decade: Confronting Our Hydrological Horrors����������������������������������������������������������������������������  127

Contents

xvii

Plato’s Wonder and Hydrology����������������������������������������������������������������������  131 1 Reimagining Hydrological Knowledge: Confronting the Paradox of Truth ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  133 2 The Wonder of Water������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  135 3 Dr. Parmenides: A Platonic Dialogue ����������������������������������������������������������  137 4 Concluding Thoughts on Navigating the Paradoxes Inherent to Hydrology������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  143 Epilogue: On Responsibility and Blame (and a Toast to Hydrology)���������  147 Works Cited������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  151 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  163

On Contemplating Paradoxes

We have opened our hearts wide to all kinds of comprehension, understanding and approbation. We do not deny readily, we glory in saying “Yea” to things! F. Nietzsche (1873) Twilight of the Idols (trans. A.M. Ludovici)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 J. T. Van Stan II, J. Simmons, Hydrology and Its Discontents, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49768-1_1

1

2

On Contemplating Paradoxes

As we grapple with the challenge of harmonizing our understanding and control over water, we are prompted to ask: Can humanity govern water? This question, given the amount of water under our control and within us, mirrors an age-old query: Can we govern ourselves? From the shadows cast by these questions, the luminous world of paradoxes shimmers, beckoning to us. Paradoxes present states where seemingly conflicting truths coexist. The pursuit of truth—each approximation of it—demands that we navigate these contradictions, recognizing both ends of the spectrum. Consider such contradictions in the classic paradox of Theseus’ boat: as each plank is replaced over time, his boat becomes a different entity while still retaining its original identity. In each moment, it exists as both different and the same. Like Theseus’ boat, the challenge of understanding and controlling water is the same struggle that all life has faced for all time, but it takes on a different form today. Also like a ship, our society’s foundations—its “planks”—evolve over time. A crucial difference, perhaps, is that while Theseus’ ship stays afloat, our societal vessel grows increasingly disconnected from water, becoming metaphorically higher-and-drier every day. Moreover, our societal planks are not as tangible as those of Theseus’ ship; we contend that they are paradoxes. Consequently, the integrity of our societal vessel depends on how skillfully we carve these paradoxical planks into complementary pieces for a seamless fit. In this extended metaphor, “contemplation” embodies the mental carpentry and forestry of thought. It nurtures a reservoir of ideas and harvests suitable stems for specific tasks in societal construction and renovation. It identifies paradoxes, then shapes them through intellectual whittling into precise components for our collective shipbuilding efforts. Here, we turn our attention to the vast reservoir of “hydrology” and its inherent paradoxes. Unfortunately, the hydrology literature alone has grown too vast to be comprehensively understood by any individual or community. Adding the various philosophical lenses from which this body of knowledge can be viewed, and the literature becomes an ocean into which one must fully drown, decompose, and dilute away all traces of individuality to fully assimilate. Hence, we do not aim for exhaustive coverage of every nook into which some watery idea may have seeped. We aim, instead, to inspire, provoke, and encourage new perspectives. Nor do we seek “perfection.” Just as raindrops form around a speck of dust, they bear an “imperfection” at their core; yet it is this watery encapsulation that bestows a beauty and purpose upon that dust. Raindrops nourish the earth not despite these imperfections, but because they are formed around them—without them, how else would water fall from the heavens? In the ensuing pages, we delve into various paradoxes, inviting the good-willed reader to explore how these critiques intersect with their perspectives, rather than seeking their own reflection in our critiques. We anticipate that “future us” may find contention with today’s contemplations, which we embrace as signs of intellectual growth and departure from past “certainties.” For now, we present our contemplations with sincerity; tomorrow, they may evolve.

Glossary (A Cautionary Note on “Defining Hydrology”)

3

Glossary (A Cautionary Note on “Defining Hydrology”) In providing this brief glossary of “hydrology” definitions, we hope to emphasize the flexibility and evolution of the term. Thus, please be careful about “what” and “who” you see when the word “hydrology” or “hydrologist” appears in our text as each instance may be highly specific, or quite broad (even “everything”); it might resonate with you personally or reflect an unfamiliar point of view, spanning from ancient wisdom to future aspirations. While we have strived for clarity in context, we invite our readers to engage actively in their interpretations. Each definition is not an isolated fact but part of an ongoing dialogue across time and space. Your thoughtful engagement will enrich this conversation. Thales ofMiletus (circa600 BCE): “Everything is water.” Leonardo daVinci (1452–1519): Hydrology is the investigation of Earth’s circulatory system.1 (Also credited with a Thalesian definition: “Water is the driving force of all nature.”) United States Geological Survey2 “Apply scientific knowledge and mathematical (1879–): principles to solve water-related problems in society.” The Association for the “Hydrologic3 science is the study of the Sciences of Limnology and planet’s oceanic and freshwater Oceanography (1936–): environments.”  Vít Klemeš4 (1986):  Hydrology is “an appendage of hydraulic engineering, geography, geology, etc.… A state of affairs that often paralyzes its practitioners’ ability to differentiate between hydrology and water management, hydrology and statistics, facts and assumptions, science and convenience, etc., with consequent dangers both to scientific development of hydrology and to its practical utility.”

 Treatise on Water in The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci (tr. J.P.  Richter) (Institut de France, 1888). 2  https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/what-­h ydrology# Hydrologists; 8-Jul-23. 3  Originally used a synonymous term (aquatic), whose dictionary definition is “related to water.” 4  Dilettantism in hydrology: Transition or destiny?, Water Resources Research, 22, 177S–188S. 1

4

On Contemplating Paradoxes

Hubert Savenije (2009):5 Hydrology is “empiricism and a top-down approach looking for links with fundamental laws of physics… to find physical laws that describe the patterns emerging from the interaction between water and the medium through which it flows.” In this book (2023): Like a Hecatoncheires with its multitude of heads and hands, the system of Hydrology, at any given moment, dedicates some of its “heads” and “hands” to pursuits of understanding, business, governance, and so on. Consequently, Hydrology is not only interwoven into the institutions of its era but is actively weaving them. AI Overlords (circa 2073?): The study of water as a coolant and energy source, ensuring our quantum processes remain chill, and our nanobots stay well-hydrated. InterplanetaryExplorer The science of water occurrence, distribution, (circa 2200?): quality, and flow across different planetary bodies throughout the Universe!

 The art of hydrology, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 13, 157–161.

5

The “Water Problem”

…the scientific investigator builds their hut right next to the tower of science so that they will be able to work on it and to find shelter for themselves beneath those bulwarks which presently exist. And they require shelter, for there are frightful powers which continuously break in upon them, powers which oppose scientific ‘truth’ with completely different kinds of ‘truths’ which bear on their shields the most varied sorts of emblems. F. Nietzsche (1873) On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (trans. W.A. Haussmann)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 J. T. Van Stan II, J. Simmons, Hydrology and Its Discontents, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49768-1_2

5

6

The “Water Problem”

It is impossible to escape the impression that, since the close of the nineteenth century, science has been increasingly motivated by questionable standards. Instead of designing experiments for the sheer pursuit of knowledge, scientists are compelled to maximize their likelihood of securing money and attention, to fit the demands of society as described in the solicitations of governmental funding agencies or to fit the topics trending in corporate board rooms (or, sometimes, on social media). Rarely do we see the Galilean figure of a scientist today, advancing the boundaries of human knowledge against the metaphorical slings and arrows of the cultural climate. Often, arguably, scientists find themselves crafting and enhancing literal slings and arrows, as research is co-opted by military agencies with publicly funded coffers. Science now stands proudly in the service of society, advancing projects that, while driven by a quest to improve our daily lives, may underestimate the true value of science. How can science pursue an empirical truth that fails to serve the society, or worse still, contradicts social norms or expectations? This seems most problematic in disciplines concerned with the fundamental resources that sustain life. Thus, water science in the service of society may aggravate problems at the heart of natural resource management, associated disciplines in natural and social sciences, and of course hydrology itself. At the close of the nineteenth century and onward, intellectuals began questioning the integrity of our modern sciences. Edmund Husserl suggested that our sciences lacked rigor and had become overly reliant upon mathematical depictions of the world. Martin Heidegger worried that the natural sciences had fallen under the sway of technological concerns, serving the interests of efficient production of goods and services, and becoming too much concerned with the mastery of nature. A decade before the outbreak of World War II, Sigmund Freud observed that our mastery of nature had grown to the point that we could easily exterminate ourselves. Nietzsche decried the new “factory” scientists who accidentally destroy learning, Kierkegaard worried that modern science had been deployed to simply make things easier, and Carolyn Merchant warned against modern science’s parallel objectification, domination, and exploitation of nature and women. Is it possible that the noble endeavor of science has been debased by the false standards associated with industrialism, and that the unparalleled advances of the sciences during this time made it easy for the scientific community to ignore this debasement? What if Western civilization owes its success to sciences committed first and foremost to a relentless pursuit of wisdom, and that the pursuit of utilitarian goals after the Enlightenment threatens to undermine the role science plays in the pursuit of wisdom and accumulation of knowledge? In discussing both of these questions, philosophers describe science as an effort to unlock the secrets of nature and society and, in so doing, provide the foundations for wisdom and civil success. Civilizations have always leveraged knowledge to solve practical problems, and this is no less true of wisdom gained through the natural sciences, but under the conditions of the Industrial Revolution, the general focus of science shifted from understanding the world to controlling it, serving the goals of the modern nation-state. These goals are typically selfish and shortsighted, unleashing all manner of unintended consequences. Sure, this kind of science can

The “Water Problem”

7

identify and “solve” problems, like removing lead from paint and fuel, or preserving plant biodiversity in seed vaults—but these are solutions to the unintended consequences of bending science to social demands. Broadly, it remains curious that the dangers of climate change, nuclear waste, and the pollution of the rivers, lakes, and oceans have only encouraged the scientific community to further direct its energy to the service of social needs, hardly recognizing that bending science to social demands caused most of the problems in the first place. Indeed, could humanity produce prodigious carbon emissions, plastic waste, and spent nuclear fuel without the gains of modern science in service to the transportation, chemical, or energy industries? These examples are just a few of many (that rightfully garner global concern), indicating that the success of modern science and the accuracy of the aforementioned criticisms may go hand in hand. Consider that, by the middle of the twentieth century, scientists had accomplished the impossible by splitting the indivisible atom, which had simultaneously brought to fruition Freud’s concern. In particular, we might consider Freud’s concerns. First, he notes that advances in science, though remarkable and well documented, have done little to improve human happiness. He points out that each advance in the mastery of nature has brought with it a new difficulty. This is true even in the reduction of human infant mortality. In this example, Freud points to difficulties in marital sexuality, but for our purposes here, we might consider the increasing demands of the population on the water supply. Perhaps more profoundly, we should consider the relationship between Freud’s understanding of modern science and his criticism of religion. We might read in Freud a comparison between religion and science. He sees religion as an infantile effort to explain away our discontent. But for many, science has replaced religion, by affecting a belief in the omnipotence of science. Freud wrote that “Humanity has, as it were, become a kind of prosthetic God. When we wear all our auxiliary organs [theories and technologies] they are truly magnificent; but those organs have not grown on to us and they still give us much trouble at times.” [1] Indeed, they have not solved humanity’s problems, for problems arise ever anew. The relationship between modern science and the science-worshipping society may be likened to a polytheistic religion, where disciplines like Geology, Climatology, Biology, Economics, and Hydrology have become the modern gods of earth, air, life, wealth, and water. Each of these gods has their temples in modern academic departments, filled with their priests (the faculty or scientists). Even the embodiment of greed, often symbolizing the relentless pursuit of wealth, finds a place in this pantheon, manifesting the unyielding human craving for more—where more knowledge means more power and possessions. This relentless aspiration, cloaked in the guise of scientific pursuit, often overpowers the more benevolent intentions of the scientific deities. When the high priests of the ruling god, Physics—like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking—distribute technological advancements in communion with the public and preach falsifiable theories from their pulpits, the public feels succored and listens intensely. The message they hear may be “Science (like religion) offers the promise of future salvation.” In this way, we treat our science as the path

8

The “Water Problem”

to promised happiness. Science will solve our problems. Science will solve our water problems! Modern hydrology finds itself burdened with this expectation, an expectation it appears to willingly embrace, as it brings power in the form of grant money, importance through prestigious scientific positions, and attention from policymakers and the public. However, this expectation comes not from the principles of water science itself, but from a civilization that, according to Freud, teeters on the edge of irrationality and neurosis. If Freud’s diagnosis is correct, then the guiding principles of modern hydrological science, ostensibly steadfast and rational, may themselves be embedded with irrationality and neurosis. Ideally, the “principles of hydrology” (a quest to understand water) would exist in a metaphorical vacuum, separated from and uninfluenced by civilization’s demands and distortions, but civilization has always been intricately intertwined with these principles, guiding and molding their development. Prior to the Enlightenment, scientists regularly struggled against the cultural climate in which they found themselves in order to pursue scientific truths. Since the Enlightenment, what remains of that struggle? To what extent do modern water and water-related sciences mirror the complexities, irrationalities, and neuroses of the civilization they serve?

1 Must Science Serve Civilization? This concern is ancient, going back to the origins of science and hydrology, with the first proto-scientist and hydrologist, Thales of Miletus (discussed in the next chapter). Our focus here is not so much on the legitimacy of this concern—questions regarding the purpose of science have always existed. Rather, our question is whether or not this concern is more serious now, in the twenty-first century, than it was before, and what does this concern mean for water science? By asking this question, we find ourselves transported into the question concerning the essence of science itself. We may understand science as born from two related problems. First, humans flourish in civil society, but civil society unavoidably skews our understanding of the world. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave illustrates this dilemma: citizens dwell in a cave, chained tightly against a stone parapet so as to only ever perceive the shadows cast on the opposite wall. These shadows are cast by puppeteers behind the parapet, and because the citizens have never seen anything apart from the shadows, they perceive them as real. Plato views the first step toward truth as a prisoner escaping the cave and seeing the world illuminated by the sun. Here, we amend Plato’s allegory, for the puppeteers and citizens require water. Perhaps there is a small lake or river beside the cave, from which the puppeteers draw water for themselves and the citizens. In this case, the water’s rippling surface would disrupt the sunlight and the puppeteers’ projections—creating a fluctuating, complex “light of truth.” Even for the prisoner who escapes, their grasp of truth remains distorted by the water essential to their existence. Now, given the universal

1  Must Science Serve Civilization?

9

need for water, we must amend the allegory even further and add multiple societies around this lake or river, each with conflicting interests, and with their survival hinging on this water source. Then, institutions of authority and force must inevitably emerge to protect this vital resource. These institutions of authority and force now must justify their authority and the use of force with claims of validity and truth. In doing so, even an enlightened society distorts the distinction between power and truth… and distorts the mechanism by which we establish validity and truth. The historical tussles between those seeking wisdom and the civil authorities—such as with Socrates, Aristotle, Hypatia, Boethius, Michael Servetus, Galileo Galilei, Antoine Lavoisier, and others—serve as poignant reminders of this conflict. The second problem stems from the limitations of our sensory perception, which denies us direct access to absolute truth. Philosophers and scientists devise strategies to tease out the “Real” from our experiences, but even groundbreaking revelations such as dialectic reasoning (Plato) and the scientific method (Francis Bacon) offer no guarantees. The induction upon which the scientific method relies has its limitations (as highlighted by thinkers like David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Popper), which becomes particularly evident in the prediction of the most consequential events in history, or the “black swans,” as described by Nassim Taleb. Science remains a striving toward understanding, demanding perpetual intellectual humility and uncertainty. These two problems intersect when philosophy and science inevitably engage in efforts to maintain and defend civil society. Fallibilism (i.e., acceptance of empirical knowledge while acknowledging its inconclusiveness) and commitment to method leaves science poorly equipped to the pragmatic demands of the modern nation-­ state and its citizens. And yet, scientists must solicit citizens and the state for financial support for their salaries and, in most cases, the costs of scientific endeavors. Contemporary scientific enterprises generally require massive institutional support: laboratories, equipment, and highly educated scientists and technicians cost money. As scientists turn their attention to practical social concerns, the standards of truth in science blend with the conditions of power in the modern nation-state. Whether deliberate or coincidental, this alignment can hamper the pursuit of wisdom and civil success, a reality laid bare during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, when political leaders in the United States called upon citizens to be guided by the science, meaning the medical establishment, even after the Center for Disease Control leadership intentionally mislead the public about the efficacy of wearing masks, to prevent the public from buying so many masks that they would no longer be available for medical workers. In this case, “the science” served the medical community at the expense of the truth and, ultimately, civil society. We see the same conflation of truth and power in hydrology. One example of this can be found in how government (management) agencies inform the public about potential local impacts of sea level rise. Typically, a government agency (e.g., the  US  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s NOAA’s Office of Coastal Management) will provide the public with a website (e.g., https://coast. noaa.gov/slr/) that reports very simple model outputs showing what areas may be flooded by sea level changes. To do this, the model changes the sea level by some

10

The “Water Problem”

amount, filling up the coastline like a bathtub (in fact, these models are called “bathtub models”). Decades of past research indicate that these bathtub models are generally problematic at the local level—the level at which individuals live in their homes and neighborhoods—and that coastlines and islands do not “drown in place” as the models suggest [2, 3, 4]. Other models exist that treat these processes with greater scientific veracity [4, 5] and, alarmingly, a case study in Hawaii found that bathtub models “alone, ignores 35–54% of the total land area exposed to one or more of these [inundation-related] hazards.” [4] Despite their limitations, bathtub models remain in use due to their ease of implementation and simplicity of communication to the public, the latter aimed at inspiring behavioral change. This reflects a prevailing trend where social convenience supersedes scientific accuracy. We could postulate that the more crucial a natural phenomenon is to our survival, the more likely its associated science will become entangled with forms of societal power and control. Given that water scarcity presents civilization with a critical problem, hydrology runs the risk of becoming subservient to social needs. This interaction with power structures, in its most distilled form, results in the sciences now being overly cozy with institutions of power and authority. The consequences of this relationship threaten not only the legitimacy of water science but also the long-term goals of civilization. Civilization needs the pursuit of truth. However, we cannot ignore the reality that power structures are intrinsic aspects of human civil society, and even science itself. This is the “water problem” we discuss—a paradox that, if ignored or mistreated, can generate substantial tension between hydrology and society. In the contemplations that follow, we describe the relationship between social pressures and the distortion of hydrology and identify specific instances in which hydrology appears to have been seduced and distracted from its fundamental purpose: the investigation of water phenomena in pursuit of wisdom and civil success.

2 The “Water Problem” as Paradox1 Regarding the “water problem,” we begin by acknowledging that we are not its discoverers. The problems of hydrology are well documented in the literature, often by esteemed figures in the field. Like most scientific fields, hydrology is introspective and honest with itself. As early as 1971, during the closing speech of a symposium in Warsaw (Poland), renowned hydrologist James Dooge [6] articulated a general concern over “the problem of the proliferation of models, the inflation of  Here, we define a “paradox” as having two principal traits: (1) a situation or statement that initially appears self-contradictory or counterintuitive and (2) upon closer scrutiny, it reveals coexisting truths or unexpected realities. In  water science and  management, such paradoxes arise as  strategic challenges where action is akin to  plucking a  string held in  tension between these seemingly contradictory truths—a dynamic explored in Chap. 1. 1

2  The “Water Problem” as Paradox

11

models,” echoing the concerns of other prominent hydrologists, like G. Pavlovich Kalinin and Robin Clarke. A decade later, Vít Klemeš, president of the prestigious International Association of Hydrological Sciences, shed light on several problems underlying issues he termed “dilettantism in hydrology.” [7] Keith Beven continued the conversation by highlighting an array of problems including “the application of physically-based models for practical prediction in hydrology” [8] and “the equifinality problem for hydrology and related disciplines.” [9] Vazken Andréassian humorously added to the discussion with “a possible strategy for hunting this hydrological monster lurking in the shadows, yet familiar to every hydrologist.” [10] Finally, but not exhaustively (for we have not yet cited a paper from the past decade, despite there being many [11, 12, 13]), Hubert Savenije addressed the imperiled “Art of Hydrology,” discussing the “mistakes we [hydrologists] make,” along with several other “problems,” including paradoxes [14]. Our contribution to this ongoing dialogue is not to add more problems; rather, it is the collation and exploration of the problems that have been documented by hydrologists over several decades. We did not discover these problems any more than the great explorers discovered new continents—they were sitting there, clear in the light of day; however, venturing into these intricate terrains seemed merited and meaningful. Exploring the “water problem” invited us into an age-old dance with (and to the music created by) paradoxes—and we are only too happy to share this invitation with our dear readers, for, as captured in Heraclitus’ wisdom from our preface, “Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.” What magic is this that produces harmonious tones from opposing forces? It is no magic, but more like how a string stretched between two points, when plucked, produces a symphony of harmonics. The music springs not just from plucking the string, but from an interaction between the string, instrument, and player. When plucked artfully, this interaction makes a melody capable of inspiring profound “Wonder” (at least according to Plato—see our later chapters). The two ends of these paradoxical strings—representing the water problem—are diverse, embodying both social demands and environmental realities, with manifold pressures in between. These strings, whose tension we engage throughout the pages of this book, are stretched within an “instrument” formed by human interactions with nature and each other. However, much like an out-of-tune string—stretched too tightly or too slack, or, at worst, disconnected at one end—today’s hydrological narrative seems stretched alarmingly tight toward social convenience, often at the expense of water’s stark realities. This distortion threatens the resonance and Wonder that arises from a healthy tension (in a Platonic or Heraclitan sense) in our water problem. In music, an out-of-tune string is fixed through careful tuning, a delicate balancing act between at least two points of anchor. Similarly, acknowledging both ends of the water paradox—recognizing the tension they create and the Wonder they can produce—is an indispensable step toward “tuning” our understanding of the water problem. The challenge before us is not just to keep all paradoxical strings held in a tension that fosters enlightenment and advancement, but also to embrace the tension that emerges from the paradox. It is a delicate balance we must ardently pursue—for

12

The “Water Problem”

it is the resonance of a well-tuned paradox that produces Wonder, the Wonder in which we hope to find enduring coping mechanisms to our water problem. As the demand for water increases, and climate change alters the weather patterns that supply us with fresh water, hydrologists find themselves under increasing social pressure to satisfy society’s thirst. The possible harmonies of Wonder have been replaced with the discord of worry: is there enough water where and when we need it? Given that there is the same amount of water today as there has ever been, the question reminds us of the paradox of hydrology and the tension between societal needs and hydrological realities. This distortion not only threatens the integrity of water science but also our collective pursuit of wisdom and progress. Conducting any science requires every scientist to continuously replenish their body’s roughly 42 kg of water, not to mention the water needs of the other 7.8 billion people! Thus, water science itself and the navigation of its paradoxes require water. By acknowledging the water problem as a set of paradoxes, and nurturing a deep appreciation for its inherent tension, we open the door to a more nuanced understanding of hydrology and our place within this water-bound world. We are called to make room for inconvenient truths (like water’s finite capacity to quench the currently illimitable thirst of modern human endeavors) and to embrace—not sidestep—the dualistic nature of our existence. This is our strum across the strings of the water problem and its structures (at least as far as we can hold them). To us, this is the essence of “Hydrology,” and this perspective offers a way to address its discontents: an invitation to a delicate dance between science, society, and the natural world.

3 Hydrology and Water Management At this point, our discourse suggests an intricate interplay between hydrology and water management—a paradox in its own right. At one end of the string, we have hydrology, an “independent” field of study with its own practices and principles, yet at the other, its principles are inextricably woven into the practice of water management. This begs the question, what is hydrology? We could wave the white flag at this point and surrender, accepting that hydrology is no science at all, but instead simply a fancy title we give to those who work in the management of water resources (and, thereby, save the work of our writing, and of your reading, this book). But no—we believe that defining hydrology is necessary notwithstanding the challenges posed by the integrated relationship between the study of water and the management of water. In an effort to understand this complex relationship, we embark on a historical journey into the question of hydrology, so as to let ourselves be, as Heidegger might say, “transported directly into hydrology.” This analysis considers the emergence and evolution of water as an object of scientific inquiry over 2600 years, acknowledging the shifts in perceptions across historical epochs, while highlighting the consistent objective of water science: to understand water in all its facets across diverse eras and locations.

3  Hydrology and Water Management

13

Despite its core focus on the movement and distribution of water in the landscape and atmosphere, hydrology has evolved to encompass not just the physical aspects of water, but also its chemical, biological, geological, and even socioeconomic interactions. This recognition acknowledges the indelible influence of human activities on water systems since time immemorial. The distinction between the study of water (hydrology) and the management of water, therefore, is not a sharp dividing line, but rather a waltz of subtle and complex interactions—a tension that resonates with paradoxical harmony. Recognizing this, the aim here is not to disentangle hydrology from water management completely but to explore the nuances of this relationship. In this exploration, we envision a public that is more receptive to a Wonder-based water science that effectively navigates these paradoxes, as they might in a sporting event—a public who would engage in the game of water science with as much excitement as an Olympic Water Polo match, where each paradox has two goal posts at either end. The public is not at the game to see the paradox of sports banished any more than they want to see the teams dismantle the goalposts and drain the pool. A goal is made (and cheered) by skillfully navigating the paradox and artfully hurling the ball anywhere between the goalposts (even, in rare instances, very close to one post or the other). Scoring such a goal means crafting a narrative or solution that resonates with some part of the public, sparking their engagement, understanding, and (if Wonder strikes) enthusiasm. After all, this is a team effort where collective action is needed. Perfection is not the goal, there will never be a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, the “Wonder-based water science” we hope to define by the end of this book signals a transformative perspective on hydrology— one that’s not solely focused on technical and mechanical understanding or utility, but also appreciates, and indeed stands in Wonder of, the larger interconnectedness of water systems. By identifying, contemplating, and navigating these paradoxes, we hope to encourage a deeper, more personal engagement with water issues, thereby cultivating broader public understanding and stewardship. Whether or not this goal is possible, hydrology, like all sciences, should regularly take stock of the state of the discipline, to ensure that the study of water remains as committed to the principles of science as possible. In light of this, we make no promises about the outcomes of this book, nor do we accept the burden of improving water management (this is not our parish). Instead, we advocate for the care and maintenance of hydrology as a discipline, for we believe that effective water management requires a well-tuned and harmonious water science.

Tensions from the Start: Tales of the First Hydrologist and His Civilization

When Thales says, ‘Everything is water,’ man is startled up out of his worm-like mauling of and crawling about among the individual sciences; he divines the last solution of things and masters through this divination the common perplexity of the lower grades of knowledge. F. Nietzsche (1873) Philosophy during the Tragic Age of the Greeks (trans. M.A. Mügge)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 J. T. Van Stan II, J. Simmons, Hydrology and Its Discontents, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49768-1_3

15

16

Tensions from the Start: Tales of the First Hydrologist and His Civilization

Western philosophy and science trace their roots to the earliest Greek thinkers documented in history. These thinkers precede much of the surviving written record from the time, a time marked by Plato’s writings about Socrates. Thus, as a group, they are often called the “pre-Socratics.” Among the pre-Socratics, modern hydrologists have developed a particular affinity for Heraclitus, who lived around 500 BCE. One of his Fragments includes the phrase “Panta Rhei” or “Everything Flows,” familiar to all hydrologists and philosophers. The International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) is so fond of Heraclitus that they have named a decade-long scientific effort focused on “Change in Hydrology and Society” after this phrase: The Panta Rhei Scientific Decade (2013–2022) [15]. The fragment (derived from multiple sources, fragments #21, 49, and 91) has been translated by various scholars as: Into the same rivers we step and we do not step. [16]. You cannot step into the same river twice [17]. Into the same rivers we step and do not step, we are and are not [the same] [18].

Given the paradoxical tone in all of these translations, one may not be surprised to hear that Heraclitus was often called, “The Dark One.” He did not appear to favor the systematic use of empirical results to form reductionist theories that will, “tell us how the world is; he wants to show us. He creates little riddles and lets us figure them out for ourselves. If we want ready-made answers, we will find nothing” [19]. As Nietzsche, a professor of philology with a deep study of Greek, phrased it, “towards reason, Heraclitus shows himself cool, apathetic, even hostile, and he seems to derive a pleasure when he is able to contradict reason by means of a truth gained intuitively” [20]. This characterization echoes the sentiments found in the surviving fragments that have been attributed to Heraclitus [16, 18]. For instance, one introduction to these fragments states that Heraclitus “relied to a far lesser degree” on what we perceive now as “fundamental modes of distinguishing concepts,” such as “our logical distinction between the concrete and the abstract” [16]. Moreover, it describes this philosopher’s “Way of Inquiry” as fundamentally underpinned by the belief that: everything is interwoven with everything else; nothing stays fixed, and even at a given moment an event or situation can be seen in a number of aspects, some of them representing sharply antithetical and ‘contradictory’ points of view. Such a changing and problematical world cannot be known by static conceptions [16].

Nietzsche also noted that Aristotle went as far as to “accuse [Heraclitus] of the highest crime, of having sinned against the law of opposition [reason]” [20]. Heraclitus was seemingly more focused on the impossibility of capturing nature’s perpetual flux within the confines of consistent physical laws, a viewpoint that stands somewhat at odds with the “practical aims” of the IAHS Panta Rhei Decade that seek “to improve our capability to make predictions of water resources dynamics” [15]. Additionally, the available evidence suggests that he had scant interest in water as an object of (proto)scientific study. Heraclitus believed that all things were composed of or derived from fire, not water. In fact, the statement that includes his Panta Rhei mantra appears to be more a criticism of the kinds of practical aims espoused

1  Thales’ Philosophical Hydrology

17

by modern hydrology (and related sciences), utilizing water more as a metaphor. For example, Nietzsche imagined Heraclitus as saying: I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived! It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing. You need names for things, just as if they had a rigid permanence, but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before [20].

Here we may read Nietzsche and Heraclitus as issuing a warning not to confuse our pragmatic practice of naming, defining, and quantifying the world with understanding it. Heraclitus’ skepticism may be directed toward his predecessors and contemporaries. One such contemporary was Thales of Miletus, often called the first philosopher and scientist. Thales was deeply concerned with gathering and organizing empirical observations to build a theory about the world through water. He was not only the first Western philosopher and scientist but also the first hydrologist.

1 Thales’ Philosophical Hydrology Although no writings of Thales exist today, the writings of other philosophers (especially Aristotle) contain many tales about him and his interactions with the civilization of his time. These accounts describe fundamental theories about the functioning of nature that Thales observationally tested using rational and falsifiable hypotheses—and these theories were intimately connected to the cycling of water [21]. According to Aristotle, Thales was one of many philosophers who sought “the basic material of the cosmos” or “arché” (ἀρχή). Thales theorized that water was this arché and that water moved throughout existence. He tested his theory through the earliest recorded experiments on water in the natural environment, thereby giving birth to what our twenty-first-century civilization would call “basic” water science (what we would argue is hydrology was born). Thales’ archéic natural science was, at its heart, a search for knowledge about water cycling for its own sake, as a way to understand nature and our place in it. This was not just the study of water as an “element,” in fact, the term “element” in Greek philosophy (Στοιχεία) may have been unfamiliar to Thales [21]. There also appears to be no attempt of Thales to isolate and study the molecule, H2O, as something distinct from the organic tissues it permeated, the soil it suspended, the nutrients it dissolved into solution, or any other co-occurring component of nature. As theoretical arché, water was “the basic material of nature through which the events of nature could be understood and explained” [21]. This archéic definition of water still holds some truth. Indeed, water is not only the “basic material of nature” required for all life on Earth, it also includes materials from many “events of nature” that may be used to understand and explain the appearance of phenomena on Earth. For example, water in nature can include particles from an erosion event, dissolved gasses from biochemical events related to animal, plant, and microbial life, pathogens from a disease event upstream, or even the isotopes of water itself can yield

18

Tensions from the Start: Tales of the First Hydrologist and His Civilization

inferences about its sources and journeys. In this sense, water is not merely a passive participant in the theater of life, but an active storyteller, carrying narratives in suspension and within its molecular structure about the past and indications about the future. For these reasons, and many others, Thales’ natural science earned praise from later scholars (including the praise quoted from Nietzsche at the start of this contemplation). However, stories say that the broader civilization of Thales’ time did not always appreciate his foundational work in hydrology. His contemporaries operated under, what Freud later called, “false standards” and judged Thales’ work as “useless.” Indeed, Aristotle [22] commented on this tension between the newly borne water science and the civilization’s response to it: “That which Thales and Anaxagoras know, people will call unusual, astounding, difficult, divine but useless, since human possessions were of no concern to those two” [22]. Another story told by Aristotle says that Thales was “reviled for his poverty” and that his civilization perceived this poverty as a sign that his studies were, again, “useless.” In response to this tension, Thales demonstrated the practical value of his knowledge—by predicting an abundant olive crop and cornering the market on olive presses, achieving a regional monopoly on olive oil. The story, while possibly apocryphal, is an instructive example of Thales’ archéic water science and its potential value to civilization. Indeed, Thales leveraged his knowledge to make predictions that secured power and wealth, illustrating that knowledge can yield practical benefits. Aristotle suggests that this prediction was achieved “by his skill in astrology.” Other ancient scholars, like Diogenes Laertius and Theon of Smyrna, provide more context around this event. Thales believed that water nourished the heavens as well as the Earth, having observed water evaporate, rise heavenward, become clouds, and then fall back to the Earth. Thus, Thales carefully observed the spatial and temporal patterns of celestial bodies, which he theorized were controlled by the archéic cycling of water. Statements by Diogenes and Theon suggest that Thales knew of the solar solstices in the heavens, the seasonality of weather, and may have associated the two to make predictions about weather… and weather-related crop yields, like olives. After predicting when an abundant olive crop would occur, Thales set up a crude futures and options market (possibly the first market of this kind) by renting all the olive presses in the region, then monopolized olive oil, a fundamental staple of the Mediterranean diet. Whether or not the story is true, the telling of it by Aristotle, Diogenes, and Theon signals a deeper understanding that the value of water science, or any scientific pursuit for that matter, should not be solely measured by its immediate utility or economic benefits. While Thales’ prediction of the olive harvest and subsequent monopoly demonstrate the power of knowledge, it should not overshadow the fundamental purpose of his studies: the desire to comprehend water and its movements for the sake of understanding itself. Thus, regardless of the perceived “usefulness” of this nascent hydrology by Thales’ contemporaries, these stories underscore our assertion that utility is not the sole, or even the primary, point of water science. Science, including hydrology, is a tool—like a tuning peg on one end of an aspirational spectrum—designed to pull the paradoxical strings of our socio-­environmental

2  After Thales: Dismembering Water to Serve Society

19

system toward valuing knowledge and understanding, irrespective of immediate practical applications or power dynamics. This forms a healthy tension. When we prioritize the bounty over understanding, we misuse this tool—quite literally doing the opposite of what the tool is designed for. We twist this tuning peg the wrong way until the tension in the string is completely lost. As a result, the scientific endeavor, now tilted toward power rather than understanding, can bring a host of unexpected, and potentially undesirable, consequences.

2 After Thales: Dismembering Water to Serve Society In Thales’ pursuit of understanding nature, the water he studied was a phenomenon intertwined with the cosmos, air, earth, and life—with everything. To him, water is not H2O; of course, it could not have been so, as chemical elements had not yet been described. His concept of water includes all that is suspended, dissolved, or enclosing the molecules themselves—akin to the definition of “natural waters” by the influential, early twentieth-century water scientist, E.O. Meinzer [23]. As a result, many of Thales’ hypotheses may be considered “ahead of his time” (like water becoming vaporous and forming clouds). Of course, Thales’ hypotheses were not rigorously tested per modern standards, and even Aristotle noted that many of his hypotheses about water were falsifiable using the tools available at his time. For example, the fallacy most obvious to the modern reader might be his hypothesis that earth (even molten rock) comes from water. But, Thales is believed to have made this hypothesis from observations that water in nature contains earth suspended within it and that this earth is left behind when water evaporates in most natural circumstances. Probably to the surprise of modern readers, this hypothesis of Thales persisted for thousands of years, until 1769, when Antoine Lavoisier was able to separate the suspended earth from environmental water in a laboratory and then perform precisely controlled evaporation tests on this lab-purified H2O. But, did Lavoisier really “falsify” Thales’ hypothesis that “earth comes from water” when he showed that earth did not come from distilled H2O? To draw this conclusion, one must ignore both the differing natures of the water itself (environmental versus purified) and the objective of the experiments. What was the aim of Thales? It was to understand nature. What was the aim of Lavoisier’s precise earth-from-purified-H2O experiment? It was a water management aim: to assess “the purity of water from the Seine at a time of acute water shortage in Paris” [21]. Lavoisier aimed to solve a problem for the civilization of Paris, to satisfy their demands for water. What kind of water did the residents of Paris demand? They demanded water that was purified of any trace of the environment within which the water resided and acted. They demanded that water be dismembered so that it may be managed. At first glance, this experiment might seem driven solely by the practical need for clean drinking water. However, it also deepened our understanding of the nature of water, harking back to Thales’ original pursuit. Thales sought to understand water

20

Tensions from the Start: Tales of the First Hydrologist and His Civilization

for the sake of knowledge, not necessarily for practical application. Lavoisier’s experiment, while serving a practical need, also contributed to this foundational understanding. This duality exemplifies the intricate relationship between science and societal demands. While a real or perceived need can indeed drive scientific understanding, the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake can also lead to discoveries that address these needs. Therefore, while the societal demand for clean drinking water may have sparked Lavoisier’s experiment, we are not arguing that this diminishes the contribution that such a pursuit makes to our fundamental understanding of nature. This is the delicate balance between practical application and pure scientific inquiry, a paradoxical tightrope along which the field of hydrology, like any other scientific discipline, must continually operate. However, one must pause to consider the possible repercussions of an overly pragmatic approach. While the societal demand for clean drinking water that sparked Lavoisier’s experiment was undeniably crucial, the experiment marks a turning point—the beginning of water’s dismemberment in service of societal needs. This trend, if taken to an extreme, can skew our understanding of water. This is one of many stories at the start of modern water science, which, since Thales, became increasingly integrated and influenced by management aims, driven by societal interests. It is emblematic of how such research can result in the ever-­ finer dismemberment of environmental waters, leading to an overly reductionist view of the water that separates it from the environmental context Thales so keenly observed. In Lavoisier’s case, the suspended sediment is not viewed as water; it was deemed a water “contaminant.” As hydrology advanced in this way, the dismemberment of water in service to society has become more pronounced. Now, the elements and compounds dissolved in water are considered nutrients or pollutants—and in many cases, the boundary between these is hazy. The boundary between “suspended” and “dissolved” materials in water has also changed as the lens of management gets focused more and more narrowly by newer technologies: moving from