The BBC page also links to the intricate and fairly ancient irrigation system used in the Swiss mountain region of Valais.
Legend has it that when God created the Valais, he asked the local farmers whether they wanted rain, or whether they would take care of their own irrigation. After a brief consultation, they announced that, with all due respect, irrigation was too serious a matter to entrust to a bloody foreigner…
My home as a child had been a duck farm. My father converted it to an orange trees (and all kind of vegetables) orchard, it was 3k m2 (that's almost eight acres) so we had plenty of space.
It was hypnotic watching the sharecropper, with just a hoe, directing the water from the reservoir to all the trees, lettuces, watermellons... I wonder if those skills were transmited from generation to generation for centuries. With modern irrigation systems, I guess they're being lost.
Maybe for huge orchards, but I said it was hypnotic because it was more of a technical work. Once the trenches are in place (and they can be made with a tractor) the only work is one move with the hoe to switch the water flow from one trench to the next. I was a child and the guy allowed me to try it once. I succeded just with three loads of dirt instead of one.
The achievement is as much a social one as a technological one. Having a common irrigation system shared by multiple competing businesses and having it operate well for hundreds of years is impressive.
This story reminds me of the central WA state where I grew up. They had a similar network of canals. It's the largest irrigation network in the US (according to the internet). Unlike the one in the article, most farmers in central WA aren't flooding their fields directly from the canals. Many of the farmers running at any sort of scale opt for a center-pivot (circle) to water their field. These machines end up being the most water (and labor) efficient way to water a field of 100+ acres.
I worked at for an irrigation supplier for a few years and got to see all the ins-and-outs of how these machines work. The supporting infrastructure is pretty impressive too. The pumps, pipes, valves, and electrical panels that drive these machines is an engineering marvel.
I always wanted to ask, why such circle-crop formations are usually in a square greed, instead of hexagonal? is it because it's easier to move tractors and other stuff between them, or is it because land isn't that scare resource as I imagine it?
TL;DR, simpler mechanics for the irrigation system.
The circular pattern comes from the area irrigated by the simplest configuration of a center-pivot [0], which is a fixed point in the center to access water. "Non-circular" area require linear/lateral movement "center-pivots" that require a way more complex control system, or some kind of booster to cover the "corners of a square".
I think this is not what parent asked. The question was why circles are arranged in square grids but not in haxagons.
Which is great question, and I would like to know the answer too.
The "circular" is clear. But the "square grid" part is not. Why are the circles arranged in a square grid instead of a hexagonal one? Is it property definition difficulty?
Valencia's a cool place to visit, they did a number of interesting things in the last few decades:
* after a devastating flood in the 1950s they "moved" the river out of the city and they used the original channel to build a 10km long park with tons of infrastructure for sports and recreation: https://metropolismag.com/projects/how-valencia-turned-crisi...
* they have a network of docked city bikes with ~300 stations around the city. Docked bikes are not perfect, but don't cause the mess that dockless bikes do. It costs €30/year and every ride is free for 30min. (it's not unique, as other cities have similar networks, but it's really well executed)
* their Ciudad de las artes y ciencias (City of arts and science) is a beautiful complex with a museum, cinema, oceanographic park and iirc there's even a night club somewhere there. Really cool place for tourist and local residents to hang around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Arts_and_Sciences
To be honest, while “Ciudad de las artes y ciencias” looks amazingly cool at a distance, its kind of “shallow” when you come up close. In the sence that there isn’t much to do or discover once you’re inside the whole thing.
For me it felt like something built for cars - while driving past it in a car or looking at it from a hotel skybar its breathtaking, but the more you get close the less interesting it becomes.
I remember taking a look at Gaudy’s architectural masterpieces in Barcelona - those were much more inspirational for me as they were more fractal in nature, the more you got close the more you could discover, the guy designed the outside look down to the doorhandles on the interior doors. It was a endless maze of detail, which looked very futuristic from a distance too.
I’d liken Gaudy to Steve’s Jobs where he _had_ to control all the details. Whereas Valencia’s ciudad de las artes to something designed by a committee - amazing for its purpose, but not much beyond that.
I live in Tokyo, originally from Valencia, and while riding the train some times get surprised at seeing commercials that are recorded in the City of Arts and Science!
The city is gorgeus in general. Their hobby of burning things and making a big noise with gunpowder is also a plus for me... I hope I can go to Fallas one of these years.
There's actually 3 :D Umbracle, the one that exists open air under the awnings is great in the summer time air. It only runs during the warmer months as the locals can't stand the 20C night temperature.
Valen-bici is super convenient, they are pretty heavy steel framed machines but everythings flat so it's not a great bother.
The real gem is the extensive bike lanes that stretch upwards of 20km out from the city. Every main road has a bike lane. Electric scooters were the real ticket and I had one while I was there. ALmost went a year carbon free transport.
You can get a bike rental from the city center, and bike on an uninterrupted bike lane to a nature preserve outside of the city - a literal forest.
First time I’ve seen a bike highway in nature and I think its incredibly amazing. Definitely a highlight during my stay there.
And to top it off the beaches are amazing too - they are “thicker” than most greek/italian beaches are long, and its kilometers long at that too.
Most city beaches are a crammed affair with too much people for my comfort. Valencian ones made me feel a bit lonely even with thousands of people around, just because all of them are spread through this huge area.
It doesn't scale (and that's a good thing). Valencia's responsibility is to feed Valencia, not the world.
Every locale should be responsible for its own food security. As each locale is different, there is no universal solution. Each locale will need to be resourceful and adapt according to its own climate and what resources are available in its vicinity.
Sadly, some locales are unprepared for food self-sustainability, and the denizens of these places will have to find a way to adapt eventually, whether by will or climatic/geo-political event. Better sooner than too late.
I see there's a huge omissions here. Valencia is famous for its oranges, which are produced at scale, transported and sold to the rest of Spain and other European countries. Meanwhile at many local supermarkets we often get cheaper, lower quality Morocco oranges, which is a shame (they are not subject to the same quality standards):
Not to mention the impracticality of urban areas feeding themselves. NYC houses what, 8 million people? With a population density of 27,000 people per square mile, you aren't going to be able to feed everyone without importing utterly massive amounts of food. Even if everyone were strictly vegetarian or vegan, the water consumption alone would still require a massive desalination effort, plus a plan to deal with the leftover brine... not to mention the electric bills from all the light needed to feed so many crops in skyscrapers. 8 million people eat a lot of food on a daily basis.
Much better to farm elsewhere and transport the food, imho.
The part that I find interesting to think about is the relationship between the areas. We require intensive farming to sustain the current lifestyle of people, yet most are very disconnected from the source of their food. If we grew more food locally (impractical given the current setup) then people would witness the impacts of intensive agriculture. This might also help constrain population levels closer to sustainable numbers because people see how finite the resources are.
I've seen a variety of estimates of how many people the world can support. But I haven't seen any that estimate how many the world can sustainably support. If we aren't thinking longterm, then we're just trudging towards bigger problems with many of the smaller ones we solve. For example, use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer from non-renewable sources, or biosecurity threats from fast international travel and trade, or overfishing, etc. Pretty much all due to demand for food and the modern lifestyle.
>Invented by the region's Moorish rulers 1,200 years ago
I have no problem with stating that it was built, or implemented by Moorish rulers. I have a problem with 'invented'.
Waterways specifically for irrigation, in near-identical (and many better) designs have been around significantly longer than 1,200 years. The Romans, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Incas, Mayans, and so on. Go to central Arizona in the USA to see about 700 miles of irrigation canals built by the Hohokams. Or, check out the Assyrians' inverted siphon for the Nineveh Aqueducts.
Maybe "invented" is in relation to the specific social system designed around the irrigation regulating water distribution fairness. It sounds much better than the system where I live(Colorado), which is "first in time, first in right", meaning the first person to use water from a river gets to claim whatever water they use as their own for eternity, meaning anyone else who comes along later can't have any water at all until the senior rights holder gets their fill.
New Mexico has the same "first in time, first in right" law, sadly imposed by Americans when it became a state, and mostly (but not entirely) replacing the acequia system here that is (for obvious reasons) extremely similar to the one in TFA.
The FIT/FIR system is not going to survive. Of this, I am certain. It's a concept based on mistaken ideas about the amount of water in the American southwest, in turn based on a particularly wet couple of decades at the turn of the 20th century. If the current drought continues, or at some other point in the future, the implicit farming-centric nature of FIT/FIR is going to clash with the desires of these states' growing populations. Farming is not going to win (by farming, I mean large scale industrial production, mostly for export).
Is there any material difference from what’s been described in the article, and the canal irrigation that happens around much of the western US? I have access to canal water myself and it’s used mainly for flood irrigation in these parts.
The main difference (although that is not clear from the article) that this system is based on fixed proportions of usable water volume whereas water rights in the Western US states are mostly setup in order of seniority and (at least historically) with no adjustment mechanism for usable flow. That means that if users with senior rights use up all the waters, junior rights holders and the natural river itself get no water.
This kind of irrigation is terrible if you are trying to conserve water.
As temperatures rise places that use aqueduct and flood irrigation will have to contend with the loss of water to evaporation during transport.
Fortunately people out on the American plains have this figured out and better technologies exist. The problem is convincing farmers and law makers in areas that have traditionally had abundances of water to change their ways.
> Fortunately people out on the American plains have this figured out and better technologies exist.
Agriculture in that region is also depleting the major aquifer faster than it can be recharged through rain. Not the best example of sustainable irrigation.
New Mexico loses about 7% of all the precipitation that falls within its borders to evaporation. That's about the same amount as used by the residential population.
So on the one hand, it's a huge problem, but on the other, it's not.
Perhaps towards the other extreme, some hydroponic systems capture any evaporated water and re-introduce it into the cycle. By some standards, this is "better technology."
But there are different standards. Open waterways meet other standards of "better."
Good luck to all the people in the united states. Water is a big problem, yes. So is the loss of soil. I hope you are able to fix it in time and don't get another Dust Bowl.
Luckily, when Rio Turia gets to Valencia, there's only about 5km before it flows out to the Med so extracting a bit more won't affect those down stream.
The area being serviced isn't massive and the chanels are narrow and quite deep.
What do you mean? The Rio Turia is always dry, water literally never reaches the sea through it (well, except maybe for very heavy rain days, which are rare)
For anyone interested in irrigation systems, whether for farming or other things, you should check out Monty Don's "The World in 80 Gardens" from the BBC. Although it's readily available on YouTube as well.
The author does a lot to romanticise the old traditions of a town that seeminly hasn't kept up with modern times.
Truth is, there's 2 types of people that go to the central market, old people and tourists.
Everyone else drives to Mercadona, a supermarket like any other, in their Mercedes. You can also buy fantastic veges and fruits there but without dealing with 5-6 merchants to get what you need.
Absolutely no one "drives to Mercadona in their Mercedes??" that's like not even a thing (I'm from Valencia). Yes people go to Mercadona, but you walk there since there's one in every other corner.
Interestingly Mercadona has also started making prepared meals, which is a nice keep-up-with-the-times upgrade IMHO, nowadays that young people cook less and less.
Funny, I lived next door to the mercadona on Carrera de Ciscar and often had to wait for people pulling out of the parking building. Soooo given they have a car park for mercadona...
So I walked that street _everyday_ when I was in elementary/middle/high school! My family lives within 3 blocks from there. The one you refer to specifically is a really walkable neighborhood one, I'd guesstimate 95-99% of the people who buy there go/leave walking. Spanish people living in cities/towns don't take the car for grocery shopping, in fact we do make fun of US that need to take the car for that! Only if you live in the outskirts of the city/town/countryside you'd take the car for shopping.
Note: given the area of that one, I'd also guesstimate the vast majority of the people parking in that Mercadona were JUST using it as a random short-term parking, not as the supermarket parking! Like if you go to the area you park there, then do your business/visit your friend/whatever, then maybe buy a couple of things in Mercadona so the parking is free (and you probably needed those things for the week anyway). At least that's how locals would use that parking, because: if you live within 3-4 blocks you'd walk, if you live further than 4 blocks you'd go to another Mercadona that is within 3 blocks of your home, and if you live very far away you'd drive to a larger supermarket on the outskirts, not to this small one in the city center (except, as I said, if you have other business to attend there and then you use the parking as a convenience, and buy something for free parking).
> we do make fun of US that need to take the car for that! Only if you live in the outskirts of the city/town/countryside you'd take the car for shopping.
This seems similar to the situation in the US, with the major difference that far more people in Spain live in a central area rather than in the outskirts. The distinction to make fun of is not how people in cities in either country live, but the large numbers that live in the outskirts/suburbs in the US.
When I've been to the US, a very very large part of the population would live in what I'd call "outskirts" in Spain/Europe, meaning low-density residential areas where it's not feasible to have a supermarket every other block. Not only most of entire cities like L.A., but this would include most of San Francisco like the whole west area (Richmond+Sunset?) and many others (Japan town, the piers, etc). Like the middle class, USA cities also seem to be missing "middle buildings", the bulk of which constitute European cities. 4-10 floors building blocks are what make most of Valencia, Barcelona, Madrid, etc.
Yes, exactly. San Francisco has a higher population density than most larger European cities (London, Madrid, or just Valencia) but the "outskirt parts" of the city seem more evenly spread out, whereas its European counterparts tend to maintain the more agglomerated village-style development throughout their outskirts. This style of undeveloped areas interspersed with denser neighborhoods, found in central areas in SF and larger European cities (but not as much in non-central areas of SF) tends to be far more effective for other urban factors such as public transport.
It's easy to underestimate how inefficient car parking is. On a street that dense there's no way more than 5-10% of residents own cars, there just wouldn't be room for them.
That isn't true, i lived in the old city and my neighbors and i go to the central market (plus plenty of markets for other neighborhoods). I get grocery delivery for some items but we go to central once or twice a week.
This reminds me of the canals of the Sumas prairie in the Fraser valley. Do those serve the same irrigation purpose or are they for drainage only, does anyone know?
Only men allowed, is that a product of the colonial culture that created it, by chance, or a later added rule? It's interesting to note all the impacts of colonial rule by Muslim Arabs over Spain. I've always wondered how much of Spanish colonialism is an emulation of their colonization by Arab Muslims.
The article says "they are all men", not that only men are allowed. Perhaps they are. However, look closely top-right corner of that the picture. You may see a group of 4 women standing very close to one of the judges; 2 of them are almost on top of him. If you think these women will keep their mouths shut if they hear something they don't like, you don't know Spanish body language well enough :).
The city I was raised at used to be a big Muslim city. When they dig the foundations for new buildings, they often get disrupted by muslim ruins, which might need to be protected/removed carefully. And if they dig deeper (say, for a subterranean parking) they may find ancient Roman ruins.
In the western world ancient Rome tends to be put in a good light; as "the civilisation" against "the barbarians". However, ancient Romans were very ardent and violent colonizers ("colonia" is after all a Roman word). They took slaves, and women could not vote or hold political office. They stayed in the Iberian peninsula for 700 years.
The Arab muslims that followed them were only faster on their initial conquest: In around 3 years, they had full control of everything. They lasted 800 years, until the Emirate of Granada, their last bastion, was conquered. But by that point they had been in decline for 4 centuries, gradually being conquered by the Christians or being consumed by inner-fighting.
While I am sure there was some influence (there are still lots Arab words in modern Spanish, after all) after 4 centuries of almost continuous but gradual conquer, I doubt the conquistadors were "emulating" the Arabs. I think they were "used to a life of war and conquer", by that point. So they just kept going. If they were able to "emulate" the Arabian conquests they would be emulating people from 400 years prior, and at that point they might as well be emulating the ancient Romans.
Women are allowed there, they have always been. For centuries. My great-grandmother was part of that, a long time ago, when her husband was sick. My grandmother was there when my grandfather was hiding from the leftists that wanted to murder him because of his right-wing ideology.
Women have always farmed here. Always.
Fishing in l'Albufera (the "lake" outside Valencia) was limited to men for a long time but there's a reason for that.
Same reason may other jobs and activities have been mean-only in many parts of the world, forever.
Survival of the species.
Men are expendable. Women are not.
Without children, civilizations perish. Women can have babies, men cannot. In order to protect them from danger, women have traditionally taken the most dangerous and exhausting jobs. Plain and simple. Go check all that heteropatriachate and woke arguments with that lens, you'll see how the actual reason of most of the men-only stuff is protection of women, which made a lot of sense until relatively recently because a sick or hurt woman was a dead woman because medicine was primitive. And this is and has been true for all of the world, even today in many regions in Africa, Asia and South America.
Legend has it that when God created the Valais, he asked the local farmers whether they wanted rain, or whether they would take care of their own irrigation. After a brief consultation, they announced that, with all due respect, irrigation was too serious a matter to entrust to a bloody foreigner…