Just because we can - doesn’t mean we should

If it has been engineered, it's got to be good. Or so we think when government authorities pay the fees required to apply engineering expertise to municipal buildings, sanitary sewers, water treatment systems, bridges, drainage problems, sidewalks, road problems and more. We probably don't realize how much we have come to rely on engineers in almost every domain of our lives.
If we wonder why engineering and similar consulting fees cost so much, we can give that up any time. They charge according to the responsibility they must assume for the decisions they make.
Last week, we told you about the flood which ensued in neighbours basements and yards right next door to the new Vankleek Hill Collegiate Institute construction.
Even though residents had voiced concerns earlier about the height of the parking lot under construction, there were assurances that everything had been taken into consideration and that drainage and water runoff from snow melting had been accounted for during the design process.
But we are learning that few systems can withstand extreme weather occurrences. Heavy rainfalls, heavy winds, extreme heat and extreme cold can cause extreme reactions.
Systems that were built to withstand a 20-year-frequency rainfall event cannot withstand a 50-year-frequency event. And we have to ask ourselves: are we ready to pay the costs to engineer even greater capacity in our systems to avoid a higher percentage of disasters? Perhaps we should aim for a 100-year-frequency when we are engineering certain systems where residents are at a higher risk. Yet . . . who can we ask about this. Engineers?
The engineers and consultants answer to us, of course and for the most part, build systems to a strength and specifications established by us.
This week, we report on land slipping into the Ottawa River - erosion that has been happening since the completion of the Carillon Dam. One property owner says that Hydro Québec is responsible for damages that occur as a result of the dam and that it is required to pay municipalities for lost tax revenue.
Somehow, this land slippage likewise has slipped the attention of our veteran mayors, who have suggested forming a committee to examine the problem.
One wonders when engineers will come on the scene. One wonders what engineers where thinking when the dam was first built in the early 1960s. What was the plan?
If we are failing anywhere, it is our inability to take no for an answer. We expect engineers to take us to yes. Thousands of us currently imbibe water taken from the polluted Ottawa River; thanks to a multi-million-dollar feat of science and engineering, this water is purified so that we can drink it and not get sick.
Imagine if we had directed millions of dollars to clean up this historic river and if we had taken a small portion of the budget to introduce water-saving devices in our homes and water conservation education and incentives.
In many cases, it may feel as if it is too late to change our systems or our ways. But there should be hope, along with a push from citizens to consider new ways of doing things, using notions like sustainability, health protection, logic and courtesy in the absence of engineering expertise.
Perhaps then we can make wise decisions about what to do after reflecting on more than just our ability to do it.