May 2004

This note was sent to Venice's newspaper in reply to Mr. Campa's remarks. Unfortunately, the papers declined to publish it....

A poor awareness of history is the Mo.S.E.’s best ally. Mr. Campa, Member of the Italian Parliament, has provided the latest example. He writes: "What would have happened to the Lagoon and the historic city [of Venice] if at the time that rivers were being re-routed and gigantic sea defence works were being built, there had been the Greens?"

As a cultural association that was among the first to recognise the dangers of the Mo.S.E. Project, we reply: at the time of the Republic of Venice there was no need for either environmentalists or for associations like ours, because the criteria that that inspired the various magistrates and councils in charge of the waters then were perfectly in line with those that we invoke now (and are also invoked by Italy’s special laws for Venice): gradual, testable, reversible actions. Reading the thousands of documents produced by the Venetian authorities, one can see that when it came to managing the Republic’s waters, public prudence guided all choices. Each project, decided after a long debate with experts, engineers, "politicians" and citizens with practical knowledge ("hominibus maris, pedotis, piscatoribus"), was tested over a long period: "et examinatis signis acceptis transacto anno post aperitionem dictae buchae … venire debeat ad istum consilium et terminari"; "teneantur ... singulis sex mensibus revidere signa predicta ... et … referre Dominio". Frequently, after observing closely and over a long period the effects of a project, they decided to scrap it and return to prior conditions. This was always possible because all the interventions were reversible.

This approach guaranteed the survival of the Lagoon and of Venice. Those who claim instead that the survival of the Lagoon depended on the courage those who forced through the start and completion of gigantic works evidently do not know well the history, nor the approach of the Republic’s leaders. The Venetians were anything but courageous, at least in the banal sense of the word. This can be proved for the two works that most frequently are invoked by the Mo.S.E.’s supporters: the re-routing of rivers flowing into the Lagoon (to stop sediment from filling it in) and the construction of the Murazzi, the sea wall along the Lido and other barrier islands, to protect against storms.

The first commonly cited work to change the Brenta River's path was the construction of the Argine Nuovo, the New Embankment, in 1324. However, I have found evidence, both archaeological and documentary, of an older embankment, the "Vecchio", built for the same reasons in the early 1300s. The re-routing of the Brenta River continued after Venice conquered the mainland: in 1488-1540 with the Brenta Nuova, the new Brenta channel; in 1610 (taglio Novissimo, the newer deviation); and in 1797, the last year of the Republic, with the proposed Cunetta deviation, eventually built in 1816. In fact, the final mouth of the Brenta, at Brondolo, was only chosen definitively in 1896. Thus, the Venetians tirelessly discussed, worked on and tested projects to re-route the river from the early 1300s until the fall of the Republic (though the topic was under consideration even earlier, at least since the city of Padua tried to change the Brenta's path in 1142 and 1143).

As for the rivers, so for the sea walls: six and a half centuries of discussion and testing. For sea defences, however, the specific method rather than the type of intervention was under debate. Already in 811 a "magistratura" was set up to fortify the barrier islands, while the practice of consolidating the Lagoon’s islands dates to the epoch of Cassiodorus (6^th century AD), as recent archaeological digs have shown, including those under Venice’s Teatro Malibran. One of the first sea defences cited in historical documents is the breakwater "ad modum forficum", designed by Maximianus in 1285. From the 13^th century on, historical records are rich in descriptions of works and projects to protect Venice’s natural walls, up to the introduction of the waterproof lime that made possible construction of the Murazzzi. This lime was tested from the beginning of the 17^th century but adopted only at the end of the 18^th century.

One another element distinguished our forefathers: their prudence in construction. Contracts for almost all public works (even the maintenance of a single embankment!) were open to competition. Today, instead – despite European norms – almost all protection works go to one consortium of private companies, without open bidding. This consortium not only builds, but also studies and proposes the works that it retains "necessary". A monopoly regime.

After a millennial history of prudence and wisdom, we should not renege on the heritage of the past and rush into a project that the unbiased scientific world retains ruinous for Venice (though no doubt lucrative for its proponents). Studies by Italy’s National Research Council have shown that by reducing the depth of the shipping channels into the Lagoon and by opening the "fishing valleys" to the tides, flooding in Venice would be significantly reduced. This could be undertaken for costs that are insignificant compared to that of the Mo.S.E, and with testable and reversible methods, as our forefathers would have done.

Construction of the Mo.S.E. project is ready to start, wreaking damage to the Lagoon’s three outlets to the sea, to the Baccan sandbar, to the jetties (which are protected structures!), and to the Ca’Roman Nature Reserve. There is still time to save Venice, and there is still time to save the Lagoon, the "walls, fortress and garden of Venice" – if Venetians and their representatives want to.