{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03457273320287019, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007175472928897586, 'mean_word_length': 5.063241106719367, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Unruly Waters: A Social and Environmental History of the Brazos River by Kenna Lang Archer (review)

1097 to international engineering endeavors and development networks. The appendix on the Bureau’s work abroad buttresses this. A second goal is to interpret the work of the Bureau in the context of the global cold war. Here, Sneddon’s insistence on the Bureau’s geopolitical role in cold war American hegemony seems too strong. This is particularly true in chapter 6, where Sneddon discusses the post–cold war era, without going too much into detail on the persistence of alleged American hegemony, and the post–cold war role of the Bureau. The persistence of the dam-building paradigm more generally seems to suggest that the cold war might have been less important than often suggested, and even more “opaque” than Sneddon suggests himself (p. 135). When Sneddon examines current development discourse, there seems to be more continuity than change. The major changes are that American actors and agents became less dominant, and that, because of tremendous international pressure, the term “dam” is conspicuously absent. Yet Sneddon convincingly argues that the devil is in the details. While new figures have taken prominence, such as Chinese actors, the term “dam” is now repackaged as “hydropower,” and increasingly seen as a solution not only for underdevelopment but also for climate change (p. 134). Thus, Sneddon concludes, while the “Bureau’s near-monopoly” on dam expertise has ended, the Concrete Revolution continues.