Impacts of Three Routes | chinawatertransfer

Eastern Route

Since eastern route project takes advantage of the Grand Canal which has existed for centuries, the environmental impacts for eastern route project are expected to be small in construction process because as the project points out that it only requires some promotions and modifications in some areas, such as building pumping stations. Magee also states that the environmental impacts on downstream of the Yangtze River are also expected to be minor because “the outtake of water to be diverted northward occurs near the mouth of the river, where its volume are greatest.” (Magee)

However, there is the potential risk for increased incidence of “schistosomiasis” due to expansion of prime habitat; thus, the concern should be focused on water quality. In addition, since the canal connects Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shandong and Hebei Provinces which are highly dense in population, the success of eastern route project depends on improving water quality and wastewater treatment.

There is also potential for increasing transportation utilization in eastern route because the Grand Canal has been promoted and refurbished. Some parts of the canal used to suffer from reduced water levels or increased sediment buildup. But the premise is that increasing transportation utilization should not bring negative impacts on water quality. It is very important to ensure water quality and safety for urban and agricultural use.

Central Route

The most significant social impact for central route is the resettlement of more than 300,000 people which are mostly from the area around Danjiangkou reservoir. Because as Magee points out, the increase in height of Danjiangkou Dam will result in a corresponding increase in the reservoir surface area. As a result, the surrounding farmers and villages need to be resettled. Resettlement is also controversial and against by people who live in the region of central route project. Firstly, resettlement will lead to an increase of migration from suburban to urban areas, which exacerbates the overcrowded situation in cities in terms of employment, residential areas and social welfare. Secondly, displacement of local people will destroy local distinctive cultures, because many locals are from minority groups (James).

Similarly, in “China’s Massive Water Diversion Project Remains Controversial”, Ruth Kirchner emphasizes that locals are not happy with SNWT. For instance, SNWT causes arable land exploitation to expand the reservoir and build canals and tunnels, so farmers could no longer grow crops on their own land and most seriously, not all of them get enough compensation for the loss from the government. Finally, those people thus have no means of making a living. He also makes the ecological costs more clearly: it is difficult to water the crops, there is less water for local industry, shipping and fishing. Water’s self-cleaning capacities dwindled and there is more pollution. Thus, he summarizes that SNWT will generate a “vicious cycle” and people have to adjust to nature; they have to change rather than nature.

However, to some extent, central route project will alleviate environmental degradation in short run. As James points out, the project is estimated to decrease the annual temperature by 0.1-0.24 ℃, and increase average annual precipitation between 21-48 mm; the climate will be more moderate (James). In addition, compared with eastern route project, central route has advantages:

1. the water quality is better, because along eastern route there are not only industrial facilities but also the Grand Canal is an important shipping route.

2. The operation cost is low because the water flow is driven by gravity from natural topography.

3. The contributing drainage area is larger (SNWT Schemes for China).

Western Route

Since western route project is still under planning, the environmental and social impacts remain uncertain, but it is the most controversial route. As Freeman points out, ecologically, the construction on the western route will accelerate the pace of glacial melt on the Tibetan Plateau, which destroys the primary and valuable glacial resources. Furthermore, Magee figures out that the region surround the western route is ecologically fragile and seismic active. There are also potential for landslides and slope failures. Wenchuan Earthquake in 2008 proves the unstable ecological environment in the region of western route. As the disturbance to the environment, the western route project will bring land degradation and increased likelihood of natural disasters which largely threaten local communities (Magee).

Politically, the project in the plateau will impact transnational rivers from the Chinese side including Mekong, Indus, Brahmaputra, because SNWT will divert more water to the north, thus decreasing the water flow from China to neighboring countries. And currently, there is no international agreements on transboundary management of international rivers. Therefore, in the long-run political view, if China doesn’t reach agreements with southeastern Asian countries and India, the project will lead to international security and contradiction, which negatively influences the international relations between China and its adjacent neighborhoods.

Conclusion

Most opinions toward SNWT are not positive:

In the article “Sustainability: Transfer Project Cannot Meet China’s Water needs”, Barnett summarizes that the first issue is that the project is too expensive. Reservoir and canal construction costs have reportedly reached 80 billion dollars and more than 300,000 people, especially from the area covered by central route, have been displaced. There comes pollution and a series of environmental problems and high maintenance costs and water prices. All of those factors make the project unsustainable and largely deviate from its original proposal.

In Yue Wang’s article, “South-North Water Transfer Project Not Sustainable, Says Chinese Official”, Wang points out that although it costs about 62 million dollars to construct SNWT, however, there is no need to spend such a great cost, because one third of buildings in Beijing could collect more rainwater and recycle more waste water (such as rainwater harvesting and wastewater recycling). So to some extent, some cities in the north absolutely have the ability and capacity to save more water and alleviate water scarcity on their own. New approaches also include water desalination which becomes more and more popular in China. SNWT is not sustainable not only because of high cost, environmental impacts and displacement of local population, the leaking of residues in local pipelines will bring more new pollution.

Thus, SNWT remains controversial and is not sustainable at all in long run. Therefore, here is the summary of negative voices about SNWT:

The project is too expensive and it is not very necessary to spend such a large amount of money.
There is no need to develop such a huge project. China can use alternatives to save and generate more water.
Locals, especially farmers from project areas cannot have enough water to crop and the project destroys their life of making a living and cultures.
The project overlooks the water-exporting areas, instead, focusing on the benefits of water-receiving areas.
The construction of project destroys the local ecosystems, generating new water and soil pollution.

So is SNWT currently sustainable? The answer is “NO”. And the current fact is, decision and policy makers don’t consider the long-run effect, instead, they are proud of current short-term accomplishments.