Long distance water transfer: the Chinese plans

Abstract

The demand for water has been increasing steadily with increases in population and standard of living. The food and energy crises of the Seventies have made water resources development a priority issue in many countries. Agriculture currently accounts for 80 % of all global water consumption but hydroelectric generation does not consume any water. Since irrigation and hydropower generation are compatible uses of water, most recent water developments include both these uses.Quantity of water available to any country is limited, but demands are continually rising. Accordingly, water use has to be made more efficient and options like interregional water transfers have to be explored. The paper outlines the problems and prospects associated with long distance water transfer projects and discusses the latest plansfor this type of development in the People's Republic of China.

Changes in the physico‐chemistry and benthic invertebrates of the great fish river, South Africa, following an interbasin transfer of water

“…For example, China's south-north water transfer proposals involve the transfer of 15 x lo9 m3 per annum over 800 km from the Chang Jiang River (Zuo Dakang, 1983). The revised plan for the Texas Water System calls for 10 x lo9 m3 of water to be transferred a distance of 600 to 1200 km annually (Greer, 1983), and the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) planned to translocate 137.5 x lo9 m3 per annum of surplus Alaskan and North Canadian water to seven Canadian provinces, 33 states in the U.S.A. and three states in Mexico (Biswas, 1983). However, according to Micklin (1985), this scheme is unlikely to proceed in the near future.…”

“…Interbasin transfers in Canada, in existence or projects under construction, amount to 501.4 x lo9 m3 of water per annum, slightly over 15 per cent of the national total annual discharge (Sewell, 1985). Such schemes tend to be justified only in terms of direct costs, whereas environmental and social costs may also be considerable (Biswas, 1983). Thus the original Texas Water System plan had to be revised and reduced from 35 x lo9 m3 per annum in response to an environmental impact assessment and the objections of the inhabitants of the main donor catchment (the Mississippi River) (Greer, 1983).…”