China water project to 'begin operating in 2013'

Feb 05, 2012
A farmer is seen following her flock of sheep near a fenced-off canal that is part of China's hugely ambitious South-North Water Diversion Project, in Yixian, in 2009, in northern China's Hebei province. The massive project to divert water from China's south to its drought-prone north will become partly operational in 2013, according to state media.

A massive project to divert water from China's south to its drought-prone north -- which has seen hundreds of thousands of people relocated -- will become partly operational next year, state media reported.

The South-North Water Diversion Project is one of the country's largest since the building of the Three Gorges Dam, which involved the relocation of more than one million people.

Sun Yifu, deputy water resources chief in the eastern province of Shandong -- who is also involved in the programme -- said his province's part of the project would be completed at the end of the year, the said.

He added that "the entire project" would become operational in the first half of 2013, and start supplying water to arid parts of the north, the report said late Saturday.

China's South-North Water Diversion project consists of three routes -- the eastern, middle and western routes -- and Sun was referring to the eastern portion of the project, or a 1,890-kilometre (1,170-mile) canal.

Construction on the 1,430-kilometre central route began in 2003 and will only be operational in 2014. The western section, meanwhile, has yet to see the light of day.

Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong is credited with coming up with the idea for the massive diversion programme, which will feature a tunnel dug beneath the -- the second-largest in China.

But the project -- which will cost an estimated 500 billion yuan ($79 billion) -- was only approved in 2002.

Critics say it could be a huge waste of resources that risks creating new and sparking . They also point to the human cost of mass relocations to make way for the canals.

Explore further: Heavy metals and hydroelectricity

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China invests billions to avert water crisis

Oct 12, 2011

China is to invest up to 4 trillion yuan ($600 billion) over the next decade to overcome a huge water shortage that threatens the country's economic growth, a senior official said on Wednesday.

Drought halts shipping on China's Yangtze

May 12, 2011

Drought on China's Yangtze river has led to historically low water levels that have forced authorities to halt shipping on the nation's longest waterway, the government and media said Thursday.

China admits Three Gorges Dam caused 'host of ills'

May 19, 2011

China's Three Gorges Dam has caused a host of ills that must be "urgently" addressed, the government has said, in a rare admission of problems in a project it has long praised as a world wonder.

China's great dam in midst of eco-debate

Nov 19, 2007

The year-old Three Gorges Dam along the Yangtze River has spawned environmental problems such as water pollution and landslides, Chinese officials admitted.

China raises alarm over Yangtze environmental damage

Aug 31, 2010

China will spend billions of dollars treating sewage and planting forests to arrest massive environmental degradation along the Yangtze river and its Three Gorges reservoir, officials said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Tracking giant kelp from space

9 hours ago

Citizen scientists worldwide are invited to take part in marine ecology research, and they won't have to get their feet wet to do it. The Floating Forests project, an initiative spearheaded by scientists ...

Heavy metals and hydroelectricity

11 hours ago

Hydraulic engineering is increasingly relied on for hydroelectricity generation. However, redirecting stream flow can yield unintended consequences. In the August 2014 issue of GSA Today, Donald Rodbell of ...

What's wiping out the Caribbean corals?

11 hours ago

Here's what we know about white-band disease: It has already killed up to 95 percent of the Caribbean's reef-building elkhorn and staghorn corals, and it's caused by an infectious bacteria that seems to be ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bredmond
not rated yet Feb 05, 2012
the city i used to live in was along the route of this diversion. It divided the old city from the new development zone. they are going to clear out a huge swath of 200 meters on both sides and make it parkland. (though i am sure some privileged chap will have a Hot Pot restaurant jutting out into prominence.) They claimed poor neighborhoods and will relocate the residents elsewhere, and bulldoze those neighborhoods to make the clearaway section. it was fun to watch them build too, and it looks like it will make that city much better aesthetically.
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2012
They claimed poor neighborhoods and will relocate the residents elsewhere, and bulldoze those neighborhoods to make the clearaway section.

I'm sure they were very happy about it too.

But wait a sec, I thought China was having a serious problem with the water table dropping. Is this supposed to be a fix? Or are they just draining the next region on the queue?
irjsiq
1 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2012
axemaster,

Regarding 'Draining Aquifers' vs 'Re-locating Water', from Wet Zones to Drought Zones . . .
Both: "The 'Transfer' AND the 'Sequestration'(re-charging of 'aquifers')... are Very Compatible in their respective solutions!
Displacement of such 'huge' numbers of Citizens, are not Compatible!
"Regardless of 'How Far One may Roam!
"There's No Place like 'HOME'!"
With 'Water': It IS Possible 'store and transfer' this (H2O) molecule!
Thus 'enabling' Inhabitants to: "Have 'One's Cake, and Eat It(the Cake)!
More difficult!
Saying: "This is Where I lived!
" '50 Meters' beneath the surface of This Lake!"

Nothing is possible when the 'Dictum': "Mordida es Muerte!" Is Ignored!!!

Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
axemaster
3 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2012
Both: "The 'Transfer' AND the 'Sequestration'(re-charging of 'aquifers')... are Very Compatible in their respective solutions!

Why? If the rate of water use is greater than the recharge rate of all aquifers in use, then it will run out eventually, regardless of the transfer systems they put in place.

Displacement of such 'huge' numbers of Citizens, are not Compatible!

It's perfectly compatible for an entity like the Chinese government. Maybe not for the citizens, but who cares about them anyway? Whiny meat is soon silenced.

I have no idea what your post is saying by the way, I was mostly guessing. It's written like some kind of bizarre ad.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2012
Progress in China. Continued infrastructure degradation in America.
cdt
5 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2012
If the rate of water use is greater than the recharge rate of all aquifers in use, then it will run out eventually, regardless of the transfer systems they put in place.


That assumes that all water use is coming from aquifers, which is a faulty assumption. For the water being diverted, I'm sure some of that would go toward recharging aquifers (no idea how much), but chances are a huge bulk of it would just end up in the ocean. It's that last part that you get as an increase in net water to be used for agriculture, manufacturing and the like. I believe what you intended was that if the rate of water being drawn from the aquifers is greater than that replenishing it then the aquifers will eventually run out, which is true. The open question is how the diversion affects the aquifer usage rate and the replenishing rate. Note that it could potentially lower the replenishing rate in the south, but there's no water shortage there. In the north it should lower the depletion rate.
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2012
Progress in China. Continued infrastructure degradation in America.

Who. Cares.

This is an article about China. Not the US.
This is an international science site. Not a US site.
Keep you local politics out of this.
lengould100
not rated yet Feb 09, 2012
It may be valid to worry about the hardships imposed on the people being displaced by such projects, but why does no-one then also consider the typically 300,000 people per year drowned in the spring runoff floods which used to happen prior to the construction of the three gorges dam and this diversion?

Shouldn't there be a "net balance" formula?