The Calculations Are Convincing

The Calculations Are Convincing (An Interview with I. Gerardi). March 10, 1982

Igor Gerardi, chief engineer of the Soiuzgiprovodkhoz Institute's plan to divert Siberian river water southward, defends the project against its critics. Dismissing fears of ecological catastrophe as emotional and uninformed, he insists that tapping a fraction of West Siberia's enormous runoff could eventually feed over 200 million people.

Original Source: Literaturnaia gazeta, 1982, №. 10 (10 March)

Q Igor Andreevich, it is now 15 years since experts embarked on a study of the question of diverting part of the flow of northern and Siberian rivers to our country’s southern regions. The idea has stirred the public’s very interested attention. Many arguments have arisen. You are the chief engineer of the plan to divert part of the flow of Siberian rivers to Central Asia which is being developed by the ‘‘Soiuzgiprovodkhoz’’ Institute. What is your attitude toward the criticism which has been leveled at the planning organizations and the numerous observations of the participants in various discussions of the plan?

A_ Such an interested and lively reaction is natural: the history of mankind has many instances of the unsuccessful invasion of natural processes, and people of course ask: has everything been sufficiently thought out? This is an undesirable concern, and one cannot take offense here.

What is bad is something else: the questions connected with the use of, I stress, only a small part of the tremendous flow of water of the Siberian rivers for guaranteed grain production are sometimes discussed without a serious preliminary study of the food problem. Without investigating all its economic and social significance for the country, certain people express their thoughts merely on the basis of emotions or superficial impressions of various discussions.

The slight removal of water from the Siberian rivers is sometimes portrayed as an intention to reverse the Siberian rivers and an attempt to limit the development of irrigable farming in the south of West Siberia. There is also the following “‘horror scenario’’: the designers intend to add on reservoirs to the Ob and Lower Irtysh and thereby inundate or swamp hundreds of thousands of hectares of valuable river bottom land and so forth.

The plan contains nothing of the kind: of the 1,350 cubic kilometers of the average multiyear water flow of the rivers of West Siberia being discharged into the Sea of Karsk basin, it is planned to take for the first stage of the diversion only 25 cubic kilometers and for the second stage 60. It is planned neither to build reservoirs nor inundate the bottom land of the Ob in its lower and central courses and in the lower course of the Irtysh.

The demand is often heard that the project be thoroughly substantiated ecologically, down to trifling matters. I have the feeling that we are belittling knowledge that has already been accumulated, confusing the problem and burying its tremendous socioeconomic essence under an excess of detail. And the essence is such: the harvests of cereals cultivated under conditions of their natural causes, and the sole rational method of ridding ourselves of such sharp fluctuations is the organization of guaranteed grain production in the Central Asian republics and the southern oblasts of Kazakhstan on new irrigated land. On the basis of the use of a very small part of the water resources of Siberian rivers we can additionally produce annually first 25-30 million tons and subsequently 50-60 million tons of corn grain.

Furthermore, the grain program, of which the diversion is the basis, is not counterposed to the further development of cotton growing in the Central Asian republics, vegetable growing, viticulture and so forth but is being tackled in a single complex with them.

The intelligent comprehensive use of the tremendous water potential of the rivers of Siberia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia and the vacant land of the arid steppe, semidesert and desert parts of the country could feed over 200 million people. Can there be endlesss discussion of the problem of diverting Siberian water south in disregard of this most important social factor!

Q Various versions of the diversion project have surfaced in the discussion process. Which has proved the more promising?

A_ Yes, we are sometimes told: ‘‘ You will dehydrate the Arctic.’ This is said of an ocean which obtains annually from USSR territory alone an average of over 2,800 cubic kilometers of water: in addition to this the Atlantic brings it 350,000-450,000 cubic kilometers of its own water. As you can see, the magnitude of the influx of water into the Arctic and the planned diversion of water from the Siberian rivers are incommensurable.

Nor will the ocean’s temperature and ice conditions be disturbed—this has been specified by calculations of the USSR State Committee for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Control Arctic and Antarctic Institute.

If the removal of the water will be reflected in anything, it will be in the fish. According to calculations of the ‘‘Gidroroibproekt’’ Institute, we will lose approximately 7,000 tons of fish per year, including only 320 tons of valuable species. However, the same calculations show that there will be an addition in the south of the country: 27.000 tons of fish of valuable herbivorous species which will be produced by the renewed lakes along the path of the canal and also the Syr Daria and Amu Daria deltas.

Q Will the Aral Sea be helped? A The Aral will get nothing from the first stage. Only the second stage may give the shrinking sea some support. Certain measures are now being formulated to maintain the level of the sea and prevent the desert encroachment of the territory surrounding the sea—they need to be described separately. I will give only my personal opinion here: I believe that after the year 2000 part of the Siberian water will need to be channeled into the Aral Sea in order to preserve it.

Q Will not the canal be too costly? Might it not be more economical to channel resources into the modernization of irrigation systems? Specialists express the opinion that before transferring water from far afield we need to bring order to bear in irrigation and not use water in vain.

A_ The one cannot be counterposed to the other. We do not intend using Siberian water in technically backward systems. The USSR Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources is working continuously on the modernization and technical improvement of old irrigation systems, and much has been done in this direction. The final completion of this work is scheduled exactly for the time of the arrival of Siberian water in Central Asia, and an irrigation system efficiency of 0.79-0.80 is accepted in all the water-balance calculations of this region, which is rougly equal to that of the Moscow water main.

Q- Many specialists emphasize the need for the development of economical methods of irrigation like overhead irrigation, drip irrigation and others.

A_ Yes, these are important progressive methods. But not a panacea. But this is exactly how they sound in the claims of certain specialists. Overhead irrigation is provided for in the diversion plan 100% where it may be applied, in accordance with meliorative conditions. But a transition to drip irrigation on the loamy saline and salinization-prone irrigable land of the Central Asian republics is simply impermissible: this form of irrigation will be applied where it is profitable—in the foothill regions and on sandy soil.

You speak of the canal’s expense. But outlays should be recouped in 10 years. In addition, it will be navigable—with a depth of 10-15 meters and a breadth of 200 meters. This is a very important circumstance. The second stage of the canal will be joined with the Caspian: there you have a direct, without transshipment, waterway from Siberia to Europe. And the significance of such a water-transport artery for the country does not, I would assume, need special explanation.

For this reason the Twenty-fifth and -sixth Party Congresses pointed to the need for the continuation of scientific and planning work. Q Is your ministry—the Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources— ready to begin construction?

A We could begin construction at the end of the current 5-year plan. The amount of earth work for the first stage is only 5.5 billion cubic meters, and the USSR Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources currently performs earth work of the order 7.5 billion cubic meters a year. The USSR Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Resources has strong construction organizations in the Central Asian republics and Kazakhstan.

Q Consequently, no longer any doubts? A We have worked on the technical-economic substantiation of the transfer for more than 25 years. Over 250 scientific research and planning organizations have participated together with us at different stages of the development of this problem.

Delay in the construction will prevent us, owing to the water insufficiency, making proper use of the industrial and agricultural potential of the Central Asian republics, the southern, central and western oblasts of Kazkhstan and also Orenburg, Cheliabinsk, Kurgan, and Tiumen oblasts. Essentially we are losing over 20 billion rubles annually. Every cubic kilometer of water supplied from Siberia for the agrarian-industrial complexes of Uzbekistan alone (calculations of the Uzbek SSR Council for the Study of Production Forces) ensures the production of output in these complexes totaling 500 million rubles annually. The figures speak for themselves. Such is the price of the doubts being expressed with respect to a huge national economic problem!

Source: Martha B. Olcott with Lubomyr Hajda and Anthony Olcott, eds., Soviet Multinational State: readings and documents (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1990)