The Project Does Not Brook Dilettantism

S. Ziadullaev, A. Bostanzhoglo, and A. Pugachev. The “Project of the Century” Does Not Brook Dilettantism. April 3, 1982

Three Central Asian water specialists respond sharply to Perevedentsev, accusing him of distorting facts, ignoring the work of 150 scientific institutions, and minimizing the region's genuine water crisis. Writing from Uzbekistan, where irrigated cotton cultivation drives the entire economy, they insist the diversion is an urgent necessity, not a speculative venture.

Original Source: Pravda vostoka, 3 April 1982, p. 3. Russian text 1982 by ‘‘Pravda vostoka.’’ Ziadullaev is a member of the Uzbek SSR Academy of Sciences; Bostanzhoglo and Pugachev are irrigators emeritus of the Uzbek SSR.

We read with tremendous interest the page devoted to ‘‘ The ‘Project of the Century’ from Different Viewpoints’’ in issue no. 10 of Literaturnaia gazeta for 1982. It was not an idle interest—each of us has devoted his whole life to the development of the production forces and hydroeconomic construction. And we can only rejoice that a very authoritative and popular newspaper has focused the attention of millions of readers on an exceptionally important problem—the plan to divert part of the flow of the Siberian rivers to Central Asia and Kazakhstan.

Under the conditions of irrigated farming, on the basis of which the entire economy of our region, primarily, cotton growing, is developing with giant strides, water resources are of vital importance. The tremendous amount of work on hydroeconomic construction and the development of new virgin land (100,000 hectares are developed annually in Uzbekistan alone) and the conversion of the land of the Barren, Karshi, Dzhizak and other steppe, which had remained barren for millennia, into flourishing oases have led to the water resources of the Syr Daria and Amu Daria diminishing with every passing years, the level of the Aral Sea falling and an ever increasing water shortage. This development of new land is the basis of the unswerving increase in the production of agricultural products with the expansion of irrigated land, it is for this reason that the UzSSR occupies one of the first places in the country in agricultural product growth rate.

The republic’s party organization, which at the ceremonial meeting in Tashkent for the presentation to Uzbekistan of the third Order of Lenin Leonid II ‘ich Brezhnev termed a combat detachment of the CPSU, is directing the working people’s efforts toward an increase in the rate and scale of growth and the achievement of new heights in agricultural production in order to increase yet further Uzbekistan’s contribution to the accomplishment of the country’s food program.

However, scientists and specialists have calculated that the water resources of our rivers will be exhausted in the near future. In the twelfth and, particularly, the thirteenth five-year plans there will be a sharp decline in the growth of irrigated land with all the negative consequences ensuing therefrom. For the purpose of removing the discrepancies between growing requirements and the production of agricultural products in the long term the Twenty-fifth and -sixth CPSU congresses focused attention in their decisions on the need for scientific research and planning studies on the diversion of part of the flow of Siberian rivers to the Central Asia region. This problem had been raised in a number of decisions of the CPSU Central Committee and USSR Council of Ministers even earlier. At the behest of the USSR State Committee for Science and Technology approximately 150 of the country’s scientific research and planning organizations have been engaged in this work over the last fifteen years. The ‘‘Soiuzgiprovodkhoz’’ completed the development of the technical-economic substantiation (TEO) of the diversion in 1980 on the basis of these studies. Having studied the TEO attentively, our scientists and specialists approved it. And we are in full agreement with the basic propositions of Chief Engineer I. Gerardi’s article in Literaturnaia gazeta. The question is clear, it might have seemed.

But in an article carried on the same page in Literaturnaia gazeta, Candidate of Economics V. Perevedentsev expresses doubts and not simply doubts but also a negative attitude toward the project, which is evoking astonishment and concern in and categorical objections from scientists and specialists both with respect to the tendentious nature of the judgements and the distortion of the actual situation in the region’s water supply.

First, the author informs the reader of some conflict situation that has been created between planners and scientists and even writes that “‘there is no authentic scientific basis,’’ ‘‘many questions of fundamental importance are vague,’’ ‘‘serious hydrological, ecological and other problems arise,’’ ‘“‘there is no economic substantiation of the ‘project of the century’’’ and so forth. The author rejects the TEO compiled by the ‘‘Soiuzgiprovodkhoz’’ and submitted for examination to the USSR Gosplan’s State Examination Commission as lacking, he personally believes, the necessary scientific data. The disregard for the 150 scientific research (which include 23 scientific research institutes of the USSR Academy of Sciences) and planning organizations of the country in the preparation of the ‘‘Basic Propositions’ and TEO, the results of whose research and recommendations were taken into consideration by the ‘‘Soiuzgiprovodkhoz,’’ is a matter for this economist’s conscience.

Deliberately selecting the opinions of certain organizations whose recommendations were at variance with those adopted in the TEO [Technical-Economic Study], the author draws the conclusion on a manifestly groundless basis of disagreements between the planners and ‘all of science.’’

The absurdity of such juggling of the facts is hardly commonsense, we believe. Second, the author sharply criticized the current use of water in the Central Asian republics: “‘overwatering by a factor of 1.5 of the norm, water losses of over 50% from the diversion and primitive watering methods’’ and ‘‘a lack of interest in the modernization of old irrigation systems,’’ which, the author believes, could provide water at approximately half the cost of the diversion from Siberia. If he knew just a little of the history of irrigation and the measures adopted by the CPSU Central Committee and Vladimir II ‘ich Lenin in the solution of problems of irrigation in our region, the author would not express such baseless judgments. Hydroeconomic construction has been performed on an extensive scale in Central Asia in the years of Soviet power; trunk canals of great length have been laid, reservoirs and dams have been installed, the water-supply network has been equipped with modern hydraulic works and engineering structures and huge resources are being invested to raise the technical level of the irrigation systems and and reclamation. Plan-based work is being performed on increasing the efficiency of the irrigation systems, which by 1980 had reached 0.6 and higher in places. The quality of the irrigations has improved appreciably, the skill of the irrigators has increased and mechnization in irrigation is increasingly constantly. And Perevedentsev reduces all this to nothing—all the achievements of the Central Asian republics in the sphere of irrigation and irrigable farming and the selfless labor of millions of people, kolkhoz members, workers, water and agricultural specialists and scientists. Attempting to prove the opposite, the author makes use of someone’s (the names are not given) opinion that the rational use of local Central Asian waters will make it possible to no less than double the opinion of ‘‘unknown specialists’’ sufficient for making it. But behind this facility of the pen is a manifest lack of understanding of the many years’ experience of hydroeconomic scientists and practitioners, findings and studies with respect to the diversion problems and the opinions of many authoritative commissions on the inevitability of the exhaustion of the water resources of the Aral basin, which may be resisted only by the diversion of part of the flow of the Siberian rivers to Central Asia. Calculations and many years of experience show that given the complete modernization of all the irrigation systems in Uzbekistan it is possible to obtain a saving of water resources of no more than 3-4 cubic kilometers. A detailed study of planning and scientific research material shows that to complete the modernization of the irrigation systems in full and obtain this saving it will be necessary to employ huge capital investments (more than R10 billion for Uzbekistan alone) and unimaginable material resources, and this will take no less than 30 years, moreover. But even then there could be no question of large reserves of water calculated in tens of billions of cubic meters. This colossal expenditure would not provide for a cardinal solution of the question concerning the region’s water supply. And the author should have familiarized himself in more detail with the actual state of affairs before expressing unfounded doubts.

Third, how much water diverted from the Ob will reach the areas where it is to be used? According to the detailed calculations of the country’s planning and scientific research institutes, in the year the work is started 2.5 cubic kilometers and in the twentieth year 1.5 cubic kilometers, that is, from 6 to 10% will be consumed by evaporation, in accordance with the known climatic elements of the route, and seepage (considering the filtering properties of the soil, the depth of the occurrence of ground waters, the length of the canal, the dimensions and forms of its cross and lengthwise sections, the speeds of the passage of water and so forth). From 22.5 to 25.5 cubic kilometers will remain for use. And having read a textbook on irrigation a little, it would have been worth taking a look at the TEO, and Perevedentsev would have learned that the losses depend not only on the soil (about which he speaks incompetently, incidentally) but on both the level of the ground waters and the flow rate of the canal. If the ground waters are near the water line in the canal, there will be practically no losses from filtration; there will be losses when thcy are somewhat deeper, but not big losses. And this applies particularly to canals with great flow rates, in which comparative losses are less than in small canals.

How mineralized will this water be at the end of the trunk canal? Two specialized scientific research institutes—the VNIIVO and the Central Asian Scientific Research Institute of Irrigation—have made forecasts on this score. Account was taken in the forecasting of filtration and evaporation from the canal, the influx of mineralized ground waters, surface runoff, aeolian pollution, return water from irrigation, effluent from centers of population and the waste from a small fleet and so forth, that is, everything necessary in accordance with the standards and procedure of the AllUnion Scientific Research Institute of Water Supply, Sewer Systems, Hydraulic Engineering Structures and Engineering Hydrogeology. They constitute 485 milligrams per liter, that is, below the permissible norm.

Nor is there any doubt as to the unsbustantiated nature of the author’s arguments concerning the time that will be taken for the canal to pay for itself. According to the scientists’ and planners’ calculations, this will take 8-10 years. And these are entirely correct calculations.

Thus on these questions also Perevendentsev’s doubts reflect rhetorical skill more than relevance to the matter at hand.

Fourth, what will be the consequences for Siberia of the diversion of the waters? This question was answered precisely and clearly by Academician Ee. Fedorov in the article ‘‘Nothing Comes Free,’’ which was published in the same Literaturnaia gazeta (no. 47, 1981). He clearly observed that ‘‘the studies of many years standing of dozens of research institutes and thousands of specialthe article “‘Nothing Comes Free,’’ which was published in the same Literaturnaia gazeta (no. 47, 1981). He clearly observed that ‘‘the studies of many years standing of dozens of research institutes and thousands of specialists have determined that the removal of a small part of the flow of the Ob. . . will entail no changes in climate and will not disturb natural features on a global or regional scale.’’ Furthermore, for those who raise the question of the consequences for Siberia of the removal of part of the flow of its rivers the conclusions reached by the executant of this subject as per the plan of the USSR State Committee for Science and Technology—the USSR Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geography—are not without interest. Its summary report points out that removal of part of the flow of the rivers of West Siberia to Central Asia and Kazakhstan will serve as a factor of the reclamative improvement of this vast, uniquely swampy territory of the USSR and that ‘‘under the conditions of removal of part of the flow and the increased anthropogenic impact there will be a sharp improvement in the control of the water conditions of the river bottom land (the most valuable land in West Siberia’s agriculture), its artificial watering, irrigation and so forth.’’

The USSR Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Geography finds that the supply of part of the flow of Siberian rivers to Central Asia and Kazakhstan would serve as a powerful factor of the increased productiveness of the natural environment of the Siberian regions themselves. Would it not seem to those interested in ecological problems that the main one is tackled most propitiously by the diversion and that this fact, if the proper demands are made of the economic computations, must appropriately be taken into consideration in the revenue part of the project.

Fifth, a few words about Perevedentsev’s personal opinion that in the elaboration of the question ‘‘the cart was put before the horse,’’ that is, the planning outdistanced the science. This is not borne out by the information adduced above on the number of workers engaged in the science (approximately 150 institutions, of which 23 are academic). It is rather a matter of certain people evidently not reading what has been written in the scientific reports or in the TEO itself even. And there is something to be read. In addition to the ample basic material the TEO alone adduces 10 volumes of appendices containing 40 books (not counting albums and illustrations) based on the reports of the corresponding scientific research institutes.

To resort, like Perevedentsev, to allegory: his article prompts one to the belief not that ‘*the cart was put before the horse’’ but rather that there are still passengers who have missed the cart. And in such a situation it is easier to put questions than to answer them.

We do not deny in such a big matter shortcomings and loose ends in a number of the TEO standpoints, which are entirely removable with the help of scientists and specialists. But the main thing is that we must no lose precious time in superfluous and unsubstantiated arguments.

We hope that a most important problem of the century—diversion of part of the flow of Siberian rivers to Central Asia and Kazkhstan—will soon be settled positively and that millions of hectares of the area’s now barren virgin land will become a flourishing region and will produce cotton, grain, vegetables, fruit, grapes and animal husbandry products—everything necessary for the solution of the country’s food problem.

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