What do you think of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project?

The water shortage in the northern region and the South-to-North Water Diversion issue have always been a matter of concern to people across the country. Especially in recent years, the persistent drought in the north has become a hot topic. Many experts and comrades have expressed many opinions from different perspectives. In the "my country Water Resources Sustainable Development Strategy Research" consulting project of the Academy of Engineering, it was also listed as a subject for study, and a report was put forward, which has been printed into a document and reported to Vice Premier Wen. In today's forum, I originally thought that I would just read the summary of the report and express it, or repeat the materials I reported to Vice Premier Wen here. Later, I thought that it didn’t make much sense... so I finally changed my mind and wanted to talk about the interrelationship between the many factors that affect the implementation of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project at the forum for everyone’s reference. It is obvious that the north is short of water. It is not impossible to divert some water from the Yangtze River Basin, which has relatively abundant water, to the north. Considering the current level of science and technology and the country's economic strength, it is not impossible. Carrying out the South-to-North Water Diversion Project seems to be a matter of course and imperative, but after decades of research and discussion, opinions are always divided. There are some complex factors or people's views on some issues involved here. My speech mainly explores the dialectical relationship between them. Of course, I can only talk about some factors that have a greater impact, and they are all based on personal understanding. Please criticize any mistakes.

The relationship between saving water and tapping potential and water diversion

On the surface, this issue is easy to reach consensus. The general formulation is nothing more than: the basis for vigorously saving water and fully tapping potential. The necessary water should be transferred externally. In fact, people will have different understandings and priorities due to their different positions and perspectives of thinking about problems. Some comrades emphasize the necessity, inevitability, and irreplaceability of water transfer. They believe that water conservation has limits and requires a price. There is little room for tapping potential, and some places have been over-exploited. Moreover, there is no contradiction between water saving and water diversion. The water diversion project should be started as soon as possible. In short, emphasize water transfer and talk less about water conservation. Other comrades emphasized the importance and strategic nature of water conservation and tapping potential, and water diversion must be based on this, otherwise it will be unsustainable. Some comrades even say that if we do not pay attention to water conservation, tapping potential and controlling pollution, large-scale water diversion will inevitably lead to great waste, great pollution, great destruction and great corruption. This may be extreme, but it is not unreasonable. I think both are reasonable, but some prefer the latter. Why?

After all, water transfer is limited and cannot change the fundamental pattern of per capita water shortage in the northern region. Therefore, we can only arrange development plans, adjust the speed of industrial structure, and improve people's lives under this (water shortage) background. Supply may be determined by demand, which has led to major mistakes in the past.

So far, there is still a serious waste of water in the northern regions where water shortage is serious. Industrial output value per 10,000 yuan indicator, water utilization coefficient, agricultural water consumption per unit area, irrigation quota, utilization coefficient, urban domestic water problems are more problematic. The most water-scarce cities along the Beijing-Guangzhou line have per capita water consumption exceeding that of modern big cities like Amsterdam. , (but our living standard is very low)! How much water is lost due to leakage, sometimes as much as 3O%! It is an obvious fact that wastewater and sewage are discharged in large quantities or reused without treatment. There are many examples of irrational allocation of water resources and exacerbating water shortages, but no one is considering it, let alone taking measures. Saving water and tapping potential does require investment, which is true, but it is cheaper than water diversion. (Pollution control is more expensive, and it does not necessarily increase the amount of water, but it must be done.) At present, people are more concerned about how to find money to transfer water from the south, and less concerned about and promote how to invest money in water conservation first. This is also Be factual. Water saving is not only an economic issue, but also a matter of principle, ethos, what kind of society to build, and whether it is a sustainable development issue. Saving water for the ecological environment is also an issue of leaving more room for future generations. It should be mentioned High enough to recognize. Saving water, tapping potential, and controlling pollution are easy to make verbal statements, full of inertia, making superficial remarks, or starting up, and then returning to the same old ways. Our old problem is that we like to work on new projects, open source projects, and visible projects, rather than being unsung heroes and cleaning up garbage. If we do not make serious changes in our thoughts, actions, policies, and systems, it will indeed happen that the more water is transferred, the less attention will be paid to water conservation, potential tapping, and pollution control, forming a vicious cycle. It pays to hammer this issue a little harder. Of course, I agree that water conservation and water diversion should be promoted in parallel. It does not mean that the potential must be exhausted before the water diversion project is carried out, otherwise it will be too late (it will take a long time to build). However, we propose that we set some reasonable targets for water use in agriculture, industry, and urban life according to different situations. If the water use exceeds these targets, we will not have the right to use the water even if it is transferred to the door, so that the two can promote each other.

2. The relationship between different water diversion lines

After decades of planning and research, the water conservancy department has drawn up three lines to divert water northward from the east, middle and west. Although some comrades have put forward various other ideas, they all have problems of one kind or another, and the depth of planning research is even more insufficient. So up to now, the overall pattern of the three lines of the water conservancy department is more well-founded and basically appropriate. So what is the relationship between the three lines?

From a macro perspective, looking at the water shortage situation in the entire vast northern region, in fact, the three lines have their own main water supply areas or main purposes, but they are also compatible with each other and 'complement each other'. We describe it as one The three siblings born from the mother, in other words, are all in need.

The problem is that the scale of each project is extremely grand. Excluding supporting facilities, the investment in the main project requires tens of billions, hundreds of billions or even tens of billions. It is impossible (and unnecessary) to start construction at the same time, which leads to the problem of 'comparison and selection'. (The word choice is not accurate.) Relatively speaking, the Western Front project is particularly difficult, and the preliminary work is also more difficult and complicated. It transfers water directly into the upper reaches of the Yellow River, which is also different from the clear water supply area on the eastern line. So it seems that we need to take a step back, and there is not much difference in opinion. Of course, we must pay close attention to the preliminary work. It may be one of the effective ways to truly solve the water shortage problem of the Yellow River itself. The focus of the issue is the dispute between the eastern and central fronts. Different regions, departments, and people do have different preferences for this, and there are endless debates. In my opinion, the East-Middle Line is not only a compatriot, but also a twin. They are both designed to solve the water shortage problem in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain and the Beijing-Tianjin area. Therefore, not only is there no "comparison and selection" problem, it is not a "sorting" problem either. (When it comes to sorting, it seems that one line must be completed before starting another line). Instead, analyze the pros and cons, solve the existing problems, and proceed if the conditions are met. Intersperse them in phases to complement and promote each other. Do not engage in "exclusive" competition for fear of others. Once work started, I was delayed. It would be better for no one to come than to let anyone get ahead.

The advantages, disadvantages and conditions of the two options are actually relatively clear. The main advantages of the eastern route option are:

● Water is drawn from the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, and the water source is guaranteed.

● Make full use of Jiangsu’s already built northward water diversion project and waterways such as the Grand Canal. The project volume and investment are small, the technology is simple (the Yellow Crossing Tunnel has already been opened), and the results are quick.

● Can solve urgent problems in Shandong, the Far East region. Its problem is that there is water pollution and the water supply area is located in the east, and it cannot be directly supplied to mega cities. In addition, we must resolve the relationship issue with Jiangsu.

The main advantage of the middle line is that it uses clean water from the Danjiangkou Reservoir and supplies it directly to cities along the Beijing-Guangzhou line. The location is suitable and the entire line flows automatically. The question is:

● The amount of water in the Han River is limited; what will be the consequences of diverting 14.5 billion cubic meters of water?

● It is difficult to adjust the Danjiangkou Reservoir for many years. When the north and the south are both prosperous and dry, or when the north is prosperous and the south is dry, there will be operational difficulties; the water supply cannot be sustained during the year. There are no large reservoirs directly connected to the thousands and hundreds of kilometers of dedicated channels, making storage and operation extremely inflexible. There are also engineering risk issues (spanning more than 100 large and small rivers).

● The project volume, investment, and number of immigrants are all large. In addition, in the design of these two lines, the estimates of project volume and investment are all too small to varying degrees and need to be reviewed and corrected.

Since the midline plan is the focus of discussion, we have also done more research and put forward some suggestions. For example, the scale of some water transfers should be appropriately reduced (from 14.5 billion to 13 billion cubic meters) to reduce the impact on the Han River. After the middle line crosses the yellow line, it is divided into two lines: high and low. The high line is dedicated to water supply for cities along the line, with a small amount (about 2.5 billion to 3 billion cubic meters) to ensure water supply; the low line is used for agricultural and ecological environment water, and the Han River is full of water. You can adjust more, or less when the water is low. (Ecological River) restores the appearance of long-flowing lakes and rivers in Hebei. Some technical issues on the middle line (such as crossing the Yellow River) need to be studied and resolved in depth. The budget estimate needs to be completely reworked, so that after the problems existing in the two lines are better solved, they can be started one after another and carried out in parallel in phases when conditions are mature. At present, it seems possible that the eastern route is slightly ahead, but this does not affect the progress of the central route at all. In order to ensure the quality of the design, we also put forward the suggestion of "parallel design" or "review design". Everyone should be practical and realistic, and do "Kong Rong let the pear" rather than "Ji beans fry each other", so that the South-to-North Water Diversion Project can be easily started. It worked.