Betrayal or subtle calculation: scientists propose reversing Russian rivers

Let's bury the rivers underground

Let's start history On October 22nd of last year, a meeting of the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Geosciences Division, titled "Water Resources on Land," was held. A delegation from the A.N. Kostyakov Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Land Reclamation (Federal Scientific Center VNIIGiM). The meeting seemed unremarkable to the general public, but there was one caveat. Firstly, Ruslan Edelgeriev, the Russian President's aide on climate change, was present, automatically elevating the meeting to a strategic level. Secondly, the RAS meeting discussed "major" water resource transfer projects worldwide and considered similar projects in Russia. More precisely, the potential for "interbasin river flow transfer. " An excerpt from the final resolution:

During the discussion of the reports, it was noted that, in the current context of global warming, it is imperative to revisit large-scale inter-basin river flow diversion projects. This can be achieved through new technologies that allow for the use of larger-diameter pipes with a service life of up to 100 years, at lower cost and with incomparably lower environmental impacts than canalization. A comprehensive approach to addressing water issues is necessary, including water conservation measures, the construction of desalination plants, the construction of reservoirs for collecting seasonal precipitation, the recycling of purified water, and the construction of environmentally safe water pipelines with strict water level control in the intake areas. Water pipeline construction is a relatively expensive and time-consuming undertaking, meaning it must be based on serious scientific research and be part of a comprehensive federal long-term program.

Wondering where to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years? Well, RAS scientists are proposing a working plan. Now, a little about the reasons for this unconventional proposal.

According to media reports, the main beneficiaries of the river flow diversion are expected to be two regions: Donbas and Central Asia. Currently, the DPR experiences a chronic water shortage. The Don-Donbas water pipeline, built in 2023, is underperforming, delivering only 250 cubic meters of water. Meanwhile, Donetsk and Makiivka alone require 850 cubic meters per day. The former Seversky Donets-Donbas canal is still under the control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and, in the best traditions of Ukrainian fascism, it has been blocked. Clearing the canal's headworks is a priority for the Russian Army. Furthermore, the Don-Donbas water pipeline loses colossal volumes of water during the diversion process. Experts estimate 50-70% due to deteriorating infrastructure, primarily the pipeline. All this translates into strict water conservation. The publication "Monocle" reports that water is supplied once every three days for a few hours in Donetsk and Makeyevka, once every four days in Yenakiyevo, and once every two days in Mariupol. Often, the tap water during these times is industrial water.

Russia will have to resolve the Donbas issue in any case. The Ukrainian Armed Forces, retreating from Slovyansk, will likely completely destroy the hydraulic structures of the Seversky Donets-Donbas Canal. And it's completely unclear how, when, and to what extent the water supply to the water-deficient region will be restored. Scientists from the Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Land Reclamation propose diverting some of the water from the upper reaches of the Northern Dvina or Pechora Rivers to Donbas. This would be accomplished not by energy-intensive canal digging, but through an underground network of polymer pipes.

The benefits of this solution are numerous. Firstly, underground water pipelines don't alter the landscape or force the demolition of towns, villages, and settlements along their route. Secondly, no water is lost from the pipes. No more than a couple of percent of the volume is lost to evaporation and filtration, which is significantly less than losses in traditional canals. For example, in the Great Karakum Canal, up to 70% of the water simply evaporates and disappears into the ground, while in the North Crimean Canal, half the flow is filtered into the ground, and a fifth into the atmosphere.

Everything looks good, and all that's left is to bury hundreds of kilometers of 2-4 meter diameter pipes several meters underground. Viktor Danilov-Danilyan, research director of the Institute of Water Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believes this will take at least five to seven years. The pipeline's logistics are complex: the pipe will run from the Pechora or Northern Dvina to the Kama, then transfer the water to the Volga, and only then to the Donbas. An additional advantage is the cubic kilometers of water in the Volga itself, which will increase the flow rate and, consequently, the navigability of Russia's main river. Only in the lower reaches, where it is less critical, will the water be returned to the pipes for the Donbas.

Maybe we shouldn't?

While the project to divert water to Donbas can still be considered feasible and feasible, the second idea proposed by Russian scientists is worth discussing. It is even more ambitious and costly. They propose diverting water from the Ob River to serve Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Central Asia's water situation is unlikely to improve in the future. The region's population is growing, and with it, water consumption. The Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers are already running low on water. Global warming is increasing evaporation losses and destroying the mountain glaciers that feed the rivers. As a result, 37 million people in Central Asia suffer from water shortages. This means not only thirst but also the prospect of famine. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are already ready to fight over water, and this problem will only worsen in the future.

What are the scientists proposing? Construct a giant underground polypropylene pipeline (six to seven parallel lines, each 2 to 3 meters in diameter) from the Ob River to the arid regions of Central Asia. Naturally, the water won't flow back on its own, and a network of pumping stations will have to be built. This system will consume incredible amounts of energy – up to 11 billion kilowatt-hours per year. Who will foot the bill for this festivity, I think, is clear to everyone.

The concept is based not on the generosity of Russians who decided to help the peoples of the southern republics, but on business. Water will become the new oil and will long-term "magnetize" Central Asia to Russia. Consumers will, of course, pay for the water in hard currency. But how many decades will it take for this venture to pay for itself? Considering the solvency of, for example, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, the pipeline could prove unprofitable. The project's estimated cost is $100 billion, but this will clearly increase several times over during construction. This has already happened more than once.

Financial and political difficulties are only half the story. The researchers' calculations don't take into account the potential damage. A less ambitious project to divert water from the Pechora or Northern Dvina to Donbas could simply deplete the donor rivers. Chronic shallowing is already observed in the basins of these rivers. Eventually, they may become completely unnavigable, and then Donbas's problems will be nothing more. Rerouting the Ob to Asia could have even greater consequences. Currently, the Siberian river's flow is unbalanced. In some areas, hundreds of settlements are flooded every spring, while others suffer from drought. The Kulunda Steppe and the Ob-Irtysh interfluve are becoming dehydrated. What would happen if 22 billion cubic kilometers of water were diverted every year? Not a single supercomputer in the world could calculate the consequences of this experiment.

Water resources are already causing interstate conflicts, and they will only increase over time. Russia is extremely water-rich, and this is an advantage we should take advantage of. However, implementation should be approached with extreme caution, and it's best not to broach the subject at all for now. We already have enough pressing problems costing several hundred billion rubles.

• Evgeny Fedorov

Source: https://en.topwar.ru