China Denies Lowered Mekong River Level Caused By Its Dams

[ballpoint]

The Mekong runs for approximately 100 km after it leaves China (between Burma and Laos) before it enters Thailand at Sop Ruak (Chiang Saen). There are no major tributaries along that stretch. Your map shows that Burma contributes 2% of the water, and since Laos shares that same length up to that point, let's say Laos also contributes 2% along that 100 km stretch. The river is nearly dry in Chiang Saen.

So where exactly does the water come from at Chiang Saen?

Your figure of 16% obviously relates to the complete volume of water that flows into the South China Sea in Vietnam. Just as with the official Chinese statements, it is misleading and irrelevant to use that figure when discussing the amount of flow into Thailand..

LaoPo would be better served trying to push the water back upstream with a rake. Let's look at the figures:

1. They are for the total flow of the river, along its entire length.

2. China contributes 16% to this, but in China it contributes 100% to the flow of the river. This figure decreases to 16% as you move downstream to the delta.

3. Therefore, at Chiang Rai, where the river first enters Thailand, the contribution from China is somewhere between 16% and 100%.

4. Since the river has flowed a total of around 100km between China and Chiang Rai, and there are no major tributaries, a point made by the comission when it states that Burma contributes only 2% to the total flow, it doesn't take a great leap to deduce that the vast majority of the water that flows (normally) past Chiang Saen has come from China.

5. Last time I looked, the purpose of a hydroelectric dam is to make electricity. Even ignoring the fact that each dam must be filled before it can start working, any completed dam must be kept at a working level. When rainfall is low, the amount spilled over the dam will be far lower than the amount going into the reservoir. The reservoir will also be used for irrigation, and will evaporate at a much higher rate than a flowing river.

6. The drought in China will cause a lowering of the river, dams or no dams, but the situation is far worsened by these dams. Don't just take my word for it, look at studies of other dammed river systems - the Colorado has been mentioned in this thread, take a look at the link below, which I also posted in post 7, for more.

http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/china/lancang-mekong-river

[RubbaJohnny]

Living on the river the levels at ban Pak Ing where the River Ing flows North into the mae Khong (LJiang Lacang) near the entry to Lao in Wiang Kaen area

The levels are recovering from arecord low and river boats back after days off.

Having lived and worked in PR China I am aware of Lies

Dam lies and Yunnan cc cp prc prpoaganda

Its not a simple issue and illustrates our interconnection

More intense agriculture population and climate change are all contributing to less downstream

The evaporation stats are complex but the model is there in Oz for all to see dry lachlan and empty lakes

[ballpoint]

^ Good one. Lies, dam lies and statistics, China spouts them all. Shame it doesn't spout water at the same rate. Or maybe not, then we'd be flooded.

[Heng]

I am certainly no expert but just not sure how a finished dam_n can continue to steal water.

Hundreds of ice cube factories. Still waiting to hear back from the folks at Fiji for an nice fat outsource contract.

[LaoPo]

The Mekong runs for approximately 100 km after it leaves China (between Burma and Laos) before it enters Thailand at Sop Ruak (Chiang Saen). There are no major tributaries along that stretch. Your map shows that Burma contributes 2% of the water, and since Laos shares that same length up to that point, let's say Laos also contributes 2% along that 100 km stretch. The river is nearly dry in Chiang Saen.

So where exactly does the water come from at Chiang Saen?

Your figure of 16% obviously relates to the complete volume of water that flows into the South China Sea in Vietnam. Just as with the official Chinese statements, it is misleading and irrelevant to use that figure when discussing the amount of flow into Thailand..

I suggest you study the -very detailed- reports by the MRC:

http://www.mrcmekong.org/

LaoPo

[bubba]

The Mekong runs for approximately 100 km after it leaves China (between Burma and Laos) before it enters Thailand at Sop Ruak (Chiang Saen). There are no major tributaries along that stretch. Your map shows that Burma contributes 2% of the water, and since Laos shares that same length up to that point, let's say Laos also contributes 2% along that 100 km stretch. The river is nearly dry in Chiang Saen.

So where exactly does the water come from at Chiang Saen?

Your figure of 16% obviously relates to the complete volume of water that flows into the South China Sea in Vietnam. Just as with the official Chinese statements, it is misleading and irrelevant to use that figure when discussing the amount of flow into Thailand..

I suggest you study the -very detailed- reports by the MRC:

http://www.mrcmekong.org/

LaoPo

I did.

So tell me, you being quite the scholar and from MRC or other data, how much of the water in the Mekong comes from China when it enters Thailand at Chiang Saen?

[LaoPo]

^ Good one. Lies, dam lies and statistics, China spouts them all. Shame it doesn't spout water at the same rate. Or maybe not, then we'd be flooded.

The "Lies, dam lies and statistics" are from the MRC - The Mekong River Commission, not China, mr. Ballpoint

And Thailand is member of that Commission which produces all the facts.

It seems hard to understand for some that if there's a severe drought in the upper Mekong area, including Yunnan Province, Laos and parts of Thailand as well, since many months (since September 2009), that rivers dry up....

But, of course, it's easy to step in on this forum and Blah-Blah a lot without FACTS.

LaoPo

[bubba]

^ Good one. Lies, dam lies and statistics, China spouts them all. Shame it doesn't spout water at the same rate. Or maybe not, then we'd be flooded.

The "Lies, dam lies and statistics" are from the MRC - The Mekong River Commission, not China, mr. Ballpoint

And Thailand is member of that Commission which produces all the facts.

It seems hard to understand for some that if there's a severe drought in the upper Mekong area, including Yunnan Province, Laos and parts of Thailand as well, since many months (since September 2009), that rivers dry up....

But, of course, it's easy to step in on this forum and Blah-Blah a lot without FACTS.

LaoPo

I couldn't agree more completely.

So in the interest of facts:

How much of the water in the Mekong comes from China when it enters Thailand at Chiang Saen?

[LaoPo]

I did.

So tell me, you being quite the scholar and from MRC or other data, how much of the water in the Mekong comes from China when it enters Thailand at Chiang Saen?

It's in the detailed reports of the MRC my friend; obviously you didn't study enough but to satisfy your question:

the amount of water, running from China into their neighboring countries is the amount coming from China and that amount depends on the water coming from the glaciers in Qinghai Province, combined with the rainfall in Qinghai, Tibet and Yunnan and also depending on the different seasons in any given year.

And that amount, mr. Bubba is minimal since September 2009.

How much that amount exactly is/was since September 2009 is here:

http://www.mrcmekong.org/download/REVISED_...lows-5mar10.pdf

A little more self study can't harm you Bubba, can it?

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

"The remarks made by Thailand's Natural Resource and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti days ago supported Chen's opinion. "It is difficult to blame China, as it shares only some 15 percent of the water flow. Water supply to the river from Thailand and Laos is more than half of the total," said Suwit."

Dams in China Has Little Influence on Water Volume of Mekong: Official

http://english.cri.cn/6909/2010/03/11/53s555932.htm

LaoPo

[A_Traveller]

The issue here is though presently the MRC, and for that matter the Thai National Disaster Warning Service agree that the current issues are largely created by abnormally low precipitation, the concern is that since China treats the data on the dams and their management as state secrets it is effectively impossible for MRC or anyone else to get meaningful information.

Since China is not a member of the MRC [it is a dialogue partner along with Burma] there is little the group can do. There's also the disingenuous contributory flow percentages bandied about. My understanding is that these are based on total flow which after running through Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, debouches into the South China Sea. The percentage of Mekong water which must pass through China before reaching northern Thailand and Laos is closer to the total flow at these points.

Most reasonable people take the view that it is too early to say what affect the dams [one of which is the second largest hydro-electric system after the Three Gorges, in China] will have, but to assume that there will be none or that it will be entirely beneficial [management of flow during flood periods for example] seems unwise.

Regards

[bubba]

This will be my last reply to you on this, LaoPo, because you obviously won't answer the question, although the answer is quite evident. Quoting official Chinese media does little to convince anyone. And perhaps if China would agree to join MRC, which they refuse to do along with Burma, we could at least believe that China is part of a constructive effort to preserve the Mekong, rather than building more dams, keeping more of the water for themselves, and even blasting the rapids below Chiang Saen so Chinese freight boats can navigate down the river to the port in Chiang Khong.

Several facts that we do know:

- Greater than 90% of the water that enters Thailand at Chiang Saen originates in China, since only 100 km of the river's 2100 km route pass through Burma/Laos before it gets to Thailand. The repeated misuse of the 18% figure, which is in actuality the flow exiting the Mekong into the South China Sea, is telling.

- In addition to storing water for the hydroelectric operations, China takes water from the Mekong from those dams for agricultural and domestic use, as Yunnan Governor Hu has admitted.

- an exhaustive study by the University of Helsinki concluded that "It can be expected that the low water flow in the Lower Mekong River would be reduced further with the increasing demand of water in China".

[Bizz]

Manipulating the Mekong

China's talent for building dams is undeniable, but would her ancient engineers have been so at odds with Mother Nature?

laopo may i humbly draw to your attention takes i min to load

If the ancient Chinese engineers had been given the chance to "manage" the Lancang River, I wonder if we would perhaps have ended up with a hydropower system that would enrich lives in both the upper and lower parts of the river rather than just those at the Manwan Dam?

[LaoPo]

This will be my last reply to you on this, LaoPo, because you obviously won't answer the question, although the answer is quite evident. Quoting official Chinese media does little to convince anyone. And perhaps if China would agree to join MRC, which they refuse to do along with Burma, we could at least believe that China is part of a constructive effort to preserve the Mekong, rather than building more dams, keeping more of the water for themselves, and even blasting the rapids below Chiang Saen so Chinese freight boats can navigate down the river to the port in Chiang Khong.

Several facts that we do know:

- Greater than 90% of the water that enters Thailand at Chiang Saen originates in China, since only 100 km of the river's 2100 km route pass through Burma/Laos before it gets to Thailand. The repeated misuse of the 18% figure, which is in actuality the flow exiting the Mekong into the South China Sea, is telling.

- In addition to storing water for the hydroelectric operations, China takes water from the Mekong from those dams for agricultural and domestic use, as Yunnan Governor Hu has admitted.

- an exhaustive study by the University of Helsinki concluded that "It can be expected that the low water flow in the Lower Mekong River would be reduced further with the increasing demand of water in China".

1. What a childish reaction.....If only sources from outside China are supposed to be reliable we better close the whole topic as there will be nothing to discuss. If you deny the severe droughts in China and Laos what's there to discuss ?

BTW: I quoted the message by the Thai minister of Natural Resource and Environment, Minister Suwit Khunkitti .

2. You are not able to present evidence that China is withholding more water as it is supposed to do. He...neighbor...you're not allowed to use more water (on your own territory) than I allow you to do...

3. You claim that the figure of 16% is misused..by whom? the MRC,...the Thai Minister? ...yourself ? Those figures are official numbers since the inflow of waters can be measured in Cubic Meters, but if you keep denying the numbers, who am I ? You might better talk to the MRC.

The 16% is the percentage of total water supply from China into the Mekong; that's all. The % of water coming from China is only minor to the enormous supplies by Laos' and Thailands' mountains (and Cambodia/Vietnam later) which is far beyond the 50% for those 2 countries alone, but you deny that. So: we better stop indeed as you mentioned.

4. Yes, China uses dams in the upper Mekong region and why wouldn't they be allowed to use dams ? There are thousands of dams all over the world and Thailand uses their own dams also, preventing for instance the Chi&Mun rivers from flowing freely into the Mekong in Laos, just around the border;

Check your facts with the Pak Mun Dam, only a stone throw away from the Laos border.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source...mp;t=h&z=14

http://www.tdri.or.th/library/quarterly/tables/s00_1_t1.htm Thailand Dams Pending Government Approval in the Chao Phraya River Basin; allowed or not by you ?

And, what about the proposed 11 dams in the Laos/Thai/Cambodian region ? Are they allowed ?

Since the mid 1960s, Thailand has constructed more than forty major dams for power generation and irrigation, resulting in significant opposition amongst rural communities.

From: http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/804

And, to end my input:

there is no doubt that the ongoing droughts in the region will cause lots of problems for millions of farmers in Yunnan/China, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.

But to just blame China for the droughts is silly thinking and incorrect.

God & Buddha forbid that the glaciers in the Qinghai/Tibet Plateau will melt definitely and forever, causing the snow and rain to stop......

blaming just one country doesn't help Gentlemen!

LaoPo

[longway]

Just blame it on Thaksin and make him pay billions in damages. That will solve the problem.

Or blame it on GW Bush.....he MUST be behind this evil.

He is way too incompetent to manage a feat like this.

[canopy]

For those that have been around a while or know, does the Mekong get real low every year? I have seen some polaroids at Ubon, which is way downstream, that seem to be from the 1980's and it looks like it gets real low in the dry season. Another datapoint is I was in Nong Kai 5 years ago in the dry season and the Mekong was very low, mainly wide dirt banks, not picturesque at all and that shocked me at the time as I never knew it had a wide seasonal variance. So how different is this year?

My first reaction seeing the China statistics is they couldn't cause it to dry up. But on second thought if it is true the Mekong normally gets real low then taking any percentage away this time of year is going te make a tremendous difference because there just isn't much water there in the first place and the amount from China could then make the difference between having some or none. Though it must be said blaming China, rightly or not, is unfortunate since Thailand is using more and more water every year and it has reached the point of unsustainability from all I have read.

[brahmburgers]

I agree with Bubba that the statistics that China puts forth (only 13 to 15% of Mekong water comes out of China and Tibet) is probably the % of water that flows out the Mekong Delta in to the South China Sea. The % of water that flows from China in to Chiang Saen, Thailand is probably in the upper 90's.

No one disputes there's drought in the watershed, including disappearing glaciers in Tibet. The issue is China taking advantage on its side of the border - to a v. selfish degree.

Here's a bit of my personal experience with dams:

Once drove across the once-mighty Colorado river delta in Mexico. It was a dry alluvial plain because all, I reapeat ALL, the water had been sucked up on the US side of the border. This could happen with the Mekhong, at least where it comes in to Thailand. The riverbed could become just moist sand. Currently it's a 30 cm stream in places - yet China has only built half of the proposed 8 dams on its watershed, just inside its border. We're talking the Mekong River, formerly one of the longest and mightiest rivers in the world.

A word about crops: land devoted to growing rice must be lessened. There are a bunch of crops that us a lot less water - that should be considered. Hemp is one I like particularly, but there are many others that would lessen the impact of drought. It's like a family with a dry well, that keeps insisting everyone take a bath each night.

Edited March 15, 2010 by brahmburgers

[RubbaJohnny]

Good point and neat solutions

Hemp is one I like particularly, but there are many others that would lessen the impact of drought. It's like a family with a dry well, that keeps insisting everyone take a bath each night

Soi Alab here we come hookahs back sheesha and the great unwashed,pass the towel perhaps we can mop up!

Leis damned lies and statistics ask any fisherman or use your eyes on the underwash on bends in A.Wiang Kaen

Please note the Mae Khong aka Jiang Lacang enters Thailnd North of C Saen at the comfluence of the mae Sai aka Triangle D'or

[Heng]

This will all sort itself out behind the scenes, no reason to get all riled up.

[fenny99]

If it carrys on maybe a asian war . They say wars are fought over oil . Water is far more improtant . Cant survive without it

PEACE TO ALL

[Publicus]

No democratic government or responsible NGO of the world, or any public interest organization such as Amnesty International or human rights organizations too numerous to mention, believe a single statistic or statement from the one party state, the communist party state of the People's Republic of China, given its ideology (which is a brain disease, a state of fantasy), its censorship of information, knowledge and thought, its single party self-serving justice system and its corrupt and greedy self interest, not to mention its militant stance against transparency, the rights of citizen redress of grievances and of democracy.

The PRC since its National Day last May 1st is now regarded as a militant and arrogant state, as witness the heavy handed Google censorship, the Rio Tinto Star Chamber persecutions now underway, the PRC's preparations to test Obama concerning democratic Taiwan and its determination to quash by any means necessary the efforts underway in Hong Kong to attain a one person, one vote democracy.

Nothing the government of the PRC says or presents as some sort of legitimate data or purpose is credible, believable or trustworthy. This dam_n dam business of the Mekong is just another instance of this absolute truth concerning the PRC's absolute rulers and their indifferent cruelty.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Attempt to edit failed:

The reference in my above post is to the National Day October 1st.......Communist May Day is May 1st.

The PRChinese have been given the line by their Beijing absolute rulers since Pres Obama's visit to the PRC that Obama is anti-China. No credible Chinese had said this before Obama's visit to the PRC, his first visit as POTUS and his first visit ever to China. Many diplomats and those in governments around the world have said since that this is the case. It is of course not true.

However, it is fact that Obama left China with a definite sense of a burning feeling on his skin, as if the Chinese regard his skin as something different, something odd, something unpleasant or even undesirable. Something negative.

Talk to but more importantly listen to Chinese in China and one will find that this is indeed an attitude in China, and always has been the attitude with no hope of change in view or imaginable.

This is not good.

Look out Thailand and SE ASia.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Publicus

[Tejas]

China is a land of contradictions. If you live there, you actually don't feel the presence of BIG BROTHER that much, particularly if you don't watch TV, which I do not.

China has a population problem which they have tried to address, unlike most other countries.

The economy continues to grow.

Population plus a growing economy means more agriculture and mining and energy use, etc.

The leaders continue to believe that controlling the flow of information is critical to keep them in power, thus maintaining the status quo.

But I could say the same about Thailand, Myanmar, the USA. It is the same all over.

Tell me one country where the ruling elite (corporate-political-military triangle of power) does not control the flow of information.

It is happening worldwide. It simply is bigger news in China.

About the dams: The source of the water that feeds the rivers is found in the high mountain ranges in China/Tibet........glaciers........they are melting because of global warming. This is the ultimate problem.

Chinese scientists are well aware of this. You can build all the dams you want, put if the water source that feeds them dries up, there is nothing you can do to stop a water shortage downstream.

Why not focus on this and tell people the truth? Because the truth means switching from fossil fuels and that is a big threat to powerful corporations (worldwide including China) that do not want us to make that switch.

An even bigger threat would be the creation and deployment of a decentralized, sustainable energy system that "people" control instead of corporations or the state.

So, population, economics, environment, control of information..........$$$$$$$$$$.........all are linked together.

[TerraPosse]

No democratic government or responsible NGO of the world, or any public interest organization such as Amnesty International or human rights organizations too numerous to mention, believe a single statistic or statement from the one party state, the communist party state of the People's Republic of China, given its ideology (which is a brain disease, a state of fantasy), its censorship of information, knowledge and thought, its single party self-serving justice system and its corrupt and greedy self interest, not to mention its militant stance against transparency, the rights of citizen redress of grievances and of democracy.

The PRC since its National Day last May 1st is now regarded as a militant and arrogant state, as witness the heavy handed Google censorship, the Rio Tinto Star Chamber persecutions now underway, the PRC's preparations to test Obama concerning democratic Taiwan and its determination to quash by any means necessary the efforts underway in Hong Kong to attain a one person, one vote democracy.

Nothing the government of the PRC says or presents as some sort of legitimate data or purpose is credible, believable or trustworthy. This dam_n dam business of the Mekong is just another instance of this absolute truth concerning the PRC's absolute rulers and their indifferent cruelty.

For a moment I was thinking you are ranting about religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. 

[roamer]

People here might be interested in this Canadian film dealing with the hidden dams in Tibet that the Chinese are constructing and other water diversification projects, there's a trailer on the site.

http://www.meltdownintibet.com/film.htm

[Publicus]

China is a land of contradictions. If you live there, you actually don't feel the presence of BIG BROTHER that much, particularly if you don't watch TV, which I do not.

China has a population problem which they have tried to address, unlike most other countries.

The economy continues to grow.

Population plus a growing economy means more agriculture and mining and energy use, etc.

The leaders continue to believe that controlling the flow of information is critical to keep them in power, thus maintaining the status quo.

But I could say the same about Thailand, Myanmar, the USA. It is the same all over.

Tell me one country where the ruling elite (corporate-political-military triangle of power) does not control the flow of information.

It is happening worldwide. It simply is bigger news in China.

About the dams: The source of the water that feeds the rivers is found in the high mountain ranges in China/Tibet........glaciers........they are melting because of global warming. This is the ultimate problem.

Chinese scientists are well aware of this. You can build all the dams you want, put if the water source that feeds them dries up, there is nothing you can do to stop a water shortage downstream.

Why not focus on this and tell people the truth? Because the truth means switching from fossil fuels and that is a big threat to powerful corporations (worldwide including China) that do not want us to make that switch.

An even bigger threat would be the creation and deployment of a decentralized, sustainable energy system that "people" control instead of corporations or the state.

So, population, economics, environment, control of information..........$$$$$$$$$$.........all are linked together.

It's clear you have been around the block a few times and then some, that you have a certain wise perspective and point of view rooted in a certain reality. It's been discussed many times at TVF how elites rule everywhere. The question however is to what extent are elites elites, to what extents do they rule and how might they be countered in their positions of power, authority and wealth - also, among other questions, in whom does national sovereignty reside?

In Taiwan for instance sovereignty resides with the people. In contrast, however, in the People's Republic of China sovereignty is held by....by...by whom? Is sovereignty of the PRC in the grasp of the chairman/president of the republic, who is selected by fewer than a dozen members of the Standing Committe of the Central Committee of the Politboro of the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China? Or is sovereignty of the PRC the exlusive domain of the Central Committee of the Communist Party? Or is sovereignty of the PRC commanded by the Politboro of the Communist Party? Moreover, who can remove a rogue leader of the PRC? The People's Congress, which in reality is a faceless smudge of people from throughout the PRC chosen by the Party leaders locally and provincially? Or does the PRC not have rogue leaders?

While we're at it, the Catholic Church in which I was raised and which I long ago consigned to irrelevance (along with all theism/religion) does remind me of Buddhism in that males rule, must be celebate (historically not always Catholic doctrine), must be poor, and has lots of glitter and lights to its houses of worship - Theravada Buddism especially places the role and function of the men of the cloth as the ultimate aspect of the organized religion on earth (among other common characteristics and traits).

I think the sovereignty of the Vatican nation state is the domain of the holy father - or is it in the college of cardinals which choose who shall be the bishop of Rome/Pope? In pursuing an answer, it might help if we drew a straight line, put the Vatican and the Communist Party of China at either end the step back over a short time to watch the ends of the line curl up to ultimately and finally join as the same. At least in form if not in contect.

[Tejas]

Thank you for the positive comments.

I am not sure how to respond......we would end up getting way off topic.

Let me just say this: I do not think true democracy exits anywhere on the planet.

I do think there is a global ruling elite comprised of men and women who stand at the top of a corporate-political-military triangle of power.

I think they are often linked to powerful families.

I think they want to maintain the status quo so that they can increase their power and wealth.

I do not think they care about the masses.

I think they have create a global slave labor class.

I think they want this slave labor class to increase, not decrease in size (which is one reason for the globalization of the economy).

I think they are smart and know that the people who control the flow of information control everything.

And only a handful of corporations (controlled by these elites) control the global flow of information.

What does that mean? It means we are screwed!

Only a global revolution from the bottom will change this situation.

But most likely nature will take care of the problem long before the masses open their eyes to reality.