CONFIDENTIAL Report No. 22040-CHA Product ID Code: P053602 Public Disclosure Authorized
CHINA Public Disclosure Authorized AGENDA FOR WATER SECTOR STRATEGY FOR NORTH CHINA
VOLUME 3: STATISTICAL ANNEXES Public Disclosure Authorized
March 1, 2001
Project Sponsors: Ministry of Water Resources and the World Bank Public Disclosure Authorized Joint Report by the World Bank, Sinclair Knight Merz and Egis Consulting Australia (AusAID), General Institute for Water Resources Planning (MWR), Institute of Water and Hydropower Research ( Beijing), Institute of Water and Hydrology Research, (Nanjing), Chinese Research Academy for Environmental Sciences (Beijing). CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (As of January 1, 2001)
Currency Unit = Yuan (Y) US$1.00 = Y 8.3 Y 1.00 = US$ 0.12
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 - December 31
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Metric System
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
3-H Hai, Huai and Yellow (Huang) River Basins NIHWR Nanjing Institute of Hydrology and Water AEP Annual Exceedance Probability Research (NIHWR) ARI Average Recurrence Interval O&M Operation and Maintenance Bcm Billion Cubic Meters P1 Program 1 BLM Basin Level Modeling P2 Program 2 BOD Biological Oxygen Demand P25 25 percent probability of flow (wet) COD Chemical Oxygen Demand P3 Program 3 CRAES Chinese Research Academy for Environment P50 50 percent probability of flow (normal) Systems P75 75 percent probability of flow (dry) DAF Dissolved Air Flotation P95 95 percent probability of flow (very dry) DDGS Dried Distillated Grain Solid PMP Probable Maximum Precipitation EIA Effective Irrigated Areas PPP Pollution Prevention Program EPB Environmental Protection Bureau RBC River Basin Commission FPF Fisheries, Pasture, Forestry SEPA State Environmental Protection Agency GAMS Generalized Algebraic Modeling Systems SIDD Self-Financing Irrigation and Drainage District GDP Gross Domestic Product S-N South-North (Transfer) GIWHP General Institute for Water and Hydropower SNT South North Transfer GW Groundwater SOCAD State Office for Comprehensive Agricultural HRC Huai River Committee Development IPPDI Irrigation and Power Planning Design Institute SOE State-Owned Enterprise IRI Irrigation Requirement Index SS Suspended Solids IWHR Institute of Water Research and Hydropower SW Surface Water Research TFP Total Factor Productivity km2 Square kilometers TN Total Nitrogen lcd Liters per capita per day TP Total Phosphorus LIS Large Irrigation Scheme TVE Township and Village Enterprise LP Linear Programming UASB Upflow Aerobic Sludge Blanket LW Local water (runoff from local mountains) WPM-DSS Water Pollution Management Decision Support M&I Municipal and Industry System m3 cubic meters WTP Water Treatment Plant m3/s Cubic Meters per Second WW Wastewater Mcm Million Cubic Meters WWEM Water and Waste Estimation Model MSG Monosodium Glutamate WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant MWR Ministry of Water Resources
Vice President : Jemal-ud-din Kassum, EAPVP Sector Director : Mark D. Wilson, EASRD Country Director : Yukon Huang, EACCF Task Manager : Daniel Gunaratnam, EACCF CONTENTS
CONTENTS ...... i
Annex 1: Statistics Related to Chapter 1...... 1 Table A1-1: Percent of National Crop Production Grown in the 3-H Basins...... 1 Figure A1-1: Spatial and Temporal Variation of Rainfall in 3-H basins ...... 1 Figure A1-2: Water per Capita in Different Basins in China ...... 2 Figure A1-3: Economic Loss Resulting From Floods in Plains and Nonplains Areas Within the 3- H Basins Compared with China ...... 2 Figure A1-4: Gross Industrial Output Value in 1999 for the 3-H Basins ...... 2
Annex 2: Statistics Related to Chapter 2...... 4 Figure A2-1: Rural per Capita Annual 1999 Income Components for Provinces in 3-H Basins ....4 Figure A2-2: Urban versus Rural Income by Provinces with Percentage of Each Province in the 3-H Basins ...... 4 Figure A2-3: Changing Structure of Employment in China for 1990 to 2056...... 5 Figure A2-4: Water Demand Projections Based on Different Economic and Social Scenarios ...... 6
Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System ...... 7 Table A3.1-1: Nodes in the Basin Models...... 8 Table A3.1-2: Study Regions—Size and Location...... 10 Table A3.1-3: Model Regions: Characteristics and 1997 Consumption...... 11 Figure A3.1-1: the Relation of Nodes, Regions and Flows...... 12 Table A3.1-4: Crop Choices in the Basin Models ...... 13 Figure A3.1-2: The Solution Procedure...... 15 Table A3.1-5: Model Validation Against 1997 Data...... 23 Appendix 1.1: GAMS Statement of the Yellow Basin Model...... 25 Appendix 1.2: GAMS Statement of the Hai Basin Model...... 26 Appendix 1.3 GAMS Statement of the Huai Basin Model...... 27
Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3...... 28 Table A3-1: Percentage of Runoff Occurring in Flood Months (June-October) ...... 28 Table A3.2-2: Estimated Relative Contributions from Rural and Urban Point Sources in the Hai and Huai Basins...... 28 Table A3.2-3: Groundwater Quolity Assessment for Some Provinces in the 3H Basins (%)...... 28 Table A3.2-4: Water Volume for Irrigation Compared to Other Uses in 1994-1998...... 29 Table A3.2-5: Summarized Changes of Crop and Income Patterns in 3-H Basin ...... 30 Table A3.2-6: Feasibility of Artificial Recharge in Cities in 3-H Basins ...... 31 Figure A3.2-1: Economic Losses...... 33 Figure A3.2-2: Flood Deaths/Million Population in Each Province ...... 33 Figure A3.2-3: Percentage of Drained Land to Total Cultivated Land in China ...... 33 Figure A3.2-4: Crop Irrigated Area in China from 1980 to 1998 ...... 34 Figure A3.2-5: Fertilizer Use in China from 1980 to 1995 ...... 34 Figure A3.2-6: Effective, Actual and Stable Irrigation Areas in 3-H Basins and In China ...... 34 Figure A3.2-7: Composition of Irrigation Area in China ...... 35 - ii -
Figure A3.2-8: Percentage of Labor Force in Three Sectors According to Official Figures...... 35 Figure A3.2-9: Farmers’ Income Changes in Henan Province...... 36 Figure A3.2-10: Farmers’ Income Changes in Shandong Province ...... 36 Figure A3.2-11: Farmers’ Income Changes in Jiangsu Province...... 37 Figure A3.2-12: China: Levels of Government...... 38 Figure A3-13: Water Management Chart ...... 39 Map A3.2-1: 2000 Pollution Loads for Priority Cities in Huai Basin under Base Case...... 40 Map A3.2-2: 2000 Toxic COD Pollution Loads for Priority Cities in the Huai Basin under Base Case ...... 40 Map A3.2-3: 2000 Pollution Loads for Level II Hai Basin under Base Case ...... 41 Map A3.2-4: 2000 Pollution Loads for Level II Huai Basin under Base Case ...... 42
Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source) ...... 43 Table A4.1-1: Base Case - Hai River Basin ...... 43 Table A4.1-2: Base Case - Huai River Basin...... 44 Table A4.1-3: Base Case - Yellow River Basin ...... 45 Table A4.1-4: Efficiency 10% Improvement - Hai River Basin ...... 47 Table A4.1-5: Efficiency 10% Improvement - Huai River Basin ...... 48 Table A4.1-6: Efficiency 10% Improvement - Yellow River Basin ...... 50 Table A4.1-7: Efficiency 10% + Reuse - Hai River Basin ...... 51 Table A4.1-8: Efficiency 10% + Reuse - Huai River Basin ...... 52 Table A4.1-9: Efficiency 10% + Reuse - Yellow River Basin ...... 54 Table A4.1-10: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price - Hai River Basin ...... 55 Table A4.1-11: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price - Huai River Basin ...... 56 Table A4.1-12: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price - Yellow River Basin...... 58 Table A4.1-13: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price + S-N-E - Hai River Basin ...... 59 Table A4.1-14: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price + S-N-E - Huai River Basin ...... 60 Table A4.1-15: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price + S-N-E - Yellow River Basin ...... 62 Table A4.1-16: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price + S-N - Hai River Basin ...... 63 Table A4.1-17: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price + S-N - Huai River Basin...... 64 Table A4.1-18: Efficiency 10% + Reuse + High Price + S-N - Yellow River Basin ...... 66
Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin) ...... 68 Table A4.2-1: 3-H Summary - Base Case ...... 68 Table A4.2-2: 3-H Summary - Efficiency 10% Improvement...... 70 Table A4.2-3: 3-H Summary - Efficiency 10% Improvement + Reuse...... 72 Table A4.2-4: 3-H Summary - Efficiency 10% Improvement + Reuse + High Price...... 74 Table A4.2-5: 3-H Summary - Efficiency 10% Improvement + Reuse + High Price + S-N...... 76 Table A4.2-6: 3-H Summary - Efficiency 10% Improvement + Reuse + High Price + S-N-E..... 78
Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management ...... 80 A. Introduction...... 80 B. Planning Framework...... 80 C. Risk Management...... 84 D. Nonstructural Measures...... 85 E. Flood Design Standards...... 88 Table A5.1-1: Grade and Flood Control Standard for Cities...... 90 Table A5.1-2: Grade and Flood Control Standard for Protected Rural Area (Township) ...... 90 Table A5.1-3: Standard for Industry...... 90 - iii -
Table A5.1-4: Standard for Flood Control and Hydropower...... 90 Table A5.1-5: Grade for Hydraulic Structure ...... 90 Table A5.1-6: Flood Control Standard for Hydraulic Structure of Reservoir ...... 91 Table A5.1-7: Grade for Levee ...... 91 Table A5.1-8: Freeboard of Levee ...... 91 F. Principles of Project Identification and Implementation ...... 91 G. Risk Management...... 92 H. Decision Support Framework...... 94
Annex 5.2 Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs ...... 95 A. Introduction...... 95 B. Proposed Works in the Hai River Basin...... 95 Table A5.2-1: Summary of Planned Major Projects in the Hai River Basin ...... 96 C. Proposals in the Yellow River Basin ...... 98 Table A5.2-3: Summary of Planned Major Projects in the Yellow River Basin ...... 102 D. Proposed Works in the Huai River Basin...... 103 Table A5.2-4: Summary of Planned Major Projects in the Huai River Basin ...... 103 Table A5.2-5: Outfall Channels from Hongze Lake ...... 105 Table A5.2-6: Flood Control Standard of 10 Cities...... 106 Figure A5.2-1: Hai River Basin Reservoirs, Pumps and Transfer Works ...... 113 Figure A5.2-2: Huai River Basin Reservoirs, Pumps and Transfer Works...... 114 Figure A5.2-3: Huang River Basin Reservoirs, Pumps and Transfer Works ...... 114
Annex 6.1: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Irrigation) ...... 115 Table A6-1: 3-H Total Irrigation Area Under Various Scenarios ...... 115 Figure A6.1-1: Percent of Full, Partial Irrigation and Rainfed Area in 3-H Basins under Different Runoff Probabilities, Base Case...... 116 Figure A6.1-2: Percent of Full, Partial Irrigation and Rainfed Area in 3-H Basins under Different Runoff Probabilities, Without S-N Water Transfer...... 117 Figure A6.1-3: Percent of Full, Partial Irrigation and Rainfed Area in 3-H Basins under Different Runoff Probabilities, With S-N Water Transfer ...... 118 Map A6.1-1: Total Irrigation Area in 3-H Basins in 2020, Base Case, P75 ...... 119 Map A6.1-2: Total Irrigation Area in 3-H Basins in 2050, Base Case, P75 ...... 119
Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management) ...... 120 Table A6.2-1: Details of Government Ongoing Investment Program (100 Million Yuan) for SOCAD, LIS and Water Saving Technologies Development and the Physical Works (‘000 ha) Under Such Investment ...... 120 Table A6.2-2: Details of Proposed Investment (100 million Yuan) for SOCAD, LIS and Water Saving Technologies by Action Plan Proposed and Projected Physical Works Development (1,000 ha) Under Such Investment ...... 123 Table A6.2-3: Gross Water Irrigation Efficiency Projection under Government’s Ongoing Program...... 126 Table A6.2-4: Gross Water Irrigation Efficiency under Proposed Action Program ...... 126 Table A6.2-5: Winter Wheat Production Per Water Use Unit in Base Case...... 127 Table A6.2-6: Winter Wheat Production Per Water Use Unit under the Scenario of Irrigation Efficiency 10% Improvement ...... 127 Table A6.2-7: Grain Production Per Water Use Unit in Base Case...... 128 - iv -
Table A6.2-8: Grain Production Per Water Use Unit under the Scenario of Irrigation Efficiency 10% Improvement ...... 129
Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System...... 130 A. The Task ...... 130 B. Available Environmental Data...... 132 C. Design Data ...... 133 Table A7.1-1: Key Statistics, Hai Basin...... 133 Table A7.1-2: Key Statistics, Huai Basin ...... 133 D. Water And Waste Estimation Model (WWEM) ...... 134 Table A7.1-3: Input and Output Information...... 134 Figure A7.1-1: Overall Schematic of Waste Calculations...... 135 E. City-Based Models ...... 135 Table A7.1-3: Large Industry Load Growth ...... 136 Table A7.1-4: Adopted Water Loss...... 139 F. Rural Domestic ...... 141 G. Rural Industry ...... 143 H. Livestock...... 144 I. Irrigation...... 146 J. Investment Costs...... 146 K. Calibration of the WPM-DSS...... 147 Figure A7.1-2: Different Industrial COD Loads Results from Various Data Sources ...... 149 Table A7.1-5: Comparison of SEPA Survey and HRC Survey...... 150 Table A7.1-6: Comparison of the Number of Actual and Sampled Cities/Counties...... 151 Table A7.1-7: Calibration Results for the WPM-DSS...... 151 L. References ...... 152
Annex 7.2: Input and output data of wpm-dss model...... 153 A. Input—Hai Basin...... 153 Table A7.2-A1: Programs Consisting of Different Scenarios for Hai Basin...... 153 Table A7.2-A2: Hai Basin WPM-DSS Input Data for Urban Industry ...... 155 Table A7.2-A3: Municipal Water Reuse Factors and WWTP Types and Capacity for Different Interventions for Hai Basin...... 156 Table A7.2-A4: Hai Basin WPM-DSS Input Data for Rural Industry...... 157 Table A7.2-A5: Hai Basin WPM-DSS Input Data for Rural Domestic ...... 158 Table A7.2-A6: Hai Basin WPM-DSS Input Data for Livestock...... 159 B. Output (Load)—Hai Basin ...... 160 Table A7.2-A7: COD Loads from Major Pollution Sources of Various Programs in Hai Basin 160 Table A7.2-A8: COD Loads from Livestock in Hai Basin ...... 161 Table A7.2-A9: COD Loads from Rural Industry in Hai Basin...... 161 Table A7.2-A10: COD Loads from Rural Domestic in Hai Basin ...... 161 Table A7.2-A11: COD Loads of Urban Industrial and Municipal Discharge in Hai Basin ...... 162 Figure A7.2-A1: COD Loads of Urban Industrial and Municipal Discharge in P1 &P2 Priority Cities in 2000 under Base Case, Hai Basin ...... 163 Figure A7.2-A2: COD Load of Urban Industrial and Municipal Discharge in P1 & P2 Priority Cities in 2020 under Base Case, Hai Basin ...... 163 Figure A7.2-A3: COD Load of Urban Industrial and Municipal Discharge in P1 & P2 Priority Cities in 2020 under Scenario 6, Hai Basin ...... 164 - v -
Figure A7.2-A4: COD Load of Urban Toxic Industrial Discharge in P1 & P2 Priority Cities in Hai Basin ...... 165 Figure A7.2-A5: COD Load of Urban Paper Industrial Discharge in P1 & P2 Priority Cities in Hai Basin ...... 166 C. Input, Huai Basin ...... 167 Table A7.2-B1: Programs Consisting of Different Scenarios for Huai Basin ...... 167 Table A7.2-B2: Huai Basin WPM-DSS Input Data for Urban Industry...... 169 Table A7.2-B3: Municipal Water Reuse Factors and WWTP Types and Capacity for Different Interventions for Huai Basin ...... 170 Table A7.2-B4: Huai Basin WPM-DSS Input Data for Rural Industry...... 171 Table A7.2-B5: Huai Basin WPM-DSS Input Data for Rural Domestic ...... 172 Table A7.2-B6: Huai Basin WPM-DSS Input Data for Livestock...... 173 D. Output (Load)—Huai Basin ...... 174 Table A7.2-B7: COD Loads from Major Pollution Sources of Various Programs in Huai Basin174 Table A7.2-B8: COD Loads from Livestock in Huai Basin ...... 175 Table A7.2-B9: COD Loads from Rural Industry in Huai Basin ...... 175 Table A7.2-B10: COD Loads from Rural Domestic in Huai Basin ...... 176 Table A7.2-B11: COD Loads of Urban Industrial and Municipal Discharge in Huai Basin ...... 177 Figure A7.2-B1: COD Loads of Urban Industrial and Municipal Discharge in P1 &P2 Priority Cities in 2000 under Base Case, Huai Basin...... 178 Figure A7.2-B3: COD Load of Urban Industrial and Municipal Discharge in P1 & P2 Priority Cities in 2020 under Scenario 6, Huai Basin ...... 179 Figure A7.2-B4: COD Load of Urban Toxic Industrial Discharge in P1 & P2 Priority Cities in Huai Basin ...... 180 Figure A7.2-B5: COD Load of Urban Paper Industrial Discharge in P1 & P2 Priority Cities in Huai Basin ...... 181
Annex 7.3: GIS Maps ...... 182 Map A7.3-1: 2020 Toxic COD Pollution Loads for Priority Cities in the Hai Basin under the Base Case ...... 182 Map A7.3-2: 2020 Toxic COD Pollution Loads for Priority Cities in the Huai Basin Under the Base Case ...... 183 Map A7.3-3: 2020 Pollution Loads for Level II Basins in the Hai Basin Under the Base Case . 184 Map A7.3-4: 2020 Pollution Loads for Level II Basins in the Huai Basin Under the Base Case 185 Map A7.3-5: 2020 COD Pollution Loads for Priority Cities in Hai Basin under Base Case ...... 186 Map A7.3-6: 2020 COD Pollution Loads for Priority Cities in Huai Basin under Base Case.... 187 Map A7.3-7: 2020 COD Pollution Loads for Level II Basins in the Hai Basin Under the WWTP+PPP+Reuse...... 188 Map A7.3-8: 2020 Pollution Loads for Level II Basins in the Huai Basin Under the WWTP+PPP+Reuse...... 189 Map A7.3-9: 2020 COD Pollution Loads for Priority Cities in the Huai Basin Under the WWTP+PPP+reuse ...... 190 Map A7.3-10: 2020 COD Pollution Loads for Priority Cities in the Huai Basin Under the WWTP+PPP+Reuse...... 191
Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program—Phase II ...... 192 Wastewater Profiles for Major Industrial Categories...... 192 Polluting Categories Classification...... 192 Pollutants Load Parameters—References ...... 193 - vi -
Existing Pretreatment Levels and Processes...... 193 Figure A7.4-1: New Water Consumption Intensity of China in 1997...... 194 Table A7.4-1: COD Discharge Intensity of Each Major Polluting Industry ...... 194 Figure A7.4-2: COD Discharge Intensity Spectrum of China ...... 195 Table A7.4-2: New Water Consumption Levels for Major Polluting Industrial Categories...... 195 Table A7.4-3: Wastewater Discharge and Treatments Levels for Major Polluting Industrial Categories...... 196 Table A7.4-4: COD Discharge and Treatment Levels...... 197 Table A7.4-5: Discharge and Treatment Levels of Heavy Metals and Other Toxic Pollutants... 198 Figure A7.4-3: A Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Process...... 199 Table A7.4-6: The wastewater Analysis for Reclamation Treatment of a Machine Factory...... 199 References ...... 200 Pollution Prevention Program (CP) and Load Reduction...... 200 Figure A7.4-4: China’s Industrial New Water Consumption ...... 201 Figure A7.4-5: WW Treatment and Reuse Flow Chart ...... 201 Figure A7.4-6: Hai Basin WW Treatment and Reuse Rates ...... 202 Figure A7.4-7: Huai Basin WW Treatment and Reuse Rates ...... 203 Table A7.4-7: Wastewater Discharge Status in 1998 ...... 204 Table A7.4-8: COD Discharge Status in 2-H (Based on SEPA’s Yearbooks) ...... 204 Table A7.4-9: Comparison of Data in SEPA’s Yearbooks with SEPA’s Surveys ...... 205 Table A7.4-10: Comparison of Data in SEPA’s bulletin 1999 with SEPA’s Surveys ...... 205 Figure A7.4-8: Industrial COD Load Status of China ...... 205 Table A7.4-11: Marginal Unit Cost for COD Removal...... 206 Figure A7.4-9: Capital Cost for Food COD Removal...... 207 Figure A7.4-10: Industrial WW Status ...... 207 Table A7.4-12: Industrial WW Treatment Capital Cost Approach...... 208 Table A7.4-13: Domestic WWTP Capital Cost Studies ...... 209 Table A7.4-14: Domestic WWTP Operation Cost Studies ...... 209 Table A7.4-15: Outcome of Paper Industry’s PPP Action in 2H Basins...... 210 Table A7.4-16: Outcome of Nonpaper Industry’s WWTP Action in 2H Basins...... 210 Table A7.4-17: Outcome of WWTP+PPP Action by Complying with the Standards ...... 210 Table A7.4.-18: WWTP+PPP Action Outcome and Cost...... 211
Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7...... 212 Table A7.5-1: Toxic Pollution Calculated for Cities in the Huai Basin...... 212 Table A7.5-2: Toxic Pollution Calculated for the Hai Basin...... 213 Table A7.5-3: Priorities Cities for Action Plan in the Hai Basin ...... 214 Table A7.5-4: Priority Cities for Action Plan in the Huai Basin...... 215 Table A7.5-5: Hai Basin Structural Pollution Control Investment (2000-2020) ...... 216 Table A7.5-6: Huai Basin Structural Pollution Control Investment (2000-2020)...... 218 Table A7.5-7: Hai Basin Cost of Urban Industrial Pollution Control (P1 & P2 Cities) for the Proposed Action Program (2001-2020) ...... 219 Table A7.5-8: Hai Basin Cost of Urban Industrial Pollution Control (P1 & P2 Cities) for the Government Program (2001-2020)...... 220 Table A7.5-9: Hai Basin Cost of Urban Municipal Wastewater Treatment for the Government Program and Action Plan Combined (2001-2020) ...... 221 Table A7.5-10: Hai Basin Cost of Urban Municipal & Industrial Treatment (Government Program + Action Plan) (2001-2020) ...... 222 - vii -
Table A7.5-11: Huai Basin Cost of Urban Industrial Pollution Control (P1 & P2 Cities) for the Proposed Action Program (2001-2020) ...... 223 Table A7.5-12: Huai Basin Cost of Urban Industrial Pollution Control (P1 & P2 Cities) for the Government Program (2001-2020)...... 224 Table A7.5-13: Huai Basin Cost of Urban Municipal Wastewater Treatment for the Government Program and Action Plan Combined (2001-2020) ...... 225 Table A7.5-14: Huai Basin Cost of Urban Municipal & Industrial Treatment (Government Program + Action Plan) (2001-2020) ...... 226
Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins...... 227 A. Introduction...... 227 B. Pulp Making and Pollution Control...... 227 Table A8.1-1: Material Parameters for Straw Pulp/Paper Making in China ...... 227 Table A8.1-2: Black Liquor Alkali Recovery Practice in China by End of 1996 ...... 228 Table A8.1-3: Levels of Current Black Liquor Alkali Recovery Practice...... 228 Table A8.1-4: Black Liquor Contents...... 228 Figure A8.1-1: Chemical Straw Pulp Making...... 229 Figure A8.1-2: Black Liquor Treatment Process ...... 229 C. Paper Making and Pollution Control...... 230 D. Options for Pulp/Paper Industries ...... 230 E. Brewing and Food...... 232 F. Alcohol Distillation ...... 233 Table A8.1-7: Development of Chinese Alcohol Industry...... 233 Table A8.1-8: Capacity Structure of Chinese Alcohol Industry ...... 234 Table A8.1-9: Pollution Load of Corn Alcohol Distillation ...... 234 Table A8.1-10: Pollution Load of Potato Alcohol Distillation...... 234 Table A8.1-11: Alcohol Wastewater Quality...... 235 G. Production of DDGS...... 235 Figure A8.1-3: DDGS Process...... 235 Table A8.1-12: Projection of Protein Feed Demand and Supply Capacity of China ...... 236 Table A8.1-13: Development of Beer Industry in China ...... 237 Table A8.1-14: Beer Production in Eight Provinces of Hai and Huai Basins (1996) ...... 237 Table A8.1-15: Structure Composition of China’s Beer Industry...... 238 Table A8.1-16: Some General Data on China’s Beer Industry...... 238 Table A8.1-17: Pollution Load and Wastewater Quality of Beer Brewery ...... 238 H. Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) ...... 239 Table A8.1-18: Development of MSG Industry in China ...... 239 Table A8.1-19: Scale of MSG Manufacturers in China ...... 239 Table A8.1-20: Average Unit Materials Consumption...... 239 Table A8.1-21: Wastewater Quantities from MSG Isoelectric Process...... 240 I. Citric Acid...... 241 Table A8.1-22: Wastewater Quantities from Citric Acid Process ...... 241 J. Starch...... 241 Table A8.1-23: Raw Material Efficiency of Starch Mill...... 242 Table A8.1-24: Wastewater Quantity of a 30,000-Ton/Year Starch Mill ...... 242 K. Chemical and Chemical Fertilizer...... 243 Table A8.1-25: Chemical Industry Pollution Status in Hai and Huai Basins ...... 243 L. Pharmaceutical Industry ...... 243 Table A8.1-26: Pharmaceutical Industry Pollution Status in Hai and Huai Basins...... 243 - viii -
Table A8.1-27: Some Pharmaceutical Wastewater Strengths ...... 244 M. Textile ...... 244
Annex 8.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 8...... 246 Table A8-1: Suggested Guidelines for the Preparation of Ordinances for the Regulation of Sanitary and Industrial Waste Discharged into Municipal Sewerage Systems in China 246 Table A8-2: Type and Source of Samples for Industrial Wastewater Laboratory Analysis...... 247
Annex 9: Statistics Related to Chapter 9...... 248 Table A9-1: Types of Information Contained in a Groundwater Database ...... 248 Table A9-2: Details of Detention Basins in Yellow River...... 249 Table A9-3: Details of Detention Basins in Huai River...... 249
Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform ...... 251 Introduction...... 251 The International Experience ...... 252 The Australian Experience...... 257 The Chinese Experience...... 260 Figure A10.1-1: SIDD Arrangement in the Tarim Basin Project...... 263 Recommendations...... 263
Annex 10.2: Flood Control...... 265 Introduction...... 265 Existing Institutional Arrangements ...... 265 Figure A10.2-1: Organization Chart for Flood Control...... 266 Figure A10.2-2: Reporting, Forecasting and Operational Arrangements ...... 268 Regulatory Framework...... 269 The Role of the US Army Corps of Engineers...... 274 Summary...... 275
Annex 10.3: Demand Management...... 277
Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China...... 282
References ...... 298 Annex 1: Statistics Related to Chapter 1 1
ANNEX 1: STATISTICS RELATED TO CHAPTER 1
TABLE A1-1: PERCENT OF NATIONAL CROP PRODUCTION GROWN IN THE 3-H B ASINS Crop % of national Crop %of national production production Wheat 67 Corn 44 Rice 14 Millet 72 Sorghum 28 Soybean 27 Rapeseed 20 Peanuts 65 Sesame 50 Sunflower 64 Cotton 42
FIGURE A1-1: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIATION OF RAINFALL IN 3-H BASINS
P75 Rainfall for Level II Sub Basins in Yellow P75 Rainfall for Level II Sub Basins in Hai Basin - Basin 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 Rainfall (mm) 0 0 July June July May June May April April March August March August January October January October February February December September November December Rainfall (mm) September November
P75 Rainfall for Level II Sub Basins in Huai Basin 200
150
100
50
0 July June May April March August January October February Rainfall (mm) December September November
Source: IWHR 1999. 2 Annex 1: Statistics Related to Chapter 1
FIGURE A1-2: WATER PER CAPITA IN DIFFERENT BASINS IN CHINA
100000 10000 1000
100 10
c.m. /capita 1 Huai Pearl China World Yellow Yangtze Hai-Luan SE Rivers Song-Liao SW Rivers 3H average Interior Basins Source: China’s Water Supply in the 21st Century (IWHR, 1999).
FIGURE A1-3: ECONOMIC LOSS RESULTING FROM FLOODS IN PLAINS AND NONPLAINS AREAS WITHIN THE 3-H B ASINS COMPARED WITH CHINA
1,200 2,500
1,000 2,000 800 1,500 600 1,000 400 200 500
100 Million RMB (3H). 0 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 100 Million RMB (China) Plains (3H) Non Plains(3H) China
FIGURE A1-4: GROSS INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT VALUE IN 1999 FOR THE 3-H B ASINS (0.1 billion Yuan)
46,759
3,503
9,254 8,221
Hai (12.1%) Huai (13.7%) Yellow (5.2%) Rest of China (69%) Annex 1: Statistics Related to Chapter 1 3
FIGURE A1-5: TOTAL AND WASTEWATER INVESTMENT FOR POLLUTION CONTROL TO GDP RATIOS FOR EIGHT MAJOR PROVINCES IN THE 3-H B ASINS
0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05
Investment/GDP (%) 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Total Wastewater Treatment 4 Annex 2: Statistics Related to Chapter 2
ANNEX 2: STATISTICS RELATED TO CHAPTER 2
FIGURE A2-1: RURAL PER CAPITA ANNUAL 1999 INCOME COMPONENTS FOR PROVINCES IN 3-H B ASINS
Annual Rural Income Breakdown 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Hebei Anhui Tianjin Beijing Henan Shanxi Ningxia Qinghai National Ganshu Shaanxi Jiangshu RMB/annum Shandong Neimonggu
Rural from farming Rural from LabourProvince Transfer(percent in 3H basins)Rural from Property
FIGURE A2-2: URBAN VERSUS RURAL INCOME BY PROVINCES WITH PERCENTAGE OF EACH PROVINCE IN THE 3-H BASINS
9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 Yuans 3000 2000 1000 0
Urban Rural Total Annex 2: Statistics Related to Chapter 2 5
FIGURE A2-3: CHANGING STRUCTURE OF EMPLOYMENT IN CHINA FOR 1990 TO 2056
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
sector 400,000
200,000
0 Number of people employed in 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Agric NonAg Urban 6 Annex 2: Statistics Related to Chapter 2
FIGURE A2-4: WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BASED ON DIFFERENT ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SCENARIOS
3H Basin Water Demand 3H Basin Water Demand 3H Basin Water Demand 100.00 120.00 100.00 100.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 Base Case 40.00 Base Case 40.00 Base Case High Rural Income Growth 40.00 High Income Growth High Ind Output Growth 20.00 20.00 Low Rural Income Growth 20.00 Low Income Growth Low Ind Output Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
3H Basin Water Demand 3H Basin Water Demand 3H Basin Water Demand 100.00 80.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 Base Case 60.00 40.00 Base Case High Rural Price Growth 40.00 Base Case 20.00 20.00 High Urban Price Growth Low Rural Price Growth High Urban Income Low Urban Price Growth 20.00 Low Urban Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
3H Basin Water Demand 3H Basin Water Demand 3H Basin Water Demand 80.00 100.00 100.00 60.00 80.00 80.00 60.00 60.00 40.00 Base Case Base Case 40.00 Base Case 40.00 High Rural Loss Higi Pop Growth 20.00 High Industry Price 20.00 Low Industry Price 20.00 Low Rural Loss Low Pop Growth 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
3H Basin Water Demand 3H Basin Water Demand 3H Basin Water Demand 100.00 160.00 80.00 140.00 80.00 No Price Increase 70.00 120.00 Price Low Increase 60.00 60.00 100.00 Price High Increase 50.00 80.00 40.00 40.00 Base Case 60.00 30.00 Base Case 20.00 High GDP Growth 40.00 20.00 High Urbanization Low GDP Growth 20.00 10.00 Low Urbanization 0.00 0.00 0.00 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 7
ANNEX 3.1: THE 3-H MODELING SYSTEM
Motivation
The Water Sector Action Program seeks to define a perspective plan for policy recommendations and investments in the agricultural/water resources sector of the 3-H basins over the next 50 years. In doing so, it is critically important that the program should be based on a quantitatively consistent picture of future water supplies and demands. This picture is complex because of a high degree of uncertainty surrounding:
· Surface water runoff · Sustainable groundwater resources · Usability of polluted water for consumption · The efficiency of the water storage and delivery system · Future water prices and water demands · The future structure of the north China economy
Partial analyses (e.g., spreadsheet) have limited value in such exercises because they cannot take into account simultaneously a) the interaction of the numerous elements comprising a water system, and b) they have no “guiding hand” to steer the results toward some “best” outcome. In short, they are calculators, which calculate the outcome (e.g., the future water shortage) given the data and a set of assumptions imposed by the formulas.
Simulation models are far more useful where uncertainty is prevalent. Thus they are particularly relevant to water sector analysis. However, their results depend on built-in decision rules which do not necessarily produce an optimum solution (from the economic perspective). Nor do they have the ability to produce marginal valuations (shadow prices) of key resources.
In this study, a constrained optimization approach is pursued for the basin level models because it is assumed that the relevant Chinese authorities wish to obtain maximum economic benefit from the operation of the system as well as maximize the returns to investments in the system, subject to a variety of hydrologic, physical, and agronomic constraints. Additional constraints related to equity or distributional issues may also wish to be imposed. A linear programming (LP) structure is employed because it the most common and most efficient means of solving linear models, and permits the attainment of the optimum economic solution.
Structure of the Typical Basin Model: Overview Each basin model is written in GAMS (General Algebraic Modeling System) which automatically links to a linear programming solver. The complete GAMS statement of each of the basin models, which includes all data and solution reporting facilities, is appended. The model can be run on virtually any advanced personal computer on which the GAMS software has been installed.
The 3H model system consists of the three basin models—Hai, Huai, and Yellow, a global report writer, and several parameter files which are shared by each basin model. The basic parameters defining a solution are the solution year, and the runoff probability. The possible solution years are 1997, 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, or 2050. The possible runoff probabilities, which affect the volume of runoff and effective rainfall available, are P25 (wet), P50 (median), P75 (dry), and P95 (very dry). A variety of 8 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
options involving policy scenarios and investment choices means that the number of possible solutions is very large.
Although the models solve for one water year (July through June), they are monthly models in the sense that most variables and constraints are indexed by month.
The solution year 1997 represents the latest year for which comprehensive data are available. The solution for 1997 is essentially a model validation and calibration exercise, but one nevertheless which permits a valuable quantitative picture. All other years (including 2000) are projections into the future under numerous assumptions as to not only runoff, but also the growth of demand and the projected improvement to the water sector infrastructure.
The core of the basin models is a network of nodes and connecting arcs common to simulation models. Water enters the system at selected nodes as endogenously given runoff, and is directed through the system according to predefined paths. Certain nodes represent offtake possibilities for irrigation and/or municipal and industry (M&I) demands. Reservoirs are unique nodes in that inflows may be stored for later release, and most have offtake possibilities. Other nodes such as gauging stations are included because reports on water balances are desired for comparison with similar data available elsewhere. A list of all the nodes in the three basin models is given in Table A3.1-1 with their characteristics.
TABLE A3.1-1: NODES IN THE BASIN MODELS Hai Huai Yellow
Dabaguomen R* Boshan R Longyanx R Panjiakou R Suyalake L Laxiwa R Qiuzhuang R Nanwan R Leejaxia R Shihe R Shishankou R Gongboxa P Yanghe R Wuyue R Liujaxia P Guanting R Pohe R Yanguoxa P Baihebao R Wangjiaba G Bapanxia P Miyun R Gushitan R Lanzhou P Haizi R Baiquishan R Daxia P Huairou R Zhouping R Daliushu R* Yuqiao R Baisha R Qingtong P Hekoucun R* Nianyushan R Sansheng P Panshitou R* Meishan R Hekozhen G Nanhai R Xianghong R Wanjajai R Tanghe R Mozitan R Tianqiao P Nangudong R Foziling R Qikou R* Yuecheng R Bengbugate R Longmen R* Dongwushi R Hongzehu L Fen R Zhuzhuang R Nishan R Fenvally O Lincheng R Xiwei R Weivally O Gangnan R Mahe R Sanmenxa R Hbz R Yanma R Xialangd R Hengshanli R Nansihu L Huaynkou G Wangkuai R Huibaoling R Xinxiang O Xidayang R Luomahu L Dongping O Longmen R Xujiaya R Lijin G Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 9
Hai Huai Yellow Baohe R* Tangcun R Sea T Angezhuang R Andi R Zhangfeng R* Tianzhuang R Zhangze R Sheshan R Biyangdian R Qingfengling R Beidagang R Xiaoshiyang R Yr-II-3 O Shilianghe R Yr-II-4 O Doushan R Sea T Rizhao R Xiaotashan R Banqiao R R reservoir Shimantan R L lake Yinghe R P power plant Zhengyangq R O offtake Anfengshan R G gauging station Gaoyouhu L T terminus Zhoukou L * Proposed Taierzuang R Linyi R Shagou R Huashan R Bashan R Yangzhou R Huaian R Sea T
The primary objective of the water sector is to meet demands for water. These demands are spatially disaggregated within each basin into water regions. These regions also possess nonmobile water resources (groundwater and local runoff), and are the basis for modeling irrigation water demands. Table A3.1-2 contains a list of all the water regions in the basin models, together with their location in terms of provinces and some key characteristics, and Table A3.1-3 gives additional data.
The Chinese water sector study practice has been to divide the country into three levels of disaggregation. Level I is the highest, and divides the country into nine large basins, the Hai, Huai, and Yellow being three of them. Level II regions are subdivisions of Level I regions, usually 4 to 20. Level III regions are the smallest, and typically are Level II regions divided into 5-10 smaller water units. In general, the models use Level II disaggregation, but with certain changes required by the objectives of this study. In the Huai model, the Level II classification into seven regions is exact. In the Yellow model, the classification follows that used in the Yellow River Investment Planning Study: regions IV-3, IV-5, and IV-7 are divided into A and B because they are split between banks of the river and provinces. Also, the interior region IV-8 is included in IV-4, and the small region IV-1 is aggregated with IV-2. The Hai follows the Class definitions for regions II-1 and II-4, but II-2 and II-3 have been further disaggregated. This was deemed necessary because the large metropolises of Beijing and Tianjin are located in these regions, and these cities plus the rest of II-2 and II-3 have severe water shortage and pollution problems. They will also be the beneficiaries of the proposed South-North (S-N) transfer project. In general we will refer to the Class I regions as basins, and disaggregations used by the study as regions, indexed as R in the models. 10 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
TABLE A3.1-2: STUDY REGIONS—SIZE AND LOCATION Study Area Region km2 Name Component provinces Hai II-1 54,530 Luanhe Basin Hebei, Neimenggu, Liaoning II-2A 66,887 North Hai 2A Hebei, Shanxi, Neimenggu Beijing 6,400 Beijing Beijing Tianjin 10,578 Tianjin Tianjin II-2B 4,684 North Hai 2B Hebei II-3A 18,807 South Hai 3A Hebei, Shanxi II-3B 56,409 South Hai 3B Hebei, Shanxi II-3C 20,894 South Hai 3C Hebei II-3D 15,385 South Hai 3D Hebei II-3E 9,300 South Hai 3E Hebei II-3F 22,444 South Hai 3F Hebei II-4 31,843 Tuhaimajia Hebei, Shandong Total 318,161
Huai III-1 30,280 Wangjiaba Upstream Anhui, Henan, Hubei III-2 91,860 Wangjiaba to Bengbu Anhui, Henan III-3 38,480 Bengbu to Hongze Lake Anhui, Henan, Jiangsu III-4 30,600 Lower Huai Anhui, Jiangsu III-5 32,310 Nansi Lake region Anhui, Henan, Jiangsu, Shandong III-6 46,810 Lower Yishusi Jiangsu, Shandong III-7 60,370 Shandong Peninsula Shandong Total 330,710
Yellow IV-2 221,160 Lanzhou Upstream Sichuan, Gansu, Ningxia IV-3A 66,450 Lanzhou thru Ningxia Gansu, Ningxia IV-3B 87,900 Neimenggu to Heko Neimenggu IV-4 162,640 Heko to Longmen Gansu, Ningxia IV-5A 52,230 Fen Valley Shanxi, Henan IV-5B 138,210 Wei Valley Shaanxi, Gansu, Ningxia IV-6 42,240 Sanmenxia to Huayankou Shaanxi, Shanxi, Henan IV-7A 9,050 Lower Reach Henan Henan IV-7B 13,890 Lower Reach Shandong Shandong Total 793,770
3-H Total 1,442,641 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 11
TABLE A3.1-3: MODEL REGIONS : CHARACTERISTICS AND 1997 CONSUMPTION 1997 1997 Consumption (BCM): EIA Population Urban Urban Rural Rural Other (mln mu) (mln) Life Industry Life Industry Irrigation Agriculture II-1 5.81 0.22 0.38 0.17 0.12 1.76 0.22 II-2A 7.25 0.16 0.38 0.11 0.11 3.06 0.20 Beijing 4.25 0.89 0.91 0.12 0.06 1.78 0.34 Tianjin 4.60 0.38 0.56 0.10 0.10 1.93 0.13 II-2B 3.07 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.00 1.30 0.17 II-3A 2.34 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.97 0.08 II-3B 7.82 0.16 0.52 0.20 0.22 3.30 0.14 II-3C 14.39 0.15 0.63 0.23 0.17 6.03 0.20 II-3D 12.05 0.28 0.58 0.21 0.15 5.07 0.17 II-3E 6.19 0.10 0.30 0.11 0.10 2.60 0.05 II-3F 12.66 0.08 0.24 0.13 0.16 5.31 0.18 II-4 20.49 0.11 0.55 0.26 0.10 9.35 0.36 Hai total 100.92 2.61 5.28 1.71 1.35 42.46 2.24
III-1 7.19 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.12 3.32 0.82 III-2 39.89 0.60 2.16 0.72 0.60 16.43 0.96 III-3 10.83 0.24 0.60 0.36 0.24 4.66 0.62 III-4 16.57 0.36 0.96 0.48 0.12 7.75 0.62 III-5 17.63 0.24 0.72 0.36 0.12 6.94 0.32 III-6 15.58 0.24 1.32 0.48 0.36 6.17 0.72 III-7 21.30 0.60 1.68 0.36 0.12 7.14 0.52 Huai total 128.99 2.40 7.68 3.00 1.68 52.41 4.58
IV-2 3.31 0.10 0.94 0.10 0.05 1.16 0.20 IV-3A 8.69 0.14 0.93 0.07 0.02 6.62 0.33 IV-3B 13.73 0.19 0.40 0.04 0.01 9.56 0.14 IV-4 5.08 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.02 3.30 0.12 IV-5A 8.13 0.21 0.74 0.22 0.11 5.32 0.17 IV-5B 14.75 0.51 1.02 0.30 0.15 9.72 0.38 IV-6 4.55 0.17 0.61 0.14 0.27 3.21 0.12 IV-7A 5.76 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.01 4.75 0.06 IV-7B 3.51 0.11 0.28 0.16 0.06 2.89 0.19 Yellow total 67.51 1.49 5.20 1.16 0.70 46.53 1.71
Each node is constrained to be in balance on monthly basis; i.e., the sum of inflows from upstream nodes plus runoff plus return flows from previous diversions plus releases from storage (if a reservoir) must equal flows to the next downstream node plus diversions to agriculture and M&I plus retained storage (if a reservoir) plus losses. The nodal water balances are called NBAL in the GAMS notation. There is one for each node (except the last node in the system NL which is typically the sea), and each month M (Figure A3.1-1).
Reservoirs differ from other on-river nodes in the availability of storage (which permits flow regulation), evaporation losses they incur Information required by the model includes live storage capacity, evaporation loss rates, and "limit curves" to limit the implied operating procedures.1 The primary effect of the limit curves is to reduce allowable storage during flood months. Information
1 In the BLM developed for the Investment Planning Study, hydropower generation at the major reservoirs was also included. This required additional equations for the pool and tailwater elevations (the difference being the head), variables for the discharges through the powerhouse and energy output. The results of that model found that hydropower generation was a small part of total benefits from water consumption, and its exclusion did not materially affect the results. 12 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
generated by the model includes storage at the end of each month, the corresponding change in storage from the previous month, and diversions for consumption.
FIGURE A3.1-1: THE RELATION OF NODES , REGIONS AND FLOWS
GAMS TABLEs RESDATA defines the live storage capacity, and the operating limits as proportions of this capacity. The GAMS VARIABLE RCONT, which registers end-of-month reservoir storage in each month, is restricted to be within these limits.
Flood protection, sediment control, and environmental protection measures are included in the model as either restrictions on reservoir operating procedures, or as river reach flow constraints. For each reservoir, upper and lower operating limits constrain the storage permitted in each month. Flood protection measures imply that the downstream reservoirs must be near dead storage at the onset of the flood season, and must remain low until the flood season has passed. In the ice jam-prone reaches, river flows must be restricted (through reservoir control) in the coldest months to limit flooding. Minimum flows in each month are attempted in the last reaches to minimize ecological damage to the estuary.
Water demands were discussed at length in Chapter 4. Except for irrigation, discussed below, the models take the IWHR projected values for demand by sector as targets. The recognized sectors are:
Urban “life” URBLIFE Urban industry URBIND Rural “life” RURLIFE Rural industry RURIND Livestock LIVSTOCK Forestry, pasture, and fisheries FPF
The annual demands for these sectors projected by IWHR are divided by 12 to get monthly demands, except for fisheries, pasture and forestry (FPF), which is assumed to use water in only 10 months. With certain exceptions, these demands may be met from controlled surface water (runoff), uncontrolled local water, or groundwater. Because of pollution of surface water, it cannot be used for “life” demands in the Hai and parts of the Yellow and Huai. An outright ban on the surface water Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 13
prohibits its use for “life” in all of Hai. In the other basins, surface water may be only used in high-flow month, and in limited volumes.
The models attempt to meet these nonirrigation demands through ranked artificial pricing. The ranking is given by the Chinese government’s allocation laws: human needs first, followed by industry (which includes commerce), and lastly, agriculture. Within agriculture, we assume livestock will take priority, followed by FPF, and crop irrigation last. Solution reports provide an economic measure of the benefits from water consumption which differs from the artificial pricing. Economic returns are highest for industrial uses, followed by household uses—the reverse of the policy ranking. Thus the need for artificial prices in the objective function. We call the “life”, industry, and livestock sectors “priority” demand sectors, and will be vigilant to see if and how these can be met in all solution scenarios.
Irrigated agriculture is thus the residual water demand sector, as well as the largest water user. Except in the wettest years in the Huai, there is no scenario in which irrigation demands can be met fully throughout the 3-H region. Thus how irrigation shortages can be managed is the question, not if there will be irrigation shortages.
Irrigation in the Basin Models Because different crops require different amounts of water and at different times, and result in different economic benefits, the models “build up” irrigation water demands on a crop-by-crop and region-by-region basis. And because the optimal impact of water shortage cannot be predicted a priori, we permit the models to determine the patterns of irrigation water consumption. Table A3.1-4 shows the crop choices included in each basin model. Together, they account for over 95 percent of irrigated area and value of production.
TABLE A3.1-4: CROP CHOICES IN THE BASIN MODELS Crop GAMS name Hai Huai Yellow Rice RICE X X X Cotton COTTON X X X Winter Wheat WWHEAT X X X Spring Wheat SWHEAT X Spring Maize SPMAIZE X X Summer Maize SUMAIZE X X X Vegetables VEGET X X X Potato POTATO X Soybean SOYBEAN X X X Sesame SESAME X Millet MILLET X Peanut PEANUT X X X Rape RAPE X
For each crop/region combination, three technologies have been constructed: FULLy irrigated, PARTially irrigated, and RAINfed. If water supplies are sufficient, the fully irrigated technique will be used. Under conditions of moderate shortage, some crops may switch to the partial technique, which requires less water but produces a lower yield. When water supplies are severely short, some crops may revert to rainfed status, which requires no irrigation water but produces the lowest yield. Given that the returns (benefits) from production vary from crop to crop as well as across the three technologies, the models will simultaneously evaluate each option and produce that combination which maximizes benefits. 14 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
The three technologies compete on effective irrigated area (EIA).2 Rainfed areas outside of EIA are not included in the models’ scope. In the aggregate, EIA in north China has been relatively constant over the last 15 years, although within regions, some is lost to urbanization each year and more is developed. Given the likelihood of short water supplies continuing in the future, the assumption of constant EIA does not affect the results. The three sets of cropping activities (variables) in the models are called ICA (irrigated cropped area), PCA (partially irrigated area) and RCA (rainfed area). Together, they sum, over crops, to the value of EIA in each region (equation LANDC).
Irrigated cropping patterns have been tabulated by IWHR and projected into the future. These are included in the basin models in TABLE CP, in which each crop is expressed as a percentage of EIA. The resultant values of physical cropped area provide upper limits to the amount of irrigated land used by each crop. In general, irrigated cropped area is larger than physical EIA because of double and in some cases triple cropping.
The elements comprising a cropping activity are land, water, yield, costs, and derived profit. Crop water requirements are constructed using FAO/Penman techniques, adjusted to local conditions. These involve reference evapotranspiration (ETO), crop coefficients (KC) relating specific monthly crop water consumption to reference ETO, and effective rainfall (EFFRAIN) which supplies part or all of the crop needs in a given month. The difference between total crop requirements and effective rainfall in a given month is the net irrigation demand for the crop. The gross irrigation demand is the net divided by an efficiency factor EFF, which varies by region and solution year: IWHR has projected that planned improvements to the water distribution system will result in increased efficiency factors. If achieved, such improvements imply that the same net consumption at the crop can be achieved with less water diverted from the source.
Water demands by all sectors are thus defined as gross withdrawals. Net consumption may be tabulated as gross consumption times the loss factor by sector given in TABLE LOSSFAC. However, this only affects the solution in so far as part of the losses finds its way back to the river.
Production costs were estimated from data prepared in conjunction with the large number of World Bank agricultural projects in China. The crop budget data is included in each basin model’s statement.
Linkages among the Basin Models
By agreement, the Yellow River authorities divert some water to both the Hai and Huai basins. The volumes have been negotiated, and will increase in the future as diversion projects are implemented. The Yellow River basin model takes these volumes as targets to be met if it all possible, and the Hai and Huai basin models pick up this water as an external water supply. GAMS TABLE DIBT (for desired interbasin transfers) within the Yellow model contains the targeted transfers. The Huai also pumps water from the Yangtze which is an additional external water supply source. The South North Tansfer (SNT) is forecast to increase these volumes, and supply parts of the Hai as well. These basin models take the projected volumes as alternative supplies if the SNT is activated. Apart from these transfers, the basin models are stand-alone.
2 EIA is that land which is irrigable if water supplies are available. It has been leveled, bunded, and attached to water supply facilities. Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 15
Solution Procedure
Figure A3.1-2 illustrates the solution procedure. The text files PRICE.TXT, EVALUE.TXT, PROB.TXT, and YEAR.TXT contain the prices of the agricultural commodities, economic values of nonirrigation sectoral consumption, the selected runoff probability, and selected solution year respectively. All models share this information, but have all basin-specific data included in each. YELLOW, HAI, and HUAI are the three GAMS models of the basins. Note that YELLOW sends information (feasible interbasin transfers) to the other two basin models. Each basin model contains its own set of data and solution reports in addition to the output of the linear programming algorithm. But each model also sends summary solution data to another GAMS program, BIGREP, which combines the results into summary tables. Each program is solved in sequence with a bat file BIG.BAT. Thus executing BIG will run all three basin models and generate the reports. Information is transferred between GAMS models via text files produced by the GAMS PUT facility.
FIGURE A3.1-2: THE SOLUTION PROCEDURE
PRICE.TXT EVALUE.TXT PROB.TXT YEAR.TXT
YELLOW
HAI HUAI
BIGREP
The GAMS Model Statement A GAMS Model Statement is both self-contained and self-documenting. All of the data, assumptions, structure, and report facilities are contained in a single text file, such as HAI.3 Because of this, a GAMS model is self-documenting. Although it can be difficult to write complex GAMS models, it
3 We departed from the standard practice of self-containment for the shared data files containing solution year, etc., simply because it easier to change one data file than three. 16 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
is not difficult to read them. The following discussion is meant to assist the reader in understanding the content of the basin model statements appended.
A typical GAMS model statement consists of several sections (caps indicates a GAMS keyword):
· SET definition · Data entry and manipulation · Identification of VARIABLES · Identification of EQUATIONS · Specification of equations · MODEL definition · Model SOLVE · Custom reports (optional)
Sets are the primary means by which data are defined and manipulated and by which variables and equations are specified. The most common sets in the basin models are:
N node R region S sector M month C crop YR solution year PR probability
Subsets of sets are useful in defining exceptions and particular characteristics. For example,
NRES(N) is the subset of nodes which are reservoirs, and
FM(M) is the subset of months which are more likely to be subject to floods (June–September).
Following the definition of the sets to be used, data may be entered in a TABLE (two or more dimensions), a PARAMETER (one dimension), or a SCALAR of zero dimension. Each is given a name, and the associated sets. Thus
TABLE DEMAND(R,S,YR) contains a three-dimensional array of water demands by region, sector, and year, and GWLIM(R) is a vector of sustainable groundwater withdrawal limits by region. Once entered, data may be combined, interpolated, extrapolated, or otherwise modified.
Identification of the variables to be included in the model follows the keyword VARIABLES. This is simply a list of all variables together with their associated set dimensions, and a description. The most important examples are:
VARIABLES
FLOW(N,N1,M) RIVER FLOW FROM NODE N TO N1 IN MONTH M IN BILLION CUBIC METERS DIVERT(N,R,S,M) RIVER DIVERSION FROM NODE N TO REGION R TO SECTOR S IN MONTH M IN BILLION CUBIC METERS Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 17
CONSUME(R,S,M) GROSS WATER CONSUMPTION IN REGION R BY SECTOR S IN MONTH M IN BILLION CUBIC METERS ICA(R,C) FULLY IRRIGATED CROPPED AREA OF CROP C IN REGION R IN MILLION MU PCA(R,C) PARTIALLY IRRIGATED CROPPED AREA OF CROP C IN REGION R IN MILLION MU RCA(R,C) RAINFED CROPPED AREA OF CROP C IN REGION R IN MILLION MU RCONT(NRES) END OF MONTH RESERVOIR CONTENTS IN BILLION CUBIC METERS PUMP(R,S,M) GROUNDWATER PUMPING FOR CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR S IN REGION R IN MONTH M IN BILLION CUBIC METERS OBJ1 OBJECTIVE FUNCTION IN BILLION YUAN
Next is the identification of the equations following the keyword EQUATIONS. As in the case of variables, each is given a name and the set dimensions, followed by a description.
After identification, the equations are written out in a style akin to FORTRAN.
EQUATIONS NBAL(N,M) NODE BALANCES CONBAL(R,S,M) WATER CONSUMPTION BALANCES MAXGW(R,SS) ANNUAL GROUNDWATER PUMPING LIMITS MAXLOCAL(R,UR,M) MAXIMUM LOCAL WATER AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION IWBAL(R,M) IRRIGATION WATER BALANCE LANDC(R,C) IRRIGATED LAND BALANCE OBJ1DEF OBJECTIVE FUNCTION DEFINITION
NBAL(N,M)$(NOT NL(N)) INFLOW(N,M)$NRO(N) + SUM(N1$NN(N1,N), FLOW(N1,N,M)*(1-FLOSS(N1,N))) + (RCONT(N,M--1)-RCONT(N,M))$(NRES(N)$SUM(YR$YS(YR), RCS(N,YR))) - SUM((R,S)$RN(N,R), DIVERT(N,R,S,M)) + SUM((R,S)$(NDD(R,N)$NDR(N)), CONSUME(R,S,M--2)*LOSSFAC(R,S)*RESPLIT(R,"RIVER")) =E= SUM(N1$NN(N,N1), FLOW(N,N1,M)) ; (runoff + flows from upstream +/- change in reservoir contents, - diversions for consumption + returns to river from prior consumption = flows to next node)
MAXGW(R,SS).. SUM((M,S)$SSS(SS,S), PUMPING(R,S,M)) =L= PUMPLIM(R,SS); (groundwater pumping by all allowable sectors SS in all months must be less than available groundwater) 18 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
CONBAL(R,S,M). SUM(N$RN(N,R), DIVERT(N,R,S,M)) + YRWAT(R,S,M) + LOCAL(R,S,M) + PUMPING(R,S,M) =E= CONSUME(R,S,M) ; (the sum of diversions of surface water plus the use of transferred Yellow river water [to this Hai model] plus the use of local water plus the use of groundwater equals total gross consumption in each region, sector, and month)
IWBAL(R,M).. CONSUME(R,"IRRIG",M) =E= SUM(C$TECH(R,C), ICA(R,C)/1000 *IRREQ(R,C,"FULL",M)/EFF(R)) + SUM(C$TECH(R,C), PCA(R,C)/1000 *IRREQ(R,C,"PART",M)/EFF(R)); (water consumption in the irrigation sector (from equation CONBAL) divided between the crop requirements in the fully irrigated areas and the partially irrigated areas)
LANDC(R,C)$TECH(R,C).. ICA(R,C) + PCA(R,C) + RCA(R,C) =E= EIA97(R)*CPS(R,C)/100; (available irrigated land EIA for each crop must be used either as fully irrigated, partially irrigated, or rainfed land. CPS contains the cropping pattern as a percentage of EIA)
OBJ1DEF.. OBJ1 =E= SUM((R,S,M), CONSUME(R,S,M)*VALUE(S)) + SUM((R,C), ICA(R,C)/1000*(YIELD(R,C,"FULL")*PRICE(C) - COST(R,C,"FULL")))+ SUM((R,C), PCA(R,C)/1000*(YIELD(R,C,"PART")*PRICE(C) - COST(R,C,"PART")))+ SUM((R,C), RCA(R,C)/1000*(YIELD(R,C,"RAIN")*PRICE(C) - COST(R,C,"RAIN"))) + SUM((NRES,M), RCONT(NRES,M))*0.0000001 - SUM((N,R,S,M)$RN(N,R), DIVERT(N,R,S,M))*.000001 - SUM((R,S,M), PUMPING(R,S,M)*.00001) (the ranked (artificial) objective variable OBJ1 is the sum of the values of the nonirrigation sectors, plus the returns to fully and partially irrigated land and rainfed land, plus a small benefit to keeping reservoirs as full as possible, less costs of using surface and groundwater for consumption)
Output
A solution to the model provides the following information:
· Water balances for each node and each month · Monthly flows in all river reaches · Monthly gross consumption by sector and region · Sources of consumption (surface, local, transfers, groundwater) · Water shortage for each priority sector and region · Fully irrigated area by crop in each region · Partially irrigated area by crop in each region · Irrigated area relegated to rainfed by crop in each region · Irrigation water shortages by each crop in each region · Fully irrigated area by month in each region · Production of each crop in each region Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 19
· Interbasin transfers · Return flows, groundwater recharge, and flows to the sea · Economic value of water consumption by sector and region
These are other model outputs may be obtained from three sources: (a) The GAMS solver output includes a listing of the solved values of all equations and variables together with their bounds (if any) and marginal values; (b) each basin model has its own set of custom reports on nodal and regional activities and summaries of the solution; and (c) the separate GAMS program. BIGREP summarizes the solutions of the basin models. Examples of each, taken from the 1997 validation solutions described below, follow.
A sample of the GAMS output for flows from Longyanxia to Laxiwa is:
---- VAR FLOW FLOWS ALONG RIVER REACHES (Bcm) LOWER LEVEL UPPER MARGINAL LONGYANX.LAXIWA .JUL . 1.2640 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .AUG . 2.0660 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .SEP . . +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .OCT . . +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .NOV . 1.8215 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .DEC . 0.5760 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .JAN . 0.3975 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .FEB . 0.2418 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .MAR . 0.3921 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .APR . 0.4767 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .MAY . 5.5380 +INF . LONGYANX.LAXIWA .JUN . 1.6615 +INF .
In July, Longyanxia released 2.164 billion cubic meters (Bcm) to the next node, Laxiwa. There were no bounds placed on this variable (0, infinity), and the marginal values were hence all zero.
An example of the basin model custom report REPNODE for the Yellow river node Lanzhou is:
PARAMETER REPNODE INDEX 1 = LANZHOU RUNOFF FROM-N-1 DIVERT RETURNS TO-N+1 JUL 0.6689 2.0085 0.1429 2.5345 AUG 0.5840 0.3483 0.0731 0.9323 SEP 0.5203 2.9598 0.1410 3.3391 OCT 0.4778 0.1362 0.0721 0.3416 NOV 0.2761 0.1169 0.0697 0.1592 DEC 0.1593 0.2727 0.1010 0.0598 0.3310 JAN 0.1168 0.4436 0.1214 0.0506 0.4390 FEB 0.0743 0.7238 0.1787 0.0616 0.6195 MAR 0.1380 1.1306 0.3049 0.0914 0.9638 APR 0.1699 3.1526 0.4534 0.1594 2.8690 MAY 0.3292 5.7855 0.3814 0.2307 5.7333 JUN 0.4778 2.2774 0.1947 2.7552 20 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
In July, this node received 0.6689 Bcm of runoff, 2.0085 flows from upstream, diverted 0.1429, and sent 2.5345 Bcm downstream.
REPREG contains monthly consumption balances for each study region. In the Tianjin example, September demands totaled 0.2774 Bcm, which were met from surface water diversions (0.035), groundwater (0.0173) and transfers from the Yellow (0.117), leaving a shortage of 0.11 Bcm.
PARAMETER REPREG REGIONAL CONSUMPTION BALANCES IN Bcm INDEX 1 = Tianjin DEMANDS FROM-SW FROM-GW FROM-YR SHORT JUL 0.1874 0.0538 0.0782 0.0600 AUG 0.4074 0.1489 0.0782 0.1800 SEP 0.2774 0.0350 0.0173 0.1170 0.1100 OCT 0.1174 0.0356 0.0782 NOV 0.1074 0.0272 0.0020 0.0782 DEC 0.1170 0.0172 0.0021 0.0949 JAN 0.1270 0.0209 0.0659 0.0317 0.0100 FEB 0.1474 0.0021 0.0993 0.0403 0.0100 MAR 0.2974 0.0071 0.2082 0.0403 0.0400 APR 0.3474 0.0172 0.2293 0.0477 0.0500 MAY 0.4174 0.2290 0.0465 0.0317 0.1100 JUN 0.6474 0.3136 0.0465 0.0317 0.2600 TOTAL 3.1977 0.9076 0.7170 0.7480 0.8300
Each basin model also produces an annual summary REPREGION, by region, of demands, source of supply, and shortages if any. From the Huai model:
PARAMETER REPREGION REGION-WIDE CONSUMPTION BALANCES DEMANDS FROM-SW FROM-GW FROM-TR SHORT III-1 4.860 4.100 0.763 III-2 21.470 13.539 6.092 1.838 III-3 6.720 5.031 1.700 III-4 10.290 4.645 5.647 III-5 8.700 1.280 3.086 1.425 2.909 III-6 9.290 8.001 1.285 0.004 III-7 10.420 4.723 4.252 1.448 TOTAL 71.750 41.320 17.178 8.520 4.732
Where “FROM-SW, FROM-GW, and FROM-TR” represent surface water, groundwater, and transferred water respectively.
Part of the agricultural output is a summation of the value of crop production based on areas irrigated by technology, yields of each, and the prices contained in the file PRICE.TXT. An example of PARAMETER PV from the Huai for the main crops is: Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 21
PARAMETER PV VALUE OF CROP PRODUCTION IN BILLION YUAN TOTAL WHEAT MAIZE RICE COTTON VEGET PEANUT III-1 6.27 2.53 0.47 1.73 0.790.05 0 III-2 29.36 11.92 3.19 7.33 2.46 0.36 0 III-3 7.85 2.88 1.25 1.69 0.76 0.04 0 III-4 16.63 3.41 0.44 9.07 1.52 0.32 0 III-5 11.13 3.83 2.97 0.24 1.76 0.40 1.13 III-6 13.53 3.92 2.32 3.23 1.55 0.44 0.96 III-7 17.22 7.08 4.50 0 1.76 1.10 1.67 TOTAL 101.99 35.57 15.15 23.30 10.59 2.71 3.76
The global report writer BIGREP produces several summary reports at the basin and 3-H total level. BIGBAL is the overall water balance:
PARAMETER BIGBAL BASIN-WIDE WATER BALANCES IN BCM RUNOFF TRANSFERS WD-SW WD-GW TO-SEA II 11.83 4.46 13.04 26.13 0.11 III 64.96 8.52 41.32 17.18 18.27 IV 35.89 -8.22 27.20 11.16 4.92 TOTAL 112.68 81.56 54.47 23.30
GP totals grain production GP, comparing it to the maximum obtainable GPMAX in the absence of any water shortages:
PARAMETER GP GRAIN PRODUCTION IN MILLION TONS GPMAX GP II 45.76 40.54 III 61.83 59.63 IV 30.18 24.89 TOTAL 137.77 125.06
LT shows how the EIA was distributed among the technologies, and the resultant irrigated cropped area (TOTAL) and cropping intensity (INTENS).
PARAMETER LT CROPPED AREA IN MILLION MU TOTAL EIA FULL PART RAIN INTENS II 150.39 106.52 55.89 76.63 17.87 124.41 III 212.73 128.99 171.69 34.33 6.71 159.72 IV 92.64 67.51 49.33 12.96 30.35 92.27 TOTAL 455.76 303.02 276.91 123.92 54.93 132.28
Finally, ECON reports the economic values of consumption from the solutions based on the sectoral economic values contained in the file EVALUE.TXT: 22 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
PARAMETER ECON ECONOMIC VALUES OF SOLUTIONS IN BILLION YUAN TOTAL II III IV URBLIFE 19.46 7.82 7.20 4.44 URBIND 108.30 31.70 46.08 30.52 RURLIFE 17.62 5.15 9.00 3.47 RURIND 14.90 5.42 6.72 2.76 IRRIG 124.17 42.95 58.40 22.82 LIVSTOCK 4.04 0.96 2.16 0.92 FPF 9.30 2.62 5.02 1.66 TOTAL 297.81 96.62 134.59 66.60
Validation Against 1997 Data
Prior to using a model for the evaluation of policy and investment alternatives, it must be tested against known data. The testing process will likely reveal errors in specification and/or data, and should lead to an improved model in which the audience may have some confidence.
1997 is the latest year for which comprehensive data are available on runoff, water consumption, and agricultural activity. These data come mainly from IWHR’s annual water bulletins, and from annual agricultural statistics. There are two difficulties with these data. First, runoff data is only published for broad aggregates of the study regions, and only as annual totals. This limitation required the construction of an estimated 1997 runoff scenario for the models’ nodes and each month. We did this by comparing the 1997 totals to the previously estimated probability series, and found that in the Hai and Yellow, 1997 runoff approximated the P95 scenario, and in the Huai, the P75. The 1997 series then used these probabilities and adjusted them to fit the published totals. Clearly, there could be large errors in the timing and location of the estimates, which could lead to large variances in the models’ ability to simulate river flows and diversions. Second, the published agricultural data does not, in general, distinguish irrigated agricultural activity from rainfed (even irrigated yields had to be estimated, as was reported in Chapter 5. Thus it is not possible to validate the models’ performance on such important items as irrigated crop production.
With these difficulties in mind, we look at Table A3.1-5, which summarizes the models’ results for 1997 compared to the available data. The fist four blocks show withdrawals (gross consumption) by basin and broad category of water source: surface (controlled runoff and uncontrolled local water), groundwater, and interbasin transfers. The totals of withdrawals, both by basin and in total, are very close. However, the models’ show a slight bias toward the use of surface water at the expense of groundwater and transferred water. The latter two sources are more expensive, and the models, optimizing as they are, prefer to use surface first, to the extent feasible. Perhaps the models have uncovered means (improved reservoir operating rules and more precise timing of diversions) to operate the system more efficiently. But more likely, the model has not incorporated surface water supply constraints. Such do exist, in the form of canal capacities and inadequate control structures, but these have not been incorporated for lack of data. In the future this omission, and hence bias, should become less important as ongoing system rehabilitation efforts effectively will remove these supply capacity constraints.
In none of the basins did the models utilize all of the groundwater made available to them by bounding the groundwater withdrawal capacities at 1997 observed levels. From this, we cannot conclude that groundwater availability is not a real constraint, only that options for using more surface water apparently exist, if supply capacity is improved. Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 23
In the next section of the table, withdrawals for the nonagricultural sectors (urban and rural “life”, industry, and livestock, are reproduced exactly by the models. This is in fact a one-way test, as consumption by these sectors was upper bounded at 1997 reported values. It is significant, however, that the models were able to meet these levels of consumption.
No such upper bounds restrict withdrawals for agriculture (primarily irrigation). As mentioned above, irrigation is the residual sector, absorbing all available water if permitted. Here the models reproduced the reported withdrawals very closely, showing slightly more in Huai, and somewhat less in Yellow. The 3-H total is within 2 percent of the reported total. The only other data available for validation of the irrigation components of the models is actual irrigated area, which was estimated by IWHR based on provincial statistics. In Hai, the model irrigated about 2 percent more (without about the same withdrawals), matched the total in Huai exactly, and in Yellow, irrigated about 4 percent more (although with 8 percent less withdrawals). It is possible that there is a bias in the irrigation requirements estimates in the Yellow model, but this in unlikely given that the same method and basic data were used in this model as the others. More likely, the models (Yellow and to a lesser extent, Hai) find it optimal to stretch the available water more thinly to irrigate a wider area. This tendency does not show up in Huai, which has a much higher water-land ratio than the others, both in general and in 1997.
Finally, we compare the outflows to the sea in the last section of the table. This is the least satisfying aspect of the 1997 validations, but one which does not bear directly on the main outputs— withdrawals for consumption. The models show sharply lower flows to the sea in Hai (virtually none) and in Huai, but much more in the Yellow than was reported. In the first two, this is probably a result of more intensive use of surface water. In the Yellow, it is probably due to incorrect return factors in the lower reaches where the river is suspended. These factors cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty. The differences may also be due to the above-discussed imprecision in estimating the timing and location of 1997 runoff.
TABLE A3.1-5: MODEL VALIDATION AGAINST 1997 DATA Withdrawals by Water Source Data Model Hai Surface water 12.0 13.0 Groundwater 26.4 26.1 Transfers 4.9 4.5 Total 43.3 43.6
Huai Surface water 38.3 41.3 Groundwater 18.5 17.2 Transfers 9.6 8.2 Total 66.4 66.7
Yellow Surface water 26.9 27.2 Groundwater 13.4 11.2 Transfers -9.2 -8.2 Total 31.1 30.1
3-H Surface water 77.1 81.6 Groundwater 58.3 54.5 Transfers (net) 5.3 4.5 Total 140.7 140.5 24 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
Withdrawals by Water Source Data Model Total Withdrawals for Nonagricultural Sectors Hai 11.4 11.4* Huai 15.7 15.7* Yellow 9.0 9.0* Total 36.1 36.1
Total Withdrawals for Agriculture Hai 32.3 32.2 Huai 50.9 51.2 Yellow 31.9 29.5 Total 115.1 112.9
Actual Irrigated Area (million mu) Hai 104.5 106.5 Huai 129.0 129.0 Yellow 65.0 67.5 Total 298.5 303.0
Flows to Sea Hai 1.4 0.1 Huai 22.9 18.3 Yellow 1.5 4.9 Total 25.8 23.3 * At upper bound.
From the 1997 solutions, we should not conclude that water shortages did not exist in that year simply because all priority demands, set at levels of 1997 consumption, were met. In Chapter 4 we saw that there are most likely severe shortages in urban areas in some regions, and particularly in agriculture. The 1997 models did reveal serious shortages in irrigation: 12.0 Bcm (out of 44.2 demanded) in Hai, 4.7 (out of 55.9) in Huai, and 18.3 (out of 47.7) in Yellow. In all 3-H, irrigation shortages were 24 percent of demand. However, this led to only an 11 percent drop in grain production (Table GP in BIGREP) because the model was able to minimize the impacts of shortages through the techniques described above.
I sum, the models closely reproduce withdrawals for all basins and all sectors. They do show a slight, but understandable, bias toward the use of surface water over groundwater and transferred water, and they attempt to irrigate more EIA by spreading the available water more thinly. Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 25
APPENDIX 1.1: GAMS STATEMENT OF THE YELLOW BASIN MODEL
Yellow Basin
IV-3B IV-4
Fen Hekoucen
IV-3A Wanjiazhai (2002)
Daliushu IV-5B (proposed) Qikou IV-2 (proposed)
IV-5A IV-6 IV-7A Bohai SeaBohia Sea
Longyanxia Liujaxia
Sanmenxia Huayankou IV-7B
Xiaolangdi (2001) 26 Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System
APPENDIX 1.2: GAMS STATEMENT OF THE HAI BASIN MODEL
Hai Basin
Dabaguomen (future)
Miyun Taolinkou Panjiakou Guanting
II-1
Beijing
II-2
Tianjin
Bohai Sea Wangkuai II-3A
Yuecheng II-3B
Angezhuang II-3C
Gangnan II-3D
II-3F Hengshanling
II-4
II-3E
Panshitou (future)
from Yellow Annex 3.1: The 3-H Modeling System 27
APPENDIX 1.3 GAMS STATEMENT OF THE HUAI BASIN MODEL
Huai Basin
III-7
from Yellow
Mahe Nishan
Andi Qingenglingi
III-5 Nansihu
III-2 III-6 III-3
Luomahu Yellow Sea
Bengbu Boshan Wangjiaba Hongzehu III-1 III-3
III-4 Nanwan Meishan
Xianhongdian
from Yangtze 28 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3
ANNEX 3.2: STATISTICS RELATED TO CHAPTER 3
TABLE A3-1: PERCENTAGE OF RUNOFF OCCURRING IN FLOOD MONTHS (JUNE-OCTOBER) (Percent) Hai-Luan Huai Yellow Total 3-H P25 (wet) 71 82 72 76 P50 (normal) 66 74 67 70 P75 (dry) 59 40 50 47 P95 (very dry) 40 44 42 43
TABLE A3.2-2: ESTIMATED RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RURAL AND URBAN POINT SOURCES IN THE HAI AND HUAI BASINS (millions tons/year chemical oxygen demand—COD)
COD Source Hai Huai Hai % total Huai % total Urban point Industry (³ 100 m3 wastewater/day) 2.21 2.47 42% 36% source *(UPS) Urban Population 0.49 0.62 9% 9% UPS total 2.70 3.09 52% 44% Livestock 0.66 1.09 13% 16% Rural point TVEs 1.61 2.29 31% 33% source (RPS) Rural Population 0.25 0.48 5% 7% RPS total 2.52 3.86 48% 56% UPS + RPS Total 5.22 6.95 100% 100% Source: WPM-DSS; Present Study.
TABLE A3.2-3: GROUNDWATER QUOLITY ASSESSMENT FOR SOME PROVINCES IN THE 3H BASINS (%)
Province/city Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Beijing 2 50 0 45 3 Tianjin 0 14 0 21 65 Hebei 4 27 0 35 34 Henan 9 40 0 36 15 Shanxi 3 28 16 49 3 Inner Mongolia 0 29 24 12 25 Ningxia 0 0 0 0 100 Gansu 0 0 42 33 25 Qinghai 0 0 0 0 100 Source: Department of Hydrology, Ministry of Water Resources, Water Quality Assessment of China, 1997. Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3 29
TABLE A3.2-4: WATER VOLUME FOR IRRIGATION COMPARED TO OTHER USES IN 1994-1998 3 (million cubic meters—m )
1994 1995 1996 1997* 1998 Provinces Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Beijing 20.5 10.5 9.4 40.4 16.9 10.4 12.5 39.8 19.7 12.6 10.9 43.2 18.1 11.0 11.1 40.3 17.4 10.8 12.2 40.5 Tianjin 11.9 5.6 3.9 21.4 12.6 5.5 4.2 22.3 13.6 5.6 4.1 23.4 14.6 5.3 4.3 24.1 10.5 6.2 4.8 21.5 Hebei 164.2 28.7 17.5 210.4 159.1 27.9 18.7 205.8 160.0 27.5 19.6 207.1 174.4 27.0 20.1 221.5 177.5 27.0 21.7 226.3 Shanxi 35.4 14.7 6.6 56.7 35.5 15.1 6.8 57.4 34.8 15.3 7.0 57.1 36.5 15.3 7.6 59.4 35.9 14.0 7.9 57.8 Neimenggu 126.7 8.8 6.2 141.7 131.0 7.4 7.3 145.7 137.0 7.4 8.2 152.6 145.7 7.7 8.5 161.8 140.8 7.7 7.3 155.8 Jiangsu 332.5 124.4 33.4 490.3 304.9 119.5 31.9 456.2 230.4 123.5 35.4 389.3 325.3 136.4 40.8 502.5 231.7 145.2 43.0 419.9 Anhui 196.9 26.0 12.4 235.2 144.0 38.2 14.2 196.4 129.2 49.3 13.8 192.3 142.7 39.0 16.9 198.5 124.4 37.5 15.7 177.5 Shandong 194.8 29.4 22.3 246.4 192.0 38.5 22.0 252.5 194.7 39.8 22.2 256.7 184.8 41.7 24.3 250.8 186.6 43.4 24.4 254.4 Henan 162.8 25.2 25.7 213.7 165.4 40.5 26.9 232.8 174.3 40.0 27.6 241.8 190.8 40.8 28.1 259.7 168.4 36.9 28.0 233.3 Shaanxi 57.8 12.6 9.2 79.6 59.0 14.7 8.8 82.5 58.8 13.8 8.9 81.5 59.9 13.7 9.1 82.7 56.3 12.7 9.5 78.5 Gansu 96.1 15.5 6.8 118.3 95.4 15.4 6.1 116.9 98.6 16.1 6.2 120.9 94.7 16.8 6.4 117.9 96.1 18.7 6.4 121.1 Qinghai 22.3 3.0 0.9 26.2 22.0 3.2 2.0 27.1 21.6 3.5 2.0 27.1 21.0 3.6 2.1 26.8 21.1 3.5 2.3 26.9 Ningxia 79.2 5.3 1.1 85.5 81.9 5.6 1.2 88.7 82.7 6.1 1.3 90.0 86.8 6.3 1.4 94.5 88.9 6.0 1.5 96.4 3-h-a 1083.6 249.7 124.5 1457.7 994.9 280.5 130.3 1405.8 921.9 298.4 133.5 1353.8 1050.6 301.2 145.6 1497.4 916.5 307.0 149.9 1373.4 3-h-b 417.5 59.8 30.7 507.9 424.7 61.4 32.2 518.3 433.4 62.1 33.7 529.2 444.5 63.4 35.2 543.1 439.1 62.5 34.7 536.3 3-H 1501.0 309.5 155.2 1965.6 1419.6 341.9 162.6 1924.1 1355.3 360.5 167.1 1883.0 1495.2 364.6 180.8 2040.6 1355.5 369.6 184.6 1909.7
1994 1995 1996 1997* 1998 Provinces Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Irrigation Industry Domestic Total Beijing 51% 26% 23% 100% 43% 26% 31% 100% 46% 29% 25% 100% 45% 27% 28% 100% 43% 27% 30% 100% Tianjin 56% 26% 18% 100% 57% 25% 19% 100% 58% 24% 17% 100% 61% 22% 18% 100% 49% 29% 22% 100% Hebei 78% 14% 8% 100% 77% 14% 9% 100% 77% 13% 9% 100% 79% 12% 9% 100% 78% 12% 10% 100% Shanxi 63% 26% 12% 100% 62% 26% 12% 100% 61% 27% 12% 100% 61% 26% 13% 100% 62% 24% 14% 100% Neimenggu 89% 6% 4% 100% 90% 5% 5% 100% 90% 5% 5% 100% 90% 5% 5% 100% 90% 5% 5% 100% Jiangsu 68% 25% 7% 100% 67% 26% 7% 100% 59% 32% 9% 100% 65% 27% 8% 100% 55% 35% 10% 100% Anhui 84% 11% 5% 100% 73% 19% 7% 100% 67% 26% 7% 100% 72% 20% 9% 100% 70% 21% 9% 100% Shandong 79% 12% 9% 100% 76% 15% 9% 100% 76% 16% 9% 100% 74% 17% 10% 100% 73% 17% 10% 100% Henan 76% 12% 12% 100% 71% 17% 12% 100% 72% 17% 11% 100% 73% 16% 11% 100% 72% 16% 12% 100% Shaanxi 73% 16% 12% 100% 71% 18% 11% 100% 72% 17% 11% 100% 72% 17% 11% 100% 72% 16% 12% 100% Gansu 81% 13% 6% 100% 82% 13% 5% 100% 82% 13% 5% 100% 80% 14% 5% 100% 79% 15% 5% 100% Qinghai 85% 11% 4% 100% 81% 12% 7% 100% 80% 13% 7% 100% 79% 14% 8% 100% 79% 13% 8% 100% Ningxia 93% 6% 1% 100% 92% 6% 1% 100% 92% 7% 1% 100% 92% 7% 2% 100% 92% 6% 2% 100% 3-h-a 74% 17% 9% 100% 71% 20% 9% 100% 68% 22% 10% 100% 70% 20% 10% 100% 67% 22% 11% 100% 3-h-b 82% 12% 6% 100% 82% 12% 6% 100% 82% 12% 6% 100% 82% 12% 6% 100% 82% 12% 6% 100% 3-H 76% 16% 8% 100% 74% 18% 8% 100% 72% 19% 9% 100% 73% 18% 9% 100% 71% 19% 10% 100% *Note: The Irrigation water use/consumption including that for forestry, animal husbandry and fishery. Source: Water Resources Bulletin for Northern Area of China, 1994-1996, and Water Resources Bulletin of China, 1997-1998. 30 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3
TABLE A3.2-5: SUMMARIZED CHANGES OF CROP AND INCOME PATTERNS IN 3-H B ASIN
Crop Beijing Tianjin Hebei Shanxi Neimonggu Jiangsu Anhui Shandong Henan Shaanxi Guansu Qinghai Ningxia Rice s u s u s d0.8 d0.6 s d s s s d Wheat d u d d u d0.8 d s d u d d d Corn d d d d0.75 s d0.8 d0.6 d s d0.5 u1.3 u Tubers s s d d d u d d d d0.5 s u u2 Peanuts u2 u5 u3 u u3 u d u1.5 u2 Rapeseed d u5 u u d u u5 u1.5 u u1.3 u Cotton s s u2 u d0.6 u s d0.6 u d Sesame u u u u s s u s u d Vegies u2 u2 u2.5 u3 u2 u1.5 u2 u1.5 u2 u3 u3 u2.5 u3 Orchards u2.5 u3 u1.5 u2 u5 u5 u5 u2 u3 u1.2 u1.5 u5 u4 Other crops u d d0.5 d d d s s d u d0.75 d0.8 d0.7 Crop index u u u u u u d u u u u u u
Beijing Tianjin Hebei Shanxi Neimonggu Jiangsu Anhui Shandong Henan Shaanxi Guansu Qinghai Ningxia China Farming d0.5 d d0.5 d1.5 d0.3 d0.5 1.5d d d0.3 d0.5 d1.5 d1.5 d0.6 Sideline d0.25 u d0.5 d1.5 u2 d0.3 s d u d0.3 d1.5 s d0.7 On farm industryu2 u u4 u u2 u2.5 u2 u2 u2 u3 u3 u1.3 u2 Labour u u u1.5 u u2 u2.5 u2 u1.5 u3 u2.5 u2 u1.5 u2 Transfers u d d0.5 d s u2.5 u1.5 u u u s d0.5 u Farming means: Working the land Sideline means: Livestock, fisheries On farm industry means: Transport, Construction, commercial/services and others Labor means: Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), transport Transfers means: Working away from home
Notes: 1. The chart above summarizes the findings presented in Annex 6.2 for crop patterns changes between 1990 and 2020. 2. The green squares indicate a downward trend (d), the blue ones indicate an upward trend (u) and the orange ones show the same (s) trend with white squares indicating the province does not grow such crops. 3. The number 2, for example, indicates a twofold increase/decrease.
30 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3 31
TABLE A3.2-6: FEASIBILITY OF ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE IN CITIES IN 3-H B ASINS
Estimated Problem Approx Approx WWTP Shallow Shallow Deep Deep Wastewater Falling Infiltration depth of capacity GW use Sea AR AR AR AR Basin City Volumes GW Subsi- rate shallow deep Comments 2000 ML/d Water waste flood waste flood (1997) Levels dence aquifer aquifer ML/d Intrusion water water water water ML/d Shallow Deep (m/d) (m) Beijing 2,600.8 666.0 129.2 A B -- B 0.5-5.0 1 3 50-150 2 0 Coarse pebble aquifers to north and west Tianjin 984.1 700.0 7.4 -- C B C 0.1-0.2 2 1 150-450 1 0 Shijiazhuang 915.4 300.0 15.3 B B -- -- 0.2-1.0 2 2 250 2 1 The pebbles aquifer can be recharged in the north riverbed. Tangshan 1,268.2 5.0 13.2 B B -- B 0.2-1.0 2 1 150 2 1 The pebbles aquifer overlies a karst aquifer. Qinhuangdao 155.7 0.0 0.8 -- B C -- 0.5-2.0 0 3 200 0 0 Karst groundwater is developed, and artificial recharge can be undertaken using a riverbed. Hengshui 131.9 0.0 1.8 -- C -- C 0.1-0.5 0 0 300 1 0 Deep groundwater is mainly developed; the aquifer has low recharge. Xingtai 277.7 120.0 5.0 B B -- -- 0.2-1.0 2 1 150 2 0 The shallow pebble aquifer can be recharged by the south riverbed. Cangzhou 118.7 0 4.6 -- C -- C 0.1-0.2 1 1 300 0 0 Deep groundwater is mainly developed; the aquifer has low recharge. Anyang 395.7 12.0 6.7 C C -- B 0.2-1.0 2 1 150 1 0 The silty sand shallow aquifer can be recharged by Hai north riverbed. River Datong 211.7 0.0 3.8 -- B -- A 0.2-1.0 3 1 180 2 0 In the north alluvium of the Yu River, artificial recharge is possible. Puyang 88.0 0.0 2.8 -- C -- A 0.1-0.2 2 1 250 1 0 The silty sand shallow aquifer can be recharged by the south riverbed. Chengde 44.2 0.0 2.7 A ------0.2-0.5 1 1 50 1 0 The coarse aquifer is close to the Luan River. Zhangjiakou 250.7 0.0 5.1 B B -- A 0.2-0.5 2 2 150 1 0 The silty sand shallow aquifer can be recharged by the south riverbed. Shuozhou 251.5 0.0 0.4 -- A -- -- 0.2-1.0 0 2 200 2 0 The silty sand aquifer can be recharged from karst groundwater. Xinzhou 99.1 0.0 0.3 A A -- A 0.5-1.0 1 2 150 0 0 The silty sand shallow aquifer can be recharged by the south riverbed. Baoding 373.6 0.0 10.5 -- B -- -- 0.2-0.5 1 1 200 1 0 The silty sand shallow aquifer can be recharged by the north riverbed. Changzhi 359.3 0 2.1 B B -- -- 0.2-0.5 2 0 400 2 0 Deep karst groundwater is mainly developed; shallow groundwater is limited. AR: Artificial Recharge GW: Groundwater ML/d: Million liters per day WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant. 32 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3
Table A3.2-6 (cont’d)
Estimated Approx Approx WWTP Shallow Shallow Deep Deep Wastewater Infiltration depth of capacity GW use AR AR AR AR Basin City Volumes Problem rate shallow deep Comments 2000 ML/d waste flood waste flood (1997) aquifer aquifer ML/d water water water water ML/d (m/d) (m) Huhehot B B -- A 0.2-1.0 3 1 150-250 1 0 In the north, the coarse alluvium is suitable for recharge. Taiyuan B C -- C 0.1-0.5 2 3 140 1 0 It is proposed that a leakage reservoir shall be built to recharge the groundwater. Luoyang A B -- A 0.2-0.5 2 2 120 1 1 The coarse aquifer can be recharged for near Yiluo Huang River riverbed. River Xian B B -- C 0.1-0.5 2 2 200 1 0 The shallow aquifer can be recharged by the Wei River. Lanzhou A ------0.5-2.0 0 3 80 1 2 The coarse aquifer can be recharged in Huang River bed. Xianyang B B -- B 0.1-0.5 2 3 150 1 1 The coarse sand aquifer can be recharged by Wei River. Qingdao -- 0.0 13.0 B -- C -- 0.5-1.0 2 2 100 1 1 Artificial recharge can occur in Dagu River. Linyi 286.1 0.0 26.0 A A -- -- 0.5-1.0 2 3 120 1 1 The coarse aquifer can be recharged at the eastern riverbed. Jining 347.1 250.1 67.0 A A -- A 0.1-0.2 1 2 150 1 0 Artificial recharge can occur near the river bed and Nanyang Lake. Xuzhou 344.2 140.0 47.0 -- B -- -- 0.2-0.5 0 0 160 2 0 Deep karst water is developed. Huai Zhengzhou 315.5 235.0 25.0 B B -- -- 0.1-0.2 2 3 150 0 0 The shallow aquifer can be recharged at the north River of the Huang River. Zhumadian 234.0 0.0 3.0 B B -- -- 0.2-1.0 1 2 80 0 0 Artificial recharge near by the riverbed is possible. Zibo 376.4 0.0 130 B B -- -- 0.2-0.5 2 1 150 1 0 Artificial recharge of the city riverbed is possible. Heze 192.7 0.0 9.0 B -- -- A 0.1-0.2 1 1 60 1 0 Artificial recharge of the river bed and Suya Lake is possible. Suxian 191.5 0.0 0.0 -- B -- A 0.1-0.2 1 1 180 1 0 There are no good deep recharge situations. Shangqiu 93.6 0.0 24.0 -- C -- A 0.1-0.2 1 1 200-400 1 0 There are no good deep recharge situations. Note: --: No problem 0: Not possibility A: Minor problem 1: Small possibility B: Medium problem 2: Medium possibility C: Major problem 3: Highly feasible Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3 33
FIGURE A3.2-1: ECONOMIC LOSSES (Yuan x 108)
1,200 2,500
1,000 2,000 800 1,500 600 1,000 400 200 500
100 Million RMB (3H). 0 0 100 Million RMB (China) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Plains (3H) Mountains(3H) China
FIGURE A3.2-2: FLOOD DEATHS /MILLION POPULATION IN EACH PROVINCE
Percentage Flood Deaths
100.0 16.0
90.0 14.0 Total Population 80.0 Deaths per million 12.0 70.0
10.0 60.0
50.0 8.0
40.0 6.0 Deaths per million People 30.0 Province Population (million) 4.0 20.0
2.0 10.0
0.0 0.0
Anhui Beijing Tianjin Hebei Shanxi Henan Jiangsui Shaanxi Ningxia Shandong Neimenggu Province
FIGURE A3.2-3: PERCENTAGE OF DRAINED LAND TO TOTAL CULTIVATED LAND IN CHINA
24% 22% 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 34 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3
FIGURE A3.2-4: CROP IRRIGATED AREA IN CHINA FROM 1980 TO 1998
55000
45000
35000
25000 '000s Hectares 15000 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 3-H China Source: Present Study.
FIGURE A3.2-5: FERTILIZER USE IN CHINA FROM 1980 TO 1995
45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 SourceMillions Tons (Effective Basis) : Present study. 3H China
FIGURE A3.2-6: EFFECTIVE, ACTUAL AND STABLE IRRIGATION AREAS IN 3-H B ASINS AND IN CHINA
60000
50000
40000
30000 1,000Ha 20000
10000
0 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 National-effective 3-H-effective National Actual 3-H Actual National Stable 3-H Stable Note: The data based on Province area instead of 3-H catchment area Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3 35
FIGURE A3.2-7: COMPOSITION OF IRRIGATION AREA IN CHINA (1,000 ha) Cultivated Land (130,000) Potential Cultivated Land
Irrigation Land Projection (Irrigated +potential for irrigation) (67,163)*(51.7%)
Irrigation Area(62,530) (48.1%)
Effective Irrigation Area Forestry, Orchards Nonirrigation Area (67,470) (51.9%) (54,667) (42%) Pastures(7,863) (6%)
Potential for irrigation(4,633) (3.6%)
Effective Irrigation Area Irrigation (in Irrigation Scheme) + Drainage by Power (43,146) (33.2%) (19,384) (14.9%)
FIGURE A3.2-8: PERCENTAGE OF LABOR FORCE IN THREE SECTORS ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL FIGURES
80.0
60.0
% 40.0
20.0
0.0 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 Source: State Statistical Bureau: Various years. Agriculture Industry Services 36 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3
FIGURE A3.2-9: FARMERS ’ INCOME CHANGES IN HENAN PROVINCE
Henan Farm income per person
4500.0
4000.0 191.0
3500.0
1376.5 3000.0
2500.0
2000.0 791.7
53.0 1500.0 45.1 40.1 192.9 235.6 680.3 150.8 182.1 1000.0 30.0 95.8 222.0 207.4 79.2 87.3 154.1 500.0 67.6 119.1 807.3 805.1 934.9 714.1 468.5 0.0 1990 1995 1998 1999 2020 Year
Farm Income Sideline On Farm Industry Off Farm Income Other
FIGURE A3.2-10: FARMERS ’ INCOME CHANGES IN SHANDONG PROVINCE
Shandong Farm income per person 4500.0 208.9 4000.0
3500.0 1505.6
3000.0
2500.0 91.5 865.9 71.2 2000.0 456.4 48.5 404.8 1500.0 239.6 195.8 223.9 744.1 31.6 335.2 97.1 318.2 1000.0 167.8 77.9 263.3 167.8 997.5 987.5 1022.6 500.0 890.4 549.2 0.0 1990 1995 1998 1999 2020 Year
Farm Income Sideline On Farm Industry Off Farm Income Other Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3 37
FIGURE A3.2-11: FARMERS ’ INCOME CHANGES IN JIANGSU PROVINCE
Jiangsu Farm income per person 4500.0
4000.0 157.9
3500.0
3000.0 1894.8 2500.0 88.7 105.0
2000.0 59.2 820.1 935.0 481.4 1500.0 34.4 789.5 300.6 181.4 317.3 347.1 1000.0 107.8 354.9 402.1 349.9 276.3 282.9 500.0 547.8 850.9 745.7 732.7 829.0 0.0 1990 1995 1998 1999 2020 Year
Farm Income Sideline On Farm Industry Off Farm Income Other 38 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3
FIGURE A3.2-12: CHINA: LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
National People’s Congress
Provinces (27) Municipalitiesa (4)
Prefectures (127) Cities under Provinces (206)
Counties (1,735) Cities under Prefectures (413)
Townships (31,600) Towns (16,400)
Urban Districtsb ( 697) Districts
Village Committees (802,100) Neighborhood Committees a Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing. b Under cities at all levels. Source: World Bank, Managing Public Expenditures For Better Results, April 2000. Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3 39
FIGURE A3-13: WATER MANAGEMENT CHART
1 2 3 4 Provincial Prefecture/city Government County Government Township Government Government*
Other Relative Counterpart Bureaus at Prefecture/City Counterpart Bureaus at County Counterpart Depts. at Provincial level Ministries level level
MOA Provincial Agriculture Bureau Prefecture/City Agriculture Bureau County Agriculture Bureau
MOF Provincial Financial Department Prefecture/City Financial Bureau County Financial Bureau
Prefecture/City Construction Bureau (or MOC Provincial Construction Department County Construction Bureau
relative ministries committee)
Provincial Development & Planning SDPC Prefecture/City Planning Committee County Planning Committee Committee State Council SMB Provincial Meteorology Bureau Prefecture/City Meteorology Bureau County Meteorology Bureau (Central Government)
Provincial Environment Protection Prefecture/City Environment Protection County Environment Protection SEPA Bureau Bureau Bureau
Provincial Geology & Mineral Prefecture/City Geology & Mineral County Geology & Mineral MGMR cooperating water resources Resources Bureau Resources Bureau Resources Bureau
Provincial Water Resources Department Prefecture/City Water Resources Bureau County Water Resources Bureau
MWR Organs of seven major rivers Financial/employment relation Township Water Resources
Planning/technical/administrative relation *: including 4 municipal governments directly under the Central Government's leadership, including Beijing, Tianjin, Other Departments Shanghai and Chongqing. authoritative water resources Note: the units in same column (1, 2, 3 and 4) are in same authority status. MOA: Ministry of Agriculture SMB: State Meteorological Bureau MOC: Ministry of Construction SEPA: State Environment Protection Bureau SDPC: State Development & Planning Committee MGMR: Ministry of Geology and Mineral Resources MWR: Ministry of Water Resources MOF: Ministry of Finance 40 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3
MAP A3.2-1: 2000 POLLUTION LOADS FOR PRIORITY CITIES IN HUAI BASIN UNDER BASE CASE (tons/day)
I I-1 U pst ream of Wangjia bu I I-2 Wa ngjiabu to Bengbu I I-3 B engbut o Hongz e Lake I I-4 Lower Huaihe,Hongz e Lake to bohai Sea I I-5 N ans i Lake I I-6 Lower Yis hus i I I-7 Shandong Peni nsula III-7
282 Zibo
179 Ta ian
130 Rizha o 787 J ining 463 Heze 280Linyi
258Zhe ngzhou 176 III-5 238 Ka ife ng Zaozhua ng 176 Lia nyunga ng
132 Shangqiu III-6
300 Xuzhou 116 Suqian 108 99 Xuchang Huaibei 134 Huaiyin 347 III-2 Pingdingsha n 181 25 131Zhoukou Suzhou 86 Hua ia n Luohe 348 Ya nc he ng III-3
125 Zhuma dia n 270 142 III-4 Fuyang Bengbu 66 Chuz hou 268 146 Hua inan Taiz hou 200 III-1 Ya ngzhou 108Na nyang
63 Xinyang
291Liua n 0 10 0Kilometers
App ro ximat e Sca le
LEGEND N CHINA W AT ER SECTOR ACTION PROG RAM W ORLD BANK-MINISTRY O F WAT ER RESOURCES
Tota l Ind ustr y COD Loa d Tota l Mu nicipa l COD Load FIGURE No. Rive r 200 0 CO D Pollutio n Lo ad s(to ns/d ay) for Prior ity Citie s La ke & Reser vior in th e Hu ai Basin Und er th e Ba se c ase( Prg1 )
MAP A3.2-2: 2000 TOXIC COD POLLUTION LOADS FOR PRIORITY CITIES IN THE HUAI BASIN UNDER BASE CASE
III- 1 Ups tream of Wa ngj iabu III- 2 Wangj ia bu to Bengbu III- 3 Bengbut o Hongze Lak e III- 4 Lowe r H uaihe,Hongze Lake to bohai Sea III- 5 Nansi Lak e III- 6 Lowe r Yi shusi III- 7 Shandong Penins ula III-7
3 Zibo
1 Ta ian
Rizha o 65J ining 2 Heze 11 Linyi
9 Zhe ngzhou 23 III-5 10 Ka ife ng Zaozhua ng 43 Lia nyunga ng
5 Shangqiu III-6
14 Xuzhou 8 Suqian 6 2 Xuchang Huaibei 29 Huaiyin 28 III-2 Pingdingsha n 13 12 Zhoukou Suzhou 0 Hua ia n Luohe 48Ya nc he ng III-3
7 Zhuma dia n 15 III-4 Fuyang 18 Bengbu 9 Chuz hou 39 21 Hua inan Taiz hou 23 1 III-1 Ya ngzhou Na nyang
8 Xinyang
26 Liua n 0 10 0Kilometers
App ro ximat e Sca le
LEGEND N CHINA W AT ER SECTOR ACTION PROG RAM W ORLD BANK-MINISTRY O F WAT ER RESOURCES
Toxic COD Pollut ion Loa d FIGURE No. Rive r 200 0 Toxic CO D Pollut io n L oa ds(t ons/ day) for Prio rity C it ie s La ke & Reser vior in the Hua i Ba sin Un der th e Base case (Pr g1) Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3 41
MAP A3.2-3: 2000 POLLUTION LOADS FOR LEVEL II HAI BASIN UNDER BASE CASE (1,000 tons/year)
II-1 Lua nhe and Eas t C oa st Hebe i II-2 N ort h Hai II-3 Sout h Hai II-4 Tuhaima jia
II-1
Chengde Zhangjiakou
Datong II-2
Beijing Qinghuangdao
Shuozhou Tangs han Langfang
Tianjin II-3 Baoding
Xinzhou
Cangzhou Shijiazhuang
Yangquan Hengshui
Dezhou II-4 Binzhou
Xingtai
Handan Jinan Liaocheng
Changzhi Anyang
Hebi
Puyang 0 150 Kilometer s
Jiaozuo Xinxiang Approxi mate S cal e
LEGEND N CH INA WATER SECTOR AC TION PR OGRAM WOR LD BAN K-MINISTRY OF WATER RE SOURC ES Urb an Indu stry Urb an Mun ic ipa l Rur al Ind ustry Li ve stock FIGURE No. Rur al Mu nici pal Ri ver 20 00 Po ll ution Load s(10 00 to ns/yea r)fo r Lev el II Ba sin s Lak e & Res ervoi r i n the Ha i Bas in Un der the Base ca se 5 42 Annex 3.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 3
MAP A3.2-4: 2000 POLLUTION LOADS FOR LEVEL II HUAI BASIN UNDER BASE CASE (1,000 tons/year)
Yantai Wei hai III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu III-2 Wang jiabu to Bengbu III-3 Bengb uto Hongze Lake III-4 Lower Huaihe,Ho ngze Lake to b oh ai Sea III-5 Nansi Lake III-6 Lower Yishusi III-7 Sh andong Peninsul a III-7
Weifang Zibo Jinan
Taian Qingdao
Rizh ao Jin ing
Heze Qufu Ya nzh ou Lin yi Zou ch en g Zhen gz hou III-5 Ten gzh ou Kaifen g Zaoz hu an g Ying yan g Lian yun ga ng
Xin mi Deng fen g Xinzh eng
Xin yi
Chan g ge Xuz ho u III-6 Suq ian Xuc han g Hu aibei Ruzh ou Xiang che ng III-2 Huaiyin Ping ding sha n Bo zh ou III-3 Zh ouk o u Su zho u Huai'a n Luo he Yan ch eng
JIesh ou
Fuy an g Ben g bu Ga oy ou Ming gua ng III-4 Tia nc hang
Hu ain an Taizh ou Yan gzh ou Na nyan g III-1
Liu'an 0 10 0Kil ometers
A pproxim ate Scale
LE GEND N CHINA W AT ER SE CTO R ACTION PROGRA M W ORLD B ANK -MINISTRY OF W ATER RES OURCES Urban I ndust ry Urban Municipal Rural Industry Livestock FIGURE No. 2000 COD P olut ion Loads(1000 tons/ year) for Level I I Basi ns Rural Muni cipal in the Huai B asin Under t he Base case River Lake & Reservior Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 43 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
ANNEX 4.1: STATISTICS RELATED TO WATER RESOURCES (DEMAND BY SECTORS, SUPPLY BY SOURCE)
TABLE A4.1-1: B ASE CASE - HAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 44.16 44.13 44.63 44.94 44.94 44.94 44.94 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 55.60 56.56 59.67 62.07 63.52 64.38 65.11 SW Supply 9.57 9.66 9.78 9.82 9.87 9.84 9.85 LW Supply 1.51 1.59 1.71 1.78 1.84 1.86 1.86 GW Supply 16.38 16.48 16.89 17.15 17.26 17.33 17.31 Transfer 3.71 4.22 4.30 3.58 4.18 3.87 3.60 Total Supply 31.17 31.95 32.67 32.33 33.15 32.89 32.63 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 5.09 Shortage Irrigation 22.36 22.31 23.90 26.00 26.19 26.98 27.40 Total Shortage 24.43 24.62 27.01 29.74 30.39 31.48 32.49
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 5.09 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.52 8.62 9.46 10.09 10.32
P75 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 37.48 37.55 37.83 38.13 38.13 38.13 38.13 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 48.92 49.98 52.87 55.26 56.71 57.57 58.30 SW Supply 10.53 10.65 11.22 11.48 11.64 11.75 11.85 LW Supply 1.79 1.89 2.04 2.11 2.14 2.15 2.13 GW Supply 15.94 15.94 16.06 16.11 16.13 16.19 16.18 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 31.97 32.71 36.11 36.49 36.69 36.87 36.95 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Shortage Irrigation 14.88 14.97 13.67 15.07 15.87 16.29 16.63 Total Shortage 16.95 17.28 16.75 18.76 20.00 20.71 21.36
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.53 10.17 10.68
P50 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 34.73 34.94 35.31 35.61 35.61 35.61 35.61 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 46.17 47.37 50.35 52.74 54.19 55.05 55.78 SW Supply 12.79 13.09 14.30 14.63 14.74 14.78 14.81 LW Supply 2.32 2.44 2.65 2.77 2.86 2.93 2.97 GW Supply 15.91 15.86 13.21 13.82 14.32 14.61 14.82 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 34.74 35.61 36.95 38.01 38.71 39.11 39.38 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Shortage Irrigation 9.36 9.45 10.33 11.05 11.35 11.54 11.68 Total Shortage 11.43 11.76 13.41 14.74 15.47 15.94 16.39 44 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.54 10.19 10.70
P.25 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 32.55 32.90 33.20 33.50 33.50 33.50 33.50 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 43.99 45.33 48.24 50.63 52.08 52.94 53.67 SW Supply 14.89 15.25 15.97 16.34 16.55 16.65 16.72 LW Supply 3.06 3.21 3.54 3.77 3.94 4.04 4.12 GW Supply 15.42 15.39 13.30 13.93 14.26 14.46 14.58 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 37.08 38.06 39.60 40.83 41.53 41.94 42.21 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Shortage Irrigation 4.84 4.95 5.57 6.11 6.41 6.61 6.75 Total Shortage 6.91 7.26 8.65 9.80 10.53 11.01 11.46
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.54 10.19 10.70 SW Surface water. LW Local water (runoff from local mountains). GW Groundwater.
TABLE A4.1-2: B ASE CASE - HUAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 66.95 65.61 66.02 66.05 66.05 66.05 66.05 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 86.29 86.33 92.06 97.01 99.17 99.89 101.69 SW Supply 9.74 9.79 11.79 12.12 12.42 12.40 12.27 LW Supply 13.48 13.66 13.08 13.37 13.38 13.51 13.59 GW Supply 18.49 18.90 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98 Transfer 12.87 13.03 12.84 12.59 12.63 12.74 12.63 Total Supply 54.57 55.37 59.69 60.07 60.41 60.62 60.48 Priority Shortage 2.17 2.30 4.19 6.41 7.02 7.39 8.32 Shortage Irrigation 28.06 28.65 28.69 30.54 31.76 31.90 32.89 Total Shortage 30.23 30.95 32.88 36.95 38.78 39.29 41.21
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.17 2.30 4.19 6.41 7.02 7.39 8.32 Supply 7.91 8.86 11.05 12.32 13.14 13.37 13.28
P75 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 52.41 51.18 51.40 51.40 51.40 51.40 51.40 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 71.75 71.90 77.44 82.36 84.52 85.24 87.04 SW Supply 10.66 9.93 9.89 10.60 10.83 11.07 11.40 LW Supply 24.04 23.84 23.79 24.64 25.19 25.19 25.49 GW Supply 18.10 18.62 21.41 21.40 21.52 21.52 21.58 Transfer 9.35 9.79 11.25 11.63 11.71 11.72 11.63 Total Supply 62.15 62.18 66.34 68.25 69.24 69.49 70.10 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 45 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.43 5.33 6.05 6.43 7.05 Shortage Irrigation 7.49 7.99 7.66 8.77 9.22 9.31 9.91 Total Shortage 9.60 10.23 11.09 14.10 15.27 15.74 16.96
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.43 5.33 6.05 6.43 7.05 Supply 7.97 8.92 11.81 13.39 14.11 14.33 14.55
P50 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 44.27 43.11 43.14 43.17 43.17 43.17 43.17 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 63.61 63.83 69.18 74.13 76.29 77.01 78.81 SW Supply 10.02 9.47 8.08 9.90 10.89 11.10 11.85 LW Supply 24.66 24.28 26.63 27.20 27.50 27.55 27.81 GW Supply 16.52 16.67 19.44 19.44 19.47 19.52 19.56 Transfer 9.20 9.49 10.15 10.53 10.65 10.65 10.53 Total Supply 60.40 59.90 64.31 67.06 68.50 68.81 69.74 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.36 5.21 5.93 6.31 6.93 Shortage Irrigation 1.09 1.70 1.51 1.85 1.85 1.89 2.13 Total Shortage 3.20 3.94 4.87 7.06 7.78 8.20 9.06
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.36 5.21 5.93 6.31 6.93 Supply 7.97 8.92 11.88 13.51 14.23 14.45 14.67
P25 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 39.28 38.15 38.09 38.11 38.11 38.11 38.11 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 58.62 58.87 64.13 69.07 71.23 71.95 73.75 SW Supply 6.09 4.53 4.49 5.94 6.66 6.92 7.56 LW Supply 26.97 27.92 27.90 29.02 29.52 29.57 29.97 GW Supply 15.58 15.85 18.60 18.59 18.69 18.69 18.72 Transfer 7.83 8.17 9.65 10.02 10.14 10.14 10.02 Total Supply 56.48 56.48 60.64 63.57 65.01 65.32 66.27 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.42 5.02 6.04 6.42 7.04 Shortage Irrigation 0.03 0.17 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.45 Total Shortage 2.14 2.41 3.49 5.20 6.22 6.63 7.49
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.42 5.02 6.04 6.42 7.04 Supply 7.97 8.92 11.82 13.70 14.12 14.34 14.56
TABLE A4.1-3: B ASE CASE - YELLOW RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 38.45 38.16 38.49 38.60 38.60 38.60 38.60 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 48.70 49.57 53.47 57.26 59.13 60.46 61.23 SW Supply 16.80 17.66 18.03 18.20 18.30 18.47 18.66 LW Supply 6.71 4.07 5.33 5.84 6.15 6.30 6.29 GW Supply 12.90 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Total Supply 36.40 36.95 38.59 39.27 39.68 39.99 40.18 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.89 2.82 3.42 3.86 4.06 Shortage Irrigation 10.73 11.02 12.99 15.18 16.03 16.61 17.00 Total Shortage 12.30 12.62 14.88 18.00 19.45 20.47 21.06
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.89 2.82 3.42 3.86 4.06 Supply 5.12 5.82 7.88 9.18 9.96 10.38 10.58
P75 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 35.70 35.45 35.67 35.75 35.75 35.75 35.75 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 45.95 46.86 50.65 54.41 56.28 57.61 58.38 SW Supply 16.12 16.90 17.46 17.76 17.83 18.02 18.30 LW Supply 5.57 3.41 5.35 6.04 6.37 6.50 6.47 GW Supply 12.93 15.22 14.95 15.12 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.62 35.53 37.76 38.92 39.41 39.74 40.00 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.80 1.83 2.68 3.23 3.66 3.86 Shortage Irrigation 9.76 9.53 11.06 12.81 13.64 14.21 14.52 Total Shortage 11.33 11.33 12.89 15.49 16.87 17.87 18.38
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.80 1.83 2.68 3.23 3.66 3.86 Supply 5.12 5.62 7.94 9.31 10.15 10.58 10.77
P50 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 33.31 33.12 33.25 33.30 33.30 33.30 33.30 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 43.56 44.53 48.23 51.96 53.83 55.16 55.93 SW Supply 15.61 16.83 17.46 17.49 18.03 18.10 17.85 LW Supply 6.26 4.00 5.13 5.76 6.34 6.41 6.33 GW Supply 13.01 14.89 14.52 15.05 14.48 14.65 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.89 35.72 37.11 38.30 38.85 39.15 39.41 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.40 1.78 2.53 3.01 3.45 3.65 Shortage Irrigation 7.10 7.41 9.34 11.13 11.97 12.56 12.88 Total Shortage 8.67 8.81 11.12 13.66 14.98 16.01 16.53
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.40 1.78 2.53 3.01 3.45 3.65 Supply 5.12 6.02 7.99 9.46 10.37 10.79 10.99 0.69 0.82 1.24 1.70 P25 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 2.00 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 31.89 31.70 31.90 31.94 31.94 31.94 31.94 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 42.14 43.11 46.88 50.95 52.47 53.80 54.57 SW Supply 15.12 16.02 17.05 17.41 17.64 17.73 17.96 LW Supply 6.28 4.11 5.27 6.35 6.45 6.59 6.70 GW Supply 13.01 15.22 14.29 14.45 14.36 14.44 14.37 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.42 35.36 36.62 38.21 38.44 38.76 39.03 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 47 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Priority Shortage 1.47 1.10 1.68 2.34 2.70 3.08 3.29 Shortage Irrigation 6.25 6.65 8.58 10.40 11.33 11.96 12.25 Total Shortage 7.72 7.75 10.26 12.74 14.03 15.04 15.54
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.47 1.10 1.68 2.34 2.70 3.08 3.29 Supply 5.22 6.32 8.09 9.65 10.68 11.16 11.34
TABLE A4.1-4: EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT - HAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 44.16 44.13 43.41 42.25 41.05 41.05 41.05 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 55.60 56.56 58.45 59.38 59.63 60.49 61.22 SW Supply 9.57 9.66 9.79 9.88 9.94 9.93 9.95 LW Supply 1.51 1.59 1.71 1.78 1.84 1.86 1.86 GW Supply 16.38 16.48 16.80 17.04 17.17 17.32 17.31 Transfer 3.71 4.22 4.31 4.68 4.80 4.43 4.67 Total Supply 31.17 31.95 32.61 33.38 33.74 33.54 33.79 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 4.82 Shortage Irrigation 22.36 22.31 22.73 22.27 21.67 22.49 22.60 Total Shortage 24.43 24.62 25.84 26.01 25.87 26.99 27.42
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 4.82 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.52 8.62 9.46 10.09 10.58
P75 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 37.48 37.55 36.79 35.80 34.92 34.92 34.92 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 48.92 49.98 51.83 52.93 53.50 54.36 55.09 SW Supply 10.53 10.65 11.17 11.40 11.55 11.66 11.74 LW Supply 1.79 1.89 2.05 2.11 2.14 2.14 2.14 GW Supply 15.94 15.94 16.06 16.11 16.13 16.19 16.18 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 31.97 32.71 36.06 36.41 36.60 36.78 36.83 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Shortage Irrigation 14.88 14.97 12.70 12.83 12.77 13.18 13.52 Total Shortage 16.95 17.28 15.78 16.52 16.90 17.60 18.25
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.53 10.17 10.68
P50 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 34.73 34.94 34.24 33.37 32.50 32.50 32.50 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 46.17 47.37 49.28 50.50 51.08 51.94 52.67 SW Supply 12.79 13.09 14.18 14.46 14.49 14.57 14.60 LW Supply 2.32 2.44 2.65 2.77 2.87 2.93 2.97 GW Supply 15.91 15.86 13.02 13.30 13.60 13.86 14.06 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 48 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Total Supply 34.74 35.61 36.64 37.32 37.74 38.15 38.42 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Shortage Irrigation 9.36 9.45 9.56 9.50 9.21 9.40 9.56 Total Shortage 11.43 11.76 12.64 13.19 13.33 13.80 14.27
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.54 10.19 10.70
P25 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 32.55 32.90 32.28 31.49 30.66 30.66 30.66 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 43.99 45.33 47.32 48.62 49.24 50.10 50.83 SW Supply 14.89 15.25 15.88 16.13 16.25 16.35 16.44 LW Supply 3.06 3.21 3.54 3.77 3.93 4.04 4.12 GW Supply 15.42 15.39 12.98 13.32 13.52 13.80 13.95 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 37.08 38.06 39.20 40.00 40.48 40.98 41.29 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Shortage Irrigation 4.84 4.95 5.04 4.94 4.64 4.71 4.83 Total Shortage 6.91 7.26 8.12 8.63 8.76 9.11 9.54
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.54 10.19 10.70
TABLE A4.1-5: EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT - HUAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 66.95 65.61 64.12 61.71 60.03 60.03 60.03 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 86.29 86.33 90.16 92.67 93.15 93.87 95.67 SW Supply 9.74 9.79 11.75 10.74 10.77 10.83 10.71 LW Supply 13.48 13.66 12.90 14.05 14.14 14.16 14.21 GW Supply 18.49 18.90 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98 Transfer 12.87 13.03 13.25 12.63 12.85 12.92 12.71 Total Supply 54.57 55.37 59.89 59.40 59.75 59.90 59.61 Priority Shortage 2.17 2.30 3.88 6.37 6.87 7.20 8.02 Shortage Irrigation 28.06 28.65 26.90 26.90 26.53 26.77 28.03 Total Shortage 30.23 30.95 30.78 33.27 33.40 33.97 36.05
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.17 2.30 3.88 6.37 6.87 7.20 8.02 Supply 7.91 8.86 11.37 12.35 13.29 13.56 13.58
P75 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 52.41 51.18 49.90 48.02 46.76 46.76 46.76 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 71.75 71.90 75.94 78.98 79.88 80.60 82.40 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 49 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 SW Supply 10.66 9.93 9.24 9.99 9.98 10.17 10.52 LW Supply 24.04 23.84 22.95 23.02 23.27 23.35 23.62 GW Supply 18.10 18.62 21.27 21.08 21.06 21.07 21.14 Transfer 9.35 9.79 12.02 12.22 12.22 12.19 12.13 Total Supply 62.15 62.18 65.48 66.31 66.54 66.79 67.41 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.43 5.33 6.05 6.43 7.05 Shortage Irrigation 7.49 7.99 7.04 7.34 7.30 7.41 7.94 Total Shortage 9.60 10.23 10.47 12.67 13.35 13.84 14.99
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.43 5.33 6.05 6.43 7.05 Supply 7.97 8.92 11.81 13.39 14.11 14.33 14.55
P50 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 44.27 43.11 41.89 40.34 39.24 39.24 39.24 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 63.61 63.83 67.93 71.30 72.36 73.08 74.88 SW Supply 10.02 9.47 7.98 9.18 10.25 10.51 11.17 LW Supply 24.66 24.28 26.04 26.13 24.83 24.87 25.21 GW Supply 16.52 16.67 19.31 19.20 19.22 19.22 19.26 Transfer 9.20 9.49 9.90 10.11 10.81 10.82 10.71 Total Supply 60.40 59.90 63.23 64.62 65.11 65.42 66.35 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.36 5.21 5.93 6.31 6.93 Shortage Irrigation 1.09 1.70 1.35 1.47 1.30 1.36 1.60 Total Shortage 3.20 3.94 4.71 6.68 7.23 7.67 8.53
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.36 5.21 5.93 6.31 6.93 Supply 7.97 8.92 11.88 13.51 14.23 14.45 14.67
P.25 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 39.28 38.15 36.94 35.59 34.62 34.62 34.62 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 58.62 58.87 62.98 66.55 67.74 68.46 70.26 SW Supply 6.09 4.53 4.94 6.01 6.16 6.42 6.90 LW Supply 26.97 27.92 26.57 25.81 26.12 26.19 26.97 GW Supply 15.58 15.85 18.54 18.38 18.42 18.42 18.45 Transfer 7.83 8.17 9.49 10.99 10.96 10.97 10.86 Total Supply 56.48 56.48 59.53 61.18 61.66 62.00 63.18 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.42 5.02 6.04 6.42 7.04 Shortage Irrigation 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 Total Shortage 2.14 2.41 3.45 5.05 6.09 6.47 7.09
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 3.42 5.02 6.04 6.42 7.04 Supply 7.97 8.92 11.82 13.70 14.12 14.34 14.56 50 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
TABLE A4.1-6: EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT - YELLOW RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 38.45 38.16 37.35 36.03 35.08 35.08 35.08 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 48.70 49.57 52.33 54.69 55.61 56.94 57.71 SW Supply 16.80 17.66 17.76 17.45 17.42 17.68 17.87 LW Supply 6.71 4.07 5.40 5.81 6.19 6.34 6.40 GW Supply 12.90 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 36.40 36.95 38.38 38.48 38.84 39.24 39.49 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.90 2.81 3.40 3.84 4.04 Shortage Irrigation 10.73 11.02 12.06 13.40 13.37 13.86 14.18 Total Shortage 12.30 12.62 13.96 16.21 16.77 17.70 18.22
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.90 2.81 3.40 3.84 4.04 Supply 5.12 5.82 7.88 9.18 9.98 10.40 10.59
P75 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 35.70 35.45 34.69 33.43 32.53 32.53 32.53 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 45.95 46.86 49.67 52.09 53.06 54.39 55.16 SW Supply 16.12 16.90 17.33 17.23 17.12 17.28 17.40 LW Supply 5.57 3.41 5.52 6.35 6.64 6.79 6.93 GW Supply 12.93 15.22 14.79 15.03 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.62 35.53 37.64 38.61 38.98 39.29 39.56 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.80 1.83 2.67 3.22 3.65 3.85 Shortage Irrigation 9.76 9.53 10.20 10.81 10.86 11.45 11.75 Total Shortage 11.33 11.33 12.03 13.48 14.08 15.10 15.60
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.80 1.83 2.67 3.22 3.65 3.85 Supply 5.12 5.62 7.94 9.32 10.16 10.59 10.78
P50 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 33.31 33.12 32.30 31.08 30.21 30.21 30.21 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 43.56 44.53 47.28 49.74 50.74 52.07 52.84 SW Supply 15.61 16.83 17.24 17.03 17.26 17.25 17.60 LW Supply 6.26 4.00 5.29 6.00 6.63 6.68 6.91 GW Supply 13.01 14.89 14.45 14.97 14.50 14.77 14.45 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.89 35.72 36.98 38.00 38.39 38.70 38.95 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.40 1.78 2.53 3.00 3.44 3.64 Shortage Irrigation 7.10 7.41 8.52 9.22 9.35 9.93 10.25 Total Shortage 8.67 8.81 10.30 11.75 12.35 13.37 13.89
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.40 1.78 2.53 3.00 3.44 3.64 Supply 5.12 6.02 7.99 9.47 10.38 10.80 10.99 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 51 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P25 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 2.00 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 31.89 31.70 30.95 29.84 29.01 29.01 29.01 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 42.14 43.11 45.93 48.85 49.54 50.87 51.64 SW Supply 15.12 16.02 16.76 16.88 16.91 17.10 17.28 LW Supply 6.28 4.11 5.33 6.60 6.63 6.77 6.87 GW Supply 13.01 15.22 14.38 14.48 14.46 14.47 14.46 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.42 35.36 36.47 37.97 38.01 38.34 38.61 Priority Shortage 1.47 1.10 1.68 2.34 2.69 3.07 3.29 Shortage Irrigation 6.25 6.65 7.78 8.55 8.84 9.46 9.75 Total Shortage 7.72 7.75 9.46 10.89 11.53 12.53 13.04
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.47 1.10 1.68 2.34 2.69 3.07 3.29 Supply 5.22 6.32 8.09 9.66 10.69 11.17 11.35
TABLE A4.1-7: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE - HAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 44.16 44.13 43.41 42.25 41.05 41.05 41.05 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 55.60 56.56 58.45 59.38 59.63 60.49 61.22 SW Supply 9.57 9.66 9.80 9.88 9.95 9.99 10.01 LW Supply 1.51 1.59 1.71 1.78 1.84 1.86 1.86 GW Supply 16.38 16.48 16.81 17.04 17.16 17.32 17.31 Transfer 3.71 4.22 4.23 4.90 5.57 5.03 5.11 Total Supply 31.17 31.95 32.54 33.60 34.52 34.19 34.29 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 4.82 Shortage Irrigation 22.36 22.31 22.81 22.03 20.91 21.79 22.10 Total Shortage 24.43 24.62 25.92 25.77 25.11 26.29 26.92
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 4.82 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.52 8.62 9.46 10.09 10.58
P75 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 37.48 37.55 36.79 35.80 34.92 34.92 34.92 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 48.92 49.98 51.83 52.93 53.50 54.36 55.09 SW Supply 10.53 10.65 11.17 11.40 11.55 11.66 11.74 LW Supply 1.79 1.89 2.05 2.11 2.14 2.14 2.14 GW Supply 15.94 15.94 16.06 16.11 16.13 16.19 16.18 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 31.97 32.71 36.06 36.41 36.60 36.78 36.83 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Shortage Irrigation 14.88 14.97 12.70 12.83 12.77 13.18 13.52 Total Shortage 16.95 17.28 15.78 16.52 16.90 17.60 18.25
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.53 10.17 10.68 52 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
P50 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 34.73 34.94 34.24 33.37 32.50 32.50 32.50 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 46.17 47.37 49.28 50.50 51.08 51.94 52.67 SW Supply 12.79 13.09 14.18 14.46 14.49 14.57 14.60 LW Supply 2.32 2.44 2.65 2.77 2.87 2.93 2.97 GW Supply 15.91 15.86 13.02 13.30 13.60 13.86 14.06 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 34.74 35.61 36.64 37.32 37.74 38.15 38.42 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Shortage Irrigation 9.36 9.45 9.56 9.50 9.21 9.40 9.56 Total Shortage 11.43 11.76 12.64 13.19 13.33 13.80 14.27
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.54 10.19 10.70
P25 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.85 4.87 5.82 6.69 7.49 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.78 7.49 7.84 7.90 7.92 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 2.00 2.12 2.21 2.11 2.02 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.88 2.12 2.19 2.24 2.28 Irrigation 32.55 32.90 32.28 31.49 30.66 30.66 30.66 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 43.99 45.33 47.32 48.62 49.24 50.10 50.83 SW Supply 14.89 15.25 15.88 16.13 16.25 16.35 16.44 LW Supply 3.06 3.21 3.54 3.77 3.93 4.04 4.12 GW Supply 15.42 15.39 12.98 13.32 13.52 13.80 13.95 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 37.08 38.06 39.20 40.00 40.48 40.98 41.29 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Shortage Irrigation 4.84 4.95 5.04 4.94 4.64 4.71 4.83 Total Shortage 6.91 7.26 8.12 8.63 8.76 9.11 9.54
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.63 12.36 13.66 14.59 15.41 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.55 8.67 9.54 10.19 10.70
TABLE A4.1-8: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE - HUAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 66.95 65.61 64.12 61.71 60.03 60.03 60.03 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 86.29 86.33 90.16 92.67 93.15 93.87 95.67 SW Supply 9.74 9.79 11.52 12.56 10.83 10.85 10.71 LW Supply 13.48 13.66 12.97 12.33 14.18 14.23 14.31 GW Supply 18.49 18.90 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98 Transfer 12.87 13.03 13.19 12.59 12.74 12.80 12.93 Total Supply 54.57 55.37 59.67 59.46 59.72 59.86 59.94 Priority Shortage 2.17 2.30 3.54 5.13 5.09 5.46 6.09 Shortage Irrigation 28.06 28.65 27.47 28.07 28.34 28.54 29.65 Total Shortage 30.23 30.95 31.01 33.20 33.43 34.00 35.74 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 53 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.17 2.30 3.54 5.13 5.09 5.46 6.09 Supply 7.91 8.86 11.70 13.59 15.07 15.30 15.51
P75 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 52.41 51.18 49.90 48.02 46.76 46.76 46.76 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 71.75 71.90 75.94 78.98 79.88 80.60 82.40 SW Supply 10.66 9.93 10.59 10.75 10.70 11.05 11.54 LW Supply 24.04 23.84 18.81 20.21 21.11 21.02 20.91 GW Supply 18.10 18.62 21.58 21.55 21.60 21.59 21.83 Transfer 9.35 9.79 13.80 13.88 13.90 13.96 13.96 Total Supply 62.15 62.18 64.78 66.40 67.32 67.62 68.24 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.85 3.88 3.81 4.13 4.63 Shortage Irrigation 7.49 7.99 8.32 8.69 8.74 8.87 9.55 Total Shortage 9.60 10.23 11.17 12.57 12.55 13.00 14.18
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.85 3.88 3.81 4.13 4.63 Supply 7.97 8.92 12.39 14.84 16.35 16.64 16.97
P50 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 44.27 43.11 41.89 40.34 39.24 39.24 39.24 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 63.61 63.83 67.93 71.30 72.36 73.08 74.88 SW Supply 10.02 9.47 11.10 12.38 13.70 13.48 14.15 LW Supply 24.66 24.28 20.63 21.56 21.53 22.07 22.36 GW Supply 16.52 16.67 19.36 19.36 19.45 19.47 19.55 Transfer 9.20 9.49 12.96 13.11 13.06 13.07 12.97 Total Supply 60.40 59.90 64.05 66.41 67.74 68.09 69.03 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.54 3.31 3.13 3.45 4.05 Shortage Irrigation 1.09 1.70 1.34 1.59 1.50 1.54 1.80 Total Shortage 3.20 3.94 3.88 4.90 4.63 4.99 5.85
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.54 3.31 3.13 3.45 4.05 Supply 7.97 8.92 12.70 15.41 17.04 17.31 17.55
P25 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.24 4.20 5.04 6.00 6.96 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 12.00 14.52 15.12 14.76 14.64 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.88 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.88 3.60 4.08 4.20 4.68 Irrigation 39.28 38.15 36.94 35.59 34.62 34.62 34.62 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 58.62 58.87 62.98 66.55 67.74 68.46 70.26 SW Supply 6.09 4.53 8.78 10.38 10.50 10.62 11.10 LW Supply 26.97 27.92 20.11 21.20 22.57 22.90 23.62 GW Supply 15.58 15.85 18.54 18.50 18.48 18.51 18.60 Transfer 7.83 8.17 13.15 13.30 13.25 13.26 13.15 Total Supply 56.48 56.48 60.58 63.38 64.79 65.29 66.47 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.38 2.83 2.91 3.13 3.60 Shortage Irrigation 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.19 Total Shortage 2.14 2.41 2.41 2.86 2.96 3.18 3.79
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 15.24 18.72 20.16 20.76 21.60 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.38 2.83 2.91 3.13 3.60 Supply 7.97 8.92 12.86 15.89 17.25 17.63 18.00 54 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
TABLE A4.1-9: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE - YELLOW RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 38.45 38.16 37.35 36.03 35.08 35.08 35.08 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 48.70 49.57 52.33 54.69 55.61 56.94 57.71 SW Supply 16.80 17.66 17.33 16.63 16.97 16.99 17.18 LW Supply 6.71 4.07 5.30 5.62 6.10 6.39 6.38 GW Supply 12.90 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 36.40 36.95 37.84 37.48 38.30 38.60 38.78 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.19 1.17 1.43 1.76 1.94 Shortage Irrigation 10.73 11.02 13.30 16.05 15.88 16.58 16.99 Total Shortage 12.30 12.62 14.49 17.22 17.31 18.34 18.93
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.19 1.17 1.43 1.76 1.94 Supply 5.12 5.82 8.58 10.83 11.95 12.48 12.69
P75 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 35.70 35.45 34.69 33.43 32.53 32.53 32.53 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 45.95 46.86 49.67 52.09 53.06 54.39 55.16 SW Supply 16.12 16.90 17.10 17.34 17.15 17.33 17.56 LW Supply 5.57 3.41 5.82 7.16 7.68 7.89 7.98 GW Supply 12.93 15.22 15.16 15.05 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.62 35.53 38.07 39.55 40.06 40.44 40.77 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.80 0.82 0.65 0.81 1.12 1.33 Shortage Irrigation 9.76 9.53 10.78 11.90 12.20 12.83 13.06 Total Shortage 11.33 11.33 11.60 12.55 13.01 13.95 14.39
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.80 0.82 0.65 0.81 1.12 1.33 Supply 5.12 5.62 8.95 11.35 12.58 13.12 13.30
P50 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 1.65 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 33.31 33.12 32.30 31.08 30.21 30.21 30.21 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 43.56 44.53 47.28 49.74 50.74 52.07 52.84 SW Supply 15.61 16.83 17.06 17.33 17.50 17.63 17.09 LW Supply 6.26 4.00 5.78 7.34 7.82 8.07 7.99 GW Supply 13.01 14.89 14.69 14.46 14.24 14.25 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.89 35.72 37.54 39.12 39.55 39.95 40.30 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.40 0.48 0.15 0.24 0.47 0.66 Shortage Irrigation 7.10 7.41 9.27 10.47 10.95 11.65 11.88 Total Shortage 8.67 8.81 9.75 10.62 11.19 12.12 12.54
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.40 0.48 0.15 0.24 0.47 0.66 Supply 5.12 6.02 9.30 11.84 13.14 13.77 13.97 0.69 0.82 1.24 1.70 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 55 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P25 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.10 2.60 3.10 3.61 4.07 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.67 9.39 10.28 10.63 10.56 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.15 1.30 1.32 1.45 1.53 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.21 2.00 2.00 2.24 2.44 Irrigation 31.89 31.70 30.95 29.84 29.01 29.01 29.01 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 42.14 43.11 45.93 48.85 49.54 50.87 51.64 SW Supply 15.12 16.02 16.27 17.17 16.43 16.50 16.70 LW Supply 6.28 4.11 5.66 7.81 7.48 7.83 8.09 GW Supply 13.01 15.22 15.21 14.05 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.42 35.36 37.14 39.03 39.13 39.55 40.01 Priority Shortage 1.47 1.10 0.21 0.00 0.09 0.12 0.14 Shortage Irrigation 6.25 6.65 8.58 9.82 10.32 11.20 11.49 Total Shortage 7.72 7.75 8.79 9.82 10.41 11.32 11.63
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.77 11.99 13.38 14.24 14.63 Urban Shortage 1.47 1.10 0.21 0.00 0.09 0.12 0.14 Supply 5.22 6.32 9.56 11.99 13.29 14.12 14.49
TABLE A4.1-10: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE - HAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 44.16 44.13 43.41 42.25 41.05 41.05 41.05 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 55.60 56.56 58.16 58.88 58.72 59.17 59.25 SW Supply 9.57 9.66 9.78 9.85 9.91 9.93 9.93 LW Supply 1.51 1.59 1.70 1.77 1.81 1.83 1.82 GW Supply 16.38 16.48 16.77 17.00 17.06 17.17 17.17 Transfer 3.71 4.22 4.02 4.97 5.57 5.37 5.30 Total Supply 31.17 31.95 32.27 33.58 34.35 34.31 34.22 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.01 3.58 3.91 4.07 4.17 Shortage Irrigation 22.36 22.31 22.87 21.74 20.45 20.79 20.86 Total Shortage 24.43 24.62 25.88 25.32 24.36 24.86 25.03
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 3.01 3.58 3.91 4.07 4.17 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.40 8.41 9.07 9.50 9.69
P75 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 37.48 37.55 36.79 35.80 34.92 34.92 34.92 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 48.92 49.98 51.54 52.43 52.59 53.04 53.12 SW Supply 10.53 10.65 11.15 11.35 11.45 11.52 11.55 LW Supply 1.79 1.89 2.03 2.10 2.12 2.13 2.11 GW Supply 15.94 15.94 16.05 16.10 16.11 16.16 16.13 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 31.97 32.71 36.02 36.34 36.47 36.60 36.58 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.85 4.00 4.10 Shortage Irrigation 14.88 14.97 12.54 12.57 12.27 12.43 12.45 Total Shortage 16.95 17.28 15.53 16.10 16.12 16.43 16.55
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.85 4.00 4.10 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.43 8.46 9.13 9.57 9.77 56 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
P50 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 34.73 34.94 34.24 33.37 32.50 32.50 32.50 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 46.17 47.37 48.99 50.00 50.17 50.62 50.70 SW Supply 12.79 13.09 14.13 14.37 14.44 14.44 14.42 LW Supply 2.32 2.44 2.63 2.75 2.82 2.86 2.88 GW Supply 15.91 15.86 12.97 13.19 13.31 13.47 13.47 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 34.74 35.61 36.51 37.10 37.35 37.57 37.55 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.84 3.99 4.09 Shortage Irrigation 9.36 9.45 9.48 9.37 8.99 9.07 9.07 Total Shortage 11.43 11.76 12.47 12.90 12.83 13.06 13.16
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.84 3.99 4.09 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.43 8.46 9.14 9.58 9.78
P25 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 32.55 32.90 32.28 31.49 30.66 30.66 30.66 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 43.99 45.33 47.03 48.12 48.33 48.78 48.86 SW Supply 14.89 15.25 15.87 16.04 16.10 16.13 16.11 LW Supply 3.06 3.21 3.49 3.72 3.86 3.94 3.96 GW Supply 15.42 15.39 12.90 13.18 13.25 13.41 13.43 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 37.08 38.06 39.04 39.73 40.00 40.26 40.29 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.84 3.99 4.09 Shortage Irrigation 4.84 4.95 4.99 4.86 4.49 4.51 4.47 Total Shortage 6.91 7.26 7.98 8.39 8.33 8.50 8.56
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.84 3.99 4.09 Supply 5.82 6.27 7.43 8.46 9.14 9.58 9.78
TABLE A4.1-11: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE - HUAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 66.95 65.61 64.12 61.71 60.03 60.03 60.03 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 86.29 86.33 89.44 91.71 91.83 91.83 92.55 SW Supply 9.74 9.79 12.16 12.52 10.72 10.78 10.77 LW Supply 13.48 13.66 12.10 12.36 14.20 14.04 14.10 GW Supply 18.49 18.90 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98 21.98 Transfer 12.87 13.03 13.39 13.14 13.01 12.96 13.15 Total Supply 54.57 55.37 59.62 60.01 59.92 59.76 60.00 Priority Shortage 2.17 2.30 3.29 4.45 4.41 4.58 4.52 Shortage Irrigation 28.06 28.65 27.02 27.25 27.51 27.50 28.02 Total Shortage 30.23 30.95 30.31 31.70 31.92 32.08 32.54 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 57 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.17 2.30 3.29 4.45 4.41 4.58 4.52 Supply 7.91 8.86 11.59 13.55 14.68 14.50 14.92
P75 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 52.41 51.18 49.90 48.02 46.76 46.76 46.76 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 71.75 71.90 75.22 78.02 78.56 78.56 79.28 SW Supply 10.66 9.93 10.77 10.87 11.08 11.00 11.21 LW Supply 24.04 23.84 18.34 19.66 20.14 20.31 20.32 GW Supply 18.10 18.62 21.42 21.50 21.55 21.45 21.57 Transfer 9.35 9.79 13.79 13.86 13.95 13.89 13.96 Total Supply 62.15 62.18 64.32 65.88 66.72 66.65 67.06 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.71 3.56 3.35 3.42 3.57 Shortage Irrigation 7.49 7.99 8.19 8.58 8.48 8.48 8.65 Total Shortage 9.60 10.23 10.90 12.14 11.83 11.90 12.22
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.71 3.56 3.35 3.42 3.57 Supply 7.97 8.92 12.17 14.44 15.73 15.66 15.87
P50 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 44.27 43.11 41.89 40.34 39.24 39.24 39.24 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 SW Supply 10.02 9.47 11.08 12.18 13.42 13.18 13.03 LW Supply 24.66 24.28 20.39 21.33 21.20 21.52 22.08 GW Supply 16.52 16.67 19.29 19.31 19.38 19.38 19.48 Transfer 9.20 9.49 12.71 12.97 12.92 12.80 12.81 Total Supply 60.40 59.90 63.47 65.79 66.93 66.89 67.40 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.40 2.97 2.62 2.66 2.86 Shortage Irrigation 1.09 1.70 1.34 1.59 1.50 1.50 1.50 Total Shortage 3.20 3.94 3.74 4.56 4.12 4.16 4.36
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.40 2.97 2.62 2.66 2.86 Supply 7.97 8.92 12.48 15.03 16.46 16.42 16.58
P25 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 39.28 38.15 36.94 35.59 34.62 34.62 34.62 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 58.62 58.87 62.26 65.59 66.42 66.42 67.14 SW Supply 6.09 4.53 8.88 9.99 10.11 10.10 10.30 LW Supply 26.97 27.92 19.73 21.15 22.23 22.42 22.74 GW Supply 15.58 15.85 18.48 18.46 18.38 18.36 18.44 Transfer 7.83 8.17 12.90 13.16 13.11 12.99 13.00 Total Supply 56.48 56.48 59.99 62.75 63.83 63.87 64.47 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.24 2.50 2.54 2.51 2.63 Shortage Irrigation 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 Total Shortage 2.14 2.41 2.27 2.53 2.59 2.56 2.68
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 2.24 2.50 2.54 2.51 2.63 Supply 7.97 8.92 12.64 15.50 16.54 16.58 16.81 58 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
TABLE A4.1-12: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE - YELLOW RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 38.45 38.16 37.35 36.03 35.08 35.08 35.08 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 48.70 49.57 52.10 54.24 54.95 55.86 56.04 SW Supply 16.80 17.66 17.34 16.64 16.75 16.95 17.03 LW Supply 6.71 4.07 5.21 5.45 5.95 6.15 6.07 GW Supply 12.90 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 36.40 36.95 37.77 37.31 37.92 38.31 38.32 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Shortage Irrigation 10.73 11.02 13.23 15.93 15.82 16.13 16.27 Total Shortage 12.30 12.62 14.33 16.93 17.03 17.55 17.72
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Supply 5.12 5.82 8.48 10.63 11.64 11.97 11.87
P75 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 35.70 35.45 34.69 33.43 32.53 32.53 32.53 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 45.95 46.86 49.44 51.64 52.40 53.31 53.49 SW Supply 16.12 16.90 17.28 17.15 17.01 17.19 17.38 LW Supply 5.57 3.41 5.92 7.05 7.62 7.70 7.76 GW Supply 12.93 15.22 14.81 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.11 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.62 35.53 38.01 39.43 39.85 40.11 40.25 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Shortage Irrigation 9.76 9.53 10.69 11.72 11.93 12.38 12.38 Total Shortage 11.33 11.33 11.43 12.21 12.55 13.20 13.24
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Supply 5.12 5.62 8.84 11.14 12.23 12.57 12.46
P50 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 33.31 33.12 32.30 31.08 30.21 30.21 30.21 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 43.56 44.53 47.05 49.29 50.08 50.99 51.17 SW Supply 15.61 16.83 16.79 17.22 17.37 17.56 16.98 LW Supply 6.26 4.00 5.60 7.08 7.68 7.84 7.57 GW Supply 13.01 14.89 15.08 14.66 14.29 14.21 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.89 35.72 37.47 38.96 39.34 39.61 39.77 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Shortage Irrigation 7.10 7.41 9.17 10.27 10.61 11.13 11.12 Total Shortage 8.67 8.81 9.58 10.33 10.74 11.38 11.40
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Supply 5.12 6.02 9.17 11.57 12.72 13.14 13.04 0.69 0.82 1.24 1.70 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 59 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P25 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.92 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 31.89 31.70 30.95 29.84 29.01 29.01 29.01 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 42.14 43.11 45.70 48.37 48.88 49.79 49.97 SW Supply 15.12 16.02 16.16 16.34 16.37 16.45 16.57 LW Supply 6.28 4.11 5.73 7.28 7.29 7.51 7.54 GW Supply 13.01 15.22 15.18 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.42 35.36 37.07 38.84 38.89 39.18 39.32 Priority Shortage 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Shortage Irrigation 6.25 6.65 8.44 9.53 9.92 10.52 10.55 Total Shortage 7.72 7.75 8.64 9.53 9.99 10.61 10.65
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Supply 5.22 6.32 9.39 11.63 12.78 13.30 13.22
TABLE A4.1-13: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE + S-N-E - HAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 44.16 44.13 43.41 42.25 41.05 41.05 41.05 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 55.60 56.56 58.16 58.88 58.72 59.17 59.25 SW Supply 9.57 9.66 9.77 9.89 9.94 9.94 9.95 LW Supply 1.51 1.59 1.70 1.77 1.81 1.83 1.82 GW Supply 16.38 16.48 17.48 19.25 19.36 19.49 19.47 Transfer 3.71 4.22 4.02 4.97 5.57 5.37 5.30 Total Supply 31.17 31.95 32.97 35.87 36.67 36.63 36.55 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.31 2.36 2.65 2.81 2.91 Shortage Irrigation 22.36 22.31 22.87 20.64 19.40 19.72 19.79 Total Shortage 24.43 24.62 25.18 23.00 22.05 22.53 22.70
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.31 2.36 2.65 2.81 2.91 Supply 5.82 6.27 8.10 9.63 10.33 10.76 10.95
P75 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 37.48 37.55 36.79 35.80 34.92 34.92 34.92 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 48.92 49.98 51.54 52.43 52.59 53.04 53.12 SW Supply 10.53 10.65 11.15 11.38 11.48 11.55 11.58 LW Supply 1.79 1.89 2.03 2.10 2.12 2.13 2.11 GW Supply 15.94 15.94 16.75 18.37 18.41 18.46 18.43 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 31.97 32.71 36.72 38.63 38.80 38.93 38.91 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.32 2.59 2.74 2.84 Shortage Irrigation 14.88 14.97 12.54 11.47 11.21 11.36 11.38 Total Shortage 16.95 17.28 14.83 13.79 13.80 14.10 14.22
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.32 2.59 2.74 2.84 Supply 5.82 6.27 8.13 9.67 10.39 10.83 11.03 60 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
P50 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 34.73 34.94 34.24 33.37 32.50 32.50 32.50 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 46.17 47.37 48.99 50.00 50.17 50.62 50.70 SW Supply 12.79 13.09 14.13 14.39 14.45 14.46 14.44 LW Supply 2.32 2.44 2.63 2.75 2.82 2.86 2.88 GW Supply 15.91 15.86 13.67 15.46 15.61 15.77 15.77 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 34.74 35.61 37.21 39.38 39.67 39.88 39.87 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.31 2.58 2.73 2.83 Shortage Irrigation 9.36 9.45 9.48 8.32 7.94 7.99 8.00 Total Shortage 11.43 11.76 11.77 10.63 10.52 10.72 10.83
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.31 2.58 2.73 2.83 Supply 5.82 6.27 8.13 9.68 10.40 10.84 11.04
P25 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 32.55 32.90 32.28 31.49 30.66 30.66 30.66 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 43.99 45.33 47.03 48.12 48.33 48.78 48.86 SW Supply 14.89 15.25 15.84 16.05 16.12 16.15 16.12 LW Supply 3.06 3.21 3.51 3.72 3.85 3.93 3.96 GW Supply 15.42 15.39 13.60 15.45 15.55 15.71 15.74 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 37.08 38.06 39.74 42.01 42.31 42.57 42.60 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.31 2.58 2.73 2.83 Shortage Irrigation 4.84 4.95 4.99 3.81 3.44 3.47 3.42 Total Shortage 6.91 7.26 7.28 6.12 6.02 6.20 6.25
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.31 2.58 2.73 2.83 Supply 5.82 6.27 8.13 9.68 10.40 10.84 11.04
TABLE A4.1-14: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE + S-N-E - HUAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 66.95 65.61 64.12 61.71 60.03 60.03 60.03 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 86.29 86.33 89.44 91.71 91.83 91.83 92.55 SW Supply 9.74 9.79 10.14 10.81 10.78 10.82 10.85 LW Supply 13.48 13.66 13.29 12.91 12.95 12.92 12.94 GW Supply 18.49 18.90 25.37 27.17 27.18 27.06 27.06 Transfer 12.87 13.03 13.39 13.14 13.01 12.96 13.15 Total Supply 54.57 55.37 62.19 64.04 63.92 63.76 64.00 Priority Shortage 2.17 2.30 2.01 2.16 2.02 2.19 2.18 Shortage Irrigation 28.06 28.65 25.73 25.52 25.90 25.87 26.39 Total Shortage 30.23 30.95 27.74 27.68 27.92 28.06 28.57 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 61 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.17 2.30 2.01 2.16 2.02 2.19 2.18 Supply 7.91 8.86 12.87 15.84 17.06 16.89 17.26
P75 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 52.41 51.18 49.90 48.02 46.76 46.76 46.76 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 71.75 71.90 75.22 78.02 78.56 78.56 79.28 SW Supply 10.66 9.93 10.79 10.73 11.48 11.32 11.38 LW Supply 24.04 23.84 18.16 19.24 19.55 19.61 19.87 GW Supply 18.10 18.62 23.48 24.97 24.65 24.67 24.86 Transfer 9.35 9.79 13.79 13.92 13.88 13.89 13.88 Total Supply 62.15 62.18 66.22 68.85 69.56 69.50 69.98 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 1.77 1.89 1.56 1.62 1.70 Shortage Irrigation 7.49 7.99 7.24 7.29 7.46 7.46 7.62 Total Shortage 9.60 10.23 9.01 9.18 9.02 9.08 9.32
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 1.77 1.89 1.56 1.62 1.70 Supply 7.97 8.92 13.12 16.12 17.52 17.46 17.74
P50 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 44.27 43.11 41.89 40.34 39.24 39.24 39.24 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 SW Supply 10.02 9.47 11.19 11.93 12.58 12.23 12.64 LW Supply 24.66 24.28 20.05 21.19 21.48 21.87 21.89 GW Supply 16.52 16.67 21.41 22.60 22.60 22.59 22.80 Transfer 9.20 9.49 12.71 12.97 12.92 12.80 12.81 Total Supply 60.40 59.90 65.35 68.69 69.58 69.49 70.14 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 1.47 1.44 1.37 1.46 1.54 Shortage Irrigation 1.09 1.70 0.38 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 Total Shortage 3.20 3.94 1.85 1.66 1.47 1.56 1.63
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 1.47 1.44 1.37 1.46 1.54 Supply 7.97 8.92 13.41 16.56 17.71 17.62 17.91
P25 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 39.28 38.15 36.94 35.59 34.62 34.62 34.62 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 58.62 58.87 62.26 65.59 66.42 66.42 67.14 SW Supply 6.09 4.53 9.57 9.39 9.58 9.58 9.84 LW Supply 26.97 27.92 17.84 19.85 20.88 21.05 21.39 GW Supply 15.58 15.85 20.45 21.78 21.75 21.74 21.80 Transfer 7.83 8.17 12.90 13.16 13.07 12.95 12.96 Total Supply 56.48 56.48 60.76 64.18 65.28 65.31 65.98 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 1.47 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.12 Shortage Irrigation 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 Total Shortage 2.14 2.41 1.50 1.10 1.15 1.12 1.17
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 1.47 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.12 Supply 7.97 8.92 13.41 16.93 17.98 18.01 18.32 62 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
TABLE A4.1-15: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE + S-N-E - YELLOW RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 38.45 38.16 37.35 36.03 35.08 35.08 35.08 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 48.70 49.57 52.10 54.24 54.95 55.86 56.04 SW Supply 16.80 17.66 17.34 16.64 16.75 16.95 17.03 LW Supply 6.71 4.07 5.21 5.45 5.95 6.15 6.07 GW Supply 12.90 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 36.40 36.95 37.77 37.31 37.92 38.31 38.32 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Shortage Irrigation 10.73 11.02 13.23 15.93 15.82 16.13 16.27 Total Shortage 12.30 12.62 14.33 16.93 17.03 17.55 17.72
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Supply 5.12 5.82 8.48 10.63 11.64 11.97 11.87
P75 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 35.70 35.45 34.69 33.43 32.53 32.53 32.53 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 45.95 46.86 49.44 51.64 52.40 53.31 53.49 SW Supply 16.12 16.90 17.28 17.15 17.01 17.19 17.38 LW Supply 5.57 3.41 5.92 7.05 7.62 7.70 7.76 GW Supply 12.93 15.22 14.81 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.11 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.62 35.53 38.01 39.43 39.85 40.11 40.25 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Shortage Irrigation 9.76 9.53 10.69 11.72 11.93 12.38 12.38 Total Shortage 11.33 11.33 11.43 12.21 12.55 13.20 13.24
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Supply 5.12 5.62 8.84 11.14 12.23 12.57 12.46
P50 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 33.31 33.12 32.30 31.08 30.21 30.21 30.21 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 43.56 44.53 47.05 49.29 50.08 50.99 51.17 SW Supply 15.61 16.83 16.79 17.22 17.37 17.56 16.98 LW Supply 6.26 4.00 5.60 7.08 7.68 7.84 7.57 GW Supply 13.01 14.89 15.08 14.66 14.29 14.21 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.89 35.72 37.47 38.96 39.34 39.61 39.77 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Shortage Irrigation 7.10 7.41 9.17 10.27 10.61 11.13 11.12 Total Shortage 8.67 8.81 9.58 10.33 10.74 11.38 11.40
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Supply 5.12 6.02 9.17 11.57 12.72 13.14 13.04 0.69 0.82 1.24 1.70 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 63 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P25 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.92 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 31.89 31.70 30.95 29.84 29.01 29.01 29.01 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 42.14 43.11 45.70 48.37 48.88 49.79 49.97 SW Supply 15.12 16.02 16.16 16.34 16.37 16.45 16.57 LW Supply 6.28 4.11 5.73 7.28 7.29 7.51 7.54 GW Supply 13.01 15.22 15.18 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.42 35.36 37.07 38.84 38.89 39.18 39.32 Priority Shortage 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Shortage Irrigation 6.25 6.65 8.44 9.53 9.92 10.52 10.55 Total Shortage 7.72 7.75 8.64 9.53 9.99 10.61 10.65
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Supply 5.22 6.32 9.39 11.63 12.78 13.30 13.22
TABLE A4.1-16: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE + S-N - HAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 44.16 44.13 43.41 42.25 41.05 41.05 41.05 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 55.60 56.56 58.16 58.88 58.72 59.17 59.25 SW Supply 9.57 9.66 9.77 10.11 10.19 10.19 10.20 LW Supply 1.51 1.59 1.70 1.77 1.81 1.83 1.82 GW Supply 16.38 16.48 18.18 24.15 25.28 25.48 25.44 Transfer 3.71 4.22 4.02 4.97 5.57 5.37 5.30 Total Supply 31.17 31.95 33.67 41.00 42.85 42.87 42.77 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 1.61 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Shortage Irrigation 22.36 22.31 22.87 17.27 15.79 16.12 16.23 Total Shortage 24.43 24.62 24.48 17.87 15.88 16.29 16.48
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 1.61 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Supply 5.82 6.27 8.80 11.39 12.89 13.40 13.61
P75 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 37.48 37.55 36.79 35.80 34.92 34.92 34.92 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 48.92 49.98 51.54 52.43 52.59 53.04 53.12 SW Supply 10.53 10.65 11.15 11.41 11.52 11.60 11.63 LW Supply 1.79 1.89 2.03 2.09 2.12 2.13 2.11 GW Supply 15.94 15.94 17.45 21.86 22.83 22.98 22.94 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 31.97 32.71 37.42 42.16 43.27 43.50 43.46 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Shortage Irrigation 14.88 14.97 12.54 9.69 9.23 9.36 9.42 Total Shortage 16.95 17.28 14.13 10.29 9.32 9.53 9.67
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Supply 5.82 6.27 8.83 11.39 12.89 13.40 13.61 64 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
P50 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 34.73 34.94 34.24 33.37 32.50 32.50 32.50 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 46.17 47.37 48.99 50.00 50.17 50.62 50.70 SW Supply 12.79 13.09 14.13 14.39 14.44 14.47 14.45 LW Supply 2.32 2.44 2.63 2.75 2.83 2.87 2.88 GW Supply 15.91 15.86 14.37 18.19 19.18 19.37 19.36 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 34.74 35.61 37.91 42.12 43.24 43.50 43.47 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Shortage Irrigation 9.36 9.45 9.48 7.28 6.86 6.95 6.98 Total Shortage 11.43 11.76 11.07 7.88 6.95 7.12 7.23
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Supply 5.82 6.27 8.83 11.39 12.89 13.40 13.61
P25 Urban Life 2.61 2.90 3.77 4.73 5.53 6.22 6.74 Urban Industry 5.28 5.68 6.64 7.26 7.45 7.35 7.13 Rural Life 1.72 1.84 1.96 2.06 2.10 1.97 1.81 Rural Industry 1.35 1.50 1.84 2.05 2.08 2.08 2.06 Irrigation 32.55 32.90 32.28 31.49 30.66 30.66 30.66 Livestock 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.47 Fisheries/ Pasture 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Demand 43.99 45.33 47.03 48.12 48.33 48.78 48.86 SW Supply 14.89 15.25 15.84 16.05 16.11 16.14 16.12 LW Supply 3.06 3.21 3.51 3.74 3.87 3.95 3.98 GW Supply 15.42 15.39 14.31 17.80 18.54 18.76 18.77 Transfer 3.71 4.22 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 Total Supply 37.08 38.06 40.44 44.38 45.31 45.64 45.66 Priority Shortage 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Shortage Irrigation 4.84 4.95 4.99 3.14 2.94 2.95 2.95 Total Shortage 6.91 7.26 6.58 3.74 3.03 3.12 3.20
Demand Urban 7.89 8.58 10.41 11.99 12.98 13.57 13.87 Urban Shortage 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Supply 5.82 6.27 8.83 11.39 12.89 13.40 13.61
TABLE A4.1-17: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE + S-N - HUAI RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 66.95 65.61 64.12 61.71 60.03 60.03 60.03 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 86.29 86.33 89.44 91.71 91.83 91.83 92.55 SW Supply 9.74 9.79 10.97 11.06 11.28 11.46 11.45 LW Supply 13.48 13.66 12.98 13.11 12.95 12.84 12.93 GW Supply 18.49 18.90 26.74 29.67 29.83 29.94 29.93 Transfer 12.87 13.03 13.39 13.14 13.01 12.96 13.15 Total Supply 54.57 55.37 64.07 66.98 67.07 67.20 67.46 Priority Shortage 2.17 2.30 1.49 0.63 0.44 0.44 0.36 Shortage Irrigation 28.06 28.65 24.39 24.12 24.31 24.20 24.74 Total Shortage 30.23 30.95 25.88 24.75 24.75 24.64 25.10 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 65 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.17 2.30 1.49 0.63 0.44 0.44 0.36 Supply 7.91 8.86 13.39 17.37 18.64 18.65 19.08
P75 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 52.41 51.18 49.90 48.02 46.76 46.76 46.76 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 71.75 71.90 75.22 78.02 78.56 78.56 79.28 SW Supply 10.66 9.93 10.76 10.67 11.41 11.32 11.31 LW Supply 24.04 23.84 17.55 18.87 18.79 18.86 19.16 GW Supply 18.10 18.62 25.13 27.47 27.48 27.59 27.78 Transfer 9.35 9.79 13.79 13.92 13.89 13.86 13.90 Total Supply 62.15 62.18 67.22 70.92 71.57 71.63 72.15 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 1.26 0.39 0.08 0.02 0.03 Shortage Irrigation 7.49 7.99 6.74 6.70 6.92 6.92 7.11 Total Shortage 9.60 10.23 8.00 7.09 7.00 6.94 7.14
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 1.26 0.39 0.08 0.02 0.03 Supply 7.97 8.92 13.62 17.61 19.00 19.06 19.41
P50 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 44.27 43.11 41.89 40.34 39.24 39.24 39.24 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 SW Supply 10.02 9.47 10.40 11.08 11.61 11.62 12.07 LW Supply 24.66 24.28 19.81 20.97 21.16 21.03 21.13 GW Supply 16.52 16.67 22.95 25.11 25.26 25.49 25.66 Transfer 9.20 9.49 12.71 12.97 12.92 12.80 12.81 Total Supply 60.40 59.90 65.87 70.12 70.95 70.95 71.67 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 0.95 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shortage Irrigation 1.09 1.70 0.38 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 Total Shortage 3.20 3.94 1.33 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.10
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 0.95 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supply 7.97 8.92 13.94 17.99 19.08 19.08 19.44
P25 Urban Life 2.40 2.52 3.12 3.96 4.80 5.40 6.12 Urban Industry 7.68 8.64 11.76 14.04 14.28 13.68 13.32 Rural Life 3.00 2.40 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 2.52 Rural Industry 1.68 2.28 2.64 3.48 3.96 3.96 4.08 Irrigation 39.28 38.15 36.94 35.59 34.62 34.62 34.62 Livestock 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.20 1.44 1.44 1.68 Fisheries/ Pasture 3.50 3.80 4.20 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 Total Demand 58.62 58.87 62.26 65.59 66.42 66.42 67.14 SW Supply 6.09 4.53 8.88 8.93 8.95 8.90 9.22 LW Supply 26.97 27.92 17.45 18.85 19.83 19.83 20.10 GW Supply 15.58 15.85 22.03 24.29 24.38 24.61 24.74 Transfer 7.83 8.17 12.90 13.16 13.07 12.95 12.96 Total Supply 56.48 56.48 61.26 65.23 66.24 66.29 67.01 Priority Shortage 2.11 2.24 0.97 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.09 Shortage Irrigation 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 Total Shortage 2.14 2.41 1.00 0.05 0.19 0.14 0.14
Demand Urban 10.08 11.16 14.88 18.00 19.08 19.08 19.44 Urban Shortage 2.11 2.24 0.97 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.09 Supply 7.97 8.92 13.91 17.98 18.94 18.99 19.35 66 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
TABLE A4.1-18: EFFICIENCY 10% + REUSE + HIGH PRICE + S-N - YELLOW RIVER BASIN
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P95 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 38.45 38.16 37.35 36.03 35.08 35.08 35.08 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 48.70 49.57 52.10 54.24 54.95 55.86 56.04 SW Supply 16.80 17.66 17.34 16.64 16.75 16.95 17.03 LW Supply 6.71 4.07 5.21 5.45 5.95 6.15 6.07 GW Supply 12.90 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 36.40 36.95 37.77 37.31 37.92 38.31 38.32 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Shortage Irrigation 10.73 11.02 13.23 15.93 15.82 16.13 16.27 Total Shortage 12.30 12.62 14.33 16.93 17.03 17.55 17.72
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Supply 5.12 5.82 8.48 10.63 11.64 11.97 11.87
P75 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 35.70 35.45 34.69 33.43 32.53 32.53 32.53 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 45.95 46.86 49.44 51.64 52.40 53.31 53.49 SW Supply 16.12 16.90 17.28 17.15 17.01 17.19 17.38 LW Supply 5.57 3.41 5.92 7.05 7.62 7.70 7.76 GW Supply 12.93 15.22 14.81 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.11 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.62 35.53 38.01 39.43 39.85 40.11 40.25 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Shortage Irrigation 9.76 9.53 10.69 11.72 11.93 12.38 12.38 Total Shortage 11.33 11.33 11.43 12.21 12.55 13.20 13.24
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Supply 5.12 5.62 8.84 11.14 12.23 12.57 12.46
P50 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 33.31 33.12 32.30 31.08 30.21 30.21 30.21 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 43.56 44.53 47.05 49.29 50.08 50.99 51.17 SW Supply 15.61 16.83 16.79 17.22 17.37 17.56 16.98 LW Supply 6.26 4.00 5.60 7.08 7.68 7.84 7.57 GW Supply 13.01 14.89 15.08 14.66 14.29 14.21 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.89 35.72 37.47 38.96 39.34 39.61 39.77 Priority Shortage 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Shortage Irrigation 7.10 7.41 9.17 10.27 10.61 11.13 11.12 Total Shortage 8.67 8.81 9.58 10.33 10.74 11.38 11.40
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Supply 5.12 6.02 9.17 11.57 12.72 13.14 13.04 0.69 0.82 1.24 1.70 Annex 4.1: Statistics Related to Water Resources 67 (Demand by Sectors, Supply by Source)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 P25 Urban Life 1.48 1.62 2.06 2.52 2.98 3.39 3.71 Urban Industry 5.21 5.80 7.52 9.11 9.87 10.00 9.61 Rural Life 1.16 1.05 1.13 1.26 1.27 1.36 1.39 Rural Industry 0.69 0.82 1.19 1.92 1.92 2.10 2.22 Irrigation 31.89 31.70 30.95 29.84 29.01 29.01 29.01 Livestock 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.89 0.99 Fisheries/ Pasture 1.25 1.59 2.27 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 Total Demand 42.14 43.11 45.70 48.37 48.88 49.79 49.97 SW Supply 15.12 16.02 16.16 16.34 16.37 16.45 16.57 LW Supply 6.28 4.11 5.73 7.28 7.29 7.51 7.54 GW Supply 13.01 15.22 15.18 15.22 15.22 15.22 15.22 Transfer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Supply 34.42 35.36 37.07 38.84 38.89 39.18 39.32 Priority Shortage 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Shortage Irrigation 6.25 6.65 8.44 9.53 9.92 10.52 10.55 Total Shortage 7.72 7.75 8.64 9.53 9.99 10.61 10.65
Demand Urban 6.69 7.42 9.58 11.63 12.85 13.39 13.32 Urban Shortage 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Supply 5.22 6.32 9.39 11.63 12.78 13.30 13.22 68 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin)
ANNEX 4.2: STATISTICS RELATED TO WATER RESOURCES (BY BASIN)
TABLE A4.2-1: 3-H SUMMARY - BASE CASE (Bcm/year)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL DEMANDS 95% Probability Hai 55.60 56.56 59.67 62.07 63.52 64.38 65.11 Huai 86.29 86.33 92.06 97.01 99.17 99.89 101.69 Yellow 48.70 49.57 53.47 57.26 59.13 60.46 61.23 Total 190.59 192.46 205.20 216.34 221.82 224.73 228.03 75% Probability Hai 48.92 49.98 52.87 55.26 56.71 57.57 58.30 Huai 71.75 71.90 77.44 82.36 84.52 85.24 87.04 Yellow 45.95 46.86 50.65 54.41 56.28 57.61 58.38 Total 166.62 168.74 180.96 192.03 197.51 200.42 203.72 50% Probability Hai 46.17 47.37 50.35 52.74 54.19 55.05 55.78 Huai 63.61 63.83 69.18 74.13 76.29 77.01 78.81 Yellow 43.56 44.53 48.23 51.96 53.83 55.16 55.93 Total 153.34 155.73 167.76 178.83 184.31 187.22 190.52 25% Probability Hai 43.99 45.33 48.24 50.63 52.08 52.94 53.67 Huai 58.62 58.87 64.13 69.07 71.23 71.95 73.75 Yellow 42.14 43.11 46.88 50.95 52.47 53.80 54.57 Total 144.75 147.31 159.25 170.65 175.78 178.69 181.99 3-H Total Demand 95% Probability 190.59 192.46 205.20 216.34 221.82 224.73 228.03 75% Probability 166.62 168.74 180.96 192.03 197.51 200.42 203.72 50% Probability 153.34 155.73 167.76 178.83 184.31 187.22 190.52 25% Probability 144.75 147.31 159.25 170.65 175.78 178.69 181.99 3-H Priority Demands 95% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 75% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 50% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 25% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 TOTAL SUPPLY 95% Probability Hai 31.17 31.95 32.67 32.33 33.15 32.89 32.63 Huai 54.57 55.37 59.69 60.07 60.41 60.62 60.48 Yellow 36.40 36.95 38.59 39.27 39.68 39.99 40.18 Total 122.13 124.27 130.94 131.67 133.24 133.50 133.28 75% Probability Hai 31.97 32.71 36.11 36.49 36.69 36.87 36.95 Huai 62.15 62.18 66.34 68.25 69.24 69.49 70.10 Yellow 34.62 35.53 37.76 38.92 39.41 39.74 40.00 Total 128.74 130.41 140.21 143.67 145.35 146.10 147.04 50% Probability Hai 34.74 35.61 36.95 38.01 38.71 39.11 39.38 Huai 63.61 63.83 69.18 74.13 76.29 77.01 78.81 Yellow 34.89 35.72 37.11 38.30 38.85 39.15 39.41 Total 133.24 135.16 143.24 150.44 153.85 155.28 157.60 25% Probability Hai 37.08 38.06 39.60 40.83 41.53 41.94 42.21 Huai 56.48 56.48 60.64 63.57 65.01 65.32 66.27 Yellow 34.42 35.36 36.62 38.21 38.44 38.76 39.03 Total 127.98 129.89 136.85 142.61 144.98 146.02 147.50 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin) 69
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 3-H Supply 95% Probability 122.13 124.27 130.94 131.67 133.24 133.50 133.28 75% Probability 128.74 130.41 140.21 143.67 145.35 146.10 147.04 50% Probability 133.24 135.16 143.24 150.44 153.85 155.28 157.60 25% Probability 127.98 129.89 136.85 142.61 144.98 146.02 147.50 TOTAL SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 24.43 24.62 27.01 29.74 30.39 31.48 32.49 Huai 30.23 30.95 32.88 36.95 38.78 39.29 41.21 Yellow 12.30 12.62 14.88 18.00 19.45 20.47 21.06 Total 66.96 68.19 74.77 84.68 88.62 91.23 94.75 75% Probability Hai 16.95 17.28 16.75 18.76 20.00 20.71 21.36 Huai 9.60 10.23 11.09 14.10 15.27 15.74 16.96 Yellow 11.33 11.33 12.89 15.49 16.87 17.87 18.38 Total 37.88 38.84 40.73 48.35 52.14 54.32 56.70 50% Probability Hai 11.43 11.76 13.41 14.74 15.47 15.94 16.39 Huai 3.20 3.94 4.87 7.06 7.78 8.20 9.06 Yellow 8.67 8.81 11.12 13.66 14.98 16.01 16.53 Total 23.30 24.51 29.40 35.46 38.23 40.15 41.97 25% Probability Hai 6.91 7.26 8.65 9.80 10.53 11.01 11.46 Huai 2.14 2.41 3.49 5.20 6.22 6.63 7.49 Yellow 7.72 7.75 10.26 12.74 14.03 15.04 15.54 Total 16.77 17.42 22.40 27.74 30.78 32.68 34.49 3-H Basin 95% Probability 66.96 68.19 74.77 84.68 88.62 91.23 94.75 75% Probability 37.88 38.84 40.73 48.35 52.14 54.32 56.70 50% Probability 23.30 24.51 29.40 35.46 38.23 40.15 41.97 25% Probability 16.77 17.42 22.40 27.74 30.78 32.68 34.49 URBAN AND PRIORITY SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 5.09 Huai 2.17 2.30 4.19 6.41 7.02 7.39 8.32 Yellow 1.57 1.60 1.89 2.82 3.42 3.86 4.06 Total 5.81 6.21 9.19 12.96 14.64 15.74 17.46 75% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Huai 2.11 2.24 3.43 5.33 6.05 6.43 7.05 Yellow 1.57 1.80 1.83 2.68 3.23 3.66 3.86 Total 5.75 6.35 8.34 11.70 13.41 14.51 15.64 50% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Huai 2.11 2.24 3.36 5.21 5.93 6.31 6.93 Yellow 1.57 1.40 1.78 2.53 3.01 3.45 3.65 Total 5.75 5.95 8.22 11.43 13.06 14.16 15.28 25% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Huai 2.11 2.24 3.42 5.02 6.04 6.42 7.04 Yellow 1.47 1.10 1.68 2.34 2.70 3.08 3.29 Total 5.65 5.65 8.18 11.05 12.86 13.90 15.04 3-H Basin 95% Probability 5.81 6.21 9.19 12.96 14.64 15.74 17.46 75% Probability 5.75 6.35 8.34 11.70 13.41 14.51 15.64 50% Probability 5.75 5.95 8.22 11.43 13.06 14.16 15.28 25% Probability 5.65 5.65 8.18 11.05 12.86 13.90 15.04 70 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin)
TABLE A4.2-2: 3-H SUMMARY - EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT (Bcm/year)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL DEMANDS 95% Probability Hai 55.60 56.56 58.45 59.38 59.63 60.49 61.22 Huai 86.29 86.33 90.16 92.67 93.15 93.87 95.67 Yellow 48.70 49.57 52.33 54.69 55.61 56.94 57.71 Total 190.59 192.46 200.94 206.74 208.39 211.30 214.60 75% Probability Hai 48.92 49.98 51.83 52.93 53.50 54.36 55.09 Huai 71.75 71.90 75.94 78.98 79.88 80.60 82.40 Yellow 45.95 46.86 49.67 52.09 53.06 54.39 55.16 Total 166.62 168.74 177.44 184.00 186.44 189.35 192.65 50% Probability Hai 46.17 47.37 49.28 50.50 51.08 51.94 52.67 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.93 71.30 72.36 73.08 74.88 Yellow 43.56 44.53 47.28 49.74 50.74 52.07 52.84 Total 153.34 155.73 164.49 171.54 174.18 177.09 180.39 25% Probability Hai 43.99 45.33 47.32 48.62 49.24 50.10 50.83 Huai 58.62 58.87 62.98 66.55 67.74 68.46 70.26 Yellow 42.14 43.11 45.93 48.85 49.54 50.87 51.64 Total 144.75 147.31 156.23 164.02 166.52 169.43 172.73 3-H Total Demand 95% Probability 190.59 192.46 200.94 206.74 208.39 211.30 214.60 75% Probability 166.62 168.74 177.44 184.00 186.44 189.35 192.65 50% Probability 153.34 155.73 164.49 171.54 174.18 177.09 180.39 25% Probability 144.75 147.31 156.23 164.02 166.52 169.43 172.73 3-H Priority Demands 95% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 75% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 50% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 25% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 TOTAL SUPPLY 95% Probability Hai 31.17 31.95 32.61 33.38 33.74 33.54 33.79 Huai 54.57 55.37 59.89 59.40 59.75 59.90 59.61 Yellow 36.40 36.95 38.38 38.48 38.84 39.24 39.49 Total 122.13 124.27 130.87 131.26 132.33 132.67 132.88 75% Probability Hai 31.97 32.71 36.06 36.41 36.60 36.78 36.83 Huai 62.15 62.18 65.48 66.31 66.54 66.79 67.41 Yellow 34.62 35.53 37.64 38.61 38.98 39.29 39.56 Total 128.74 130.41 139.18 141.33 142.12 142.86 143.80 50% Probability Hai 34.74 35.61 36.64 37.32 37.74 38.15 38.42 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.93 71.30 72.36 73.08 74.88 Yellow 34.89 35.72 36.98 38.00 38.39 38.70 38.95 Total 133.24 135.16 141.55 146.61 148.49 149.93 152.25 25% Probability Hai 37.08 38.06 39.20 40.00 40.48 40.98 41.29 Huai 56.48 56.48 59.53 61.18 61.66 62.00 63.18 Yellow 34.42 35.36 36.47 37.97 38.01 38.34 38.61 Total 127.98 129.89 135.19 139.15 140.15 141.32 143.07 3-H Supply 95% Probability 122.13 124.27 130.87 131.26 132.33 132.67 132.88 75% Probability 128.74 130.41 139.18 141.33 142.12 142.86 143.80 50% Probability 133.24 135.16 141.55 146.61 148.49 149.93 152.25 25% Probability 127.98 129.89 135.19 139.15 140.15 141.32 143.07 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin) 71
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 24.43 24.62 25.84 26.01 25.87 26.99 27.42 Huai 30.23 30.95 30.78 33.27 33.40 33.97 36.05 Yellow 12.30 12.62 13.96 16.21 16.77 17.70 18.22 Total 66.96 68.19 70.57 75.49 76.04 78.65 81.69 75% Probability Hai 16.95 17.28 15.78 16.52 16.90 17.60 18.25 Huai 9.60 10.23 10.47 12.67 13.35 13.84 14.99 Yellow 11.33 11.33 12.03 13.48 14.08 15.10 15.60 Total 37.88 38.84 38.28 42.68 44.33 46.54 48.84 50% Probability Hai 11.43 11.76 12.64 13.19 13.33 13.80 14.27 Huai 3.20 3.94 4.71 6.68 7.23 7.67 8.53 Yellow 8.67 8.81 10.30 11.75 12.35 13.37 13.89 Total 23.30 24.51 27.65 31.61 32.91 34.84 36.68 25% Probability Hai 6.91 7.26 8.12 8.63 8.76 9.11 9.54 Huai 2.14 2.41 3.45 5.05 6.09 6.47 7.09 Yellow 7.72 7.75 9.46 10.89 11.53 12.53 13.04 Total 16.77 17.42 21.03 24.57 26.39 28.12 29.67 3-H Basin 95% Probability 66.96 68.19 70.57 75.49 76.04 78.65 81.69 75% Probability 37.88 38.84 38.28 42.68 44.33 46.54 48.84 50% Probability 23.30 24.51 27.65 31.61 32.91 34.84 36.68 25% Probability 16.77 17.42 21.03 24.57 26.39 28.12 29.67 URBAN AND PRIORITY SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 4.82 Huai 2.17 2.30 3.88 6.37 6.87 7.20 8.02 Yellow 1.57 1.60 1.90 2.81 3.40 3.84 4.04 Total 5.81 6.21 8.88 12.92 14.47 15.53 16.88 75% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Huai 2.11 2.24 3.43 5.33 6.05 6.43 7.05 Yellow 1.57 1.80 1.83 2.67 3.22 3.65 3.85 Total 5.75 6.35 8.34 11.70 13.40 14.50 15.63 50% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Huai 2.11 2.24 3.36 5.21 5.93 6.31 6.93 Yellow 1.57 1.40 1.78 2.53 3.00 3.44 3.64 Total 5.75 5.95 8.22 11.42 13.05 14.15 15.27 25% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Huai 2.11 2.24 3.42 5.02 6.04 6.42 7.04 Yellow 1.47 1.10 1.68 2.34 2.69 3.07 3.29 Total 5.65 5.65 8.18 11.05 12.86 13.90 15.04 3-H Basin 95% Probability 5.81 6.21 8.88 12.92 14.47 15.53 16.88 75% Probability 5.75 6.35 8.34 11.70 13.40 14.50 15.63 50% Probability 5.75 5.95 8.22 11.42 13.05 14.15 15.27 25% Probability 5.65 5.65 8.18 11.05 12.86 13.90 15.04 72 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin)
TABLE A4.2-3: 3-H SUMMARY - EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT + REUSE (Bcm/year)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL DEMANDS 95% Probability Hai 55.60 56.56 58.45 59.38 59.63 60.49 61.22 Huai 86.29 86.33 90.16 92.67 93.15 93.87 95.67 Yellow 48.70 49.57 52.33 54.69 55.61 56.94 57.71 Total 190.59 192.46 200.94 206.74 208.39 211.30 214.60 75% Probability Hai 48.92 49.98 51.83 52.93 53.50 54.36 55.09 Huai 71.75 71.90 75.94 78.98 79.88 80.60 82.40 Yellow 45.95 46.86 49.67 52.09 53.06 54.39 55.16 Total 166.62 168.74 177.44 184.00 186.44 189.35 192.65 50% Probability Hai 46.17 47.37 49.28 50.50 51.08 51.94 52.67 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.93 71.30 72.36 73.08 74.88 Yellow 43.56 44.53 47.28 49.74 50.74 52.07 52.84 Total 153.34 155.73 164.49 171.54 174.18 177.09 180.39 25% Probability Hai 43.99 45.33 47.32 48.62 49.24 50.10 50.83 Huai 58.62 58.87 62.98 66.55 67.74 68.46 70.26 Yellow 42.14 43.11 45.93 48.85 49.54 50.87 51.64 Total 144.75 147.31 156.23 164.02 166.52 169.43 172.73 3-H Total Demand 95% Probability 190.59 192.46 200.94 206.74 208.39 211.30 214.60 75% Probability 166.62 168.74 177.44 184.00 186.44 189.35 192.65 50% Probability 153.34 155.73 164.49 171.54 174.18 177.09 180.39 25% Probability 144.75 147.31 156.23 164.02 166.52 169.43 172.73 3-H Priority Demands 95% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 75% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 50% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 25% Probability 24.66 27.16 35.64 43.07 47.20 49.59 51.64 TOTAL SUPPLY 95% Probability Hai 31.17 31.95 32.54 33.60 34.52 34.19 34.29 Huai 54.57 55.37 59.67 59.46 59.72 59.86 59.94 Yellow 36.40 36.95 37.84 37.48 38.30 38.60 38.78 Total 122.13 124.27 130.04 130.53 132.54 132.66 133.01 75% Probability Hai 31.97 32.71 36.06 36.41 36.60 36.78 36.83 Huai 62.15 62.18 64.78 66.40 67.32 67.62 68.24 Yellow 34.62 35.53 38.07 39.55 40.06 40.44 40.77 Total 128.74 130.41 138.92 142.35 143.97 144.85 145.85 50% Probability Hai 34.74 35.61 36.64 37.32 37.74 38.15 38.42 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.93 71.30 72.36 73.08 74.88 Yellow 34.89 35.72 37.54 39.12 39.55 39.95 40.30 Total 133.24 135.16 142.10 147.73 149.66 151.17 153.59 25% Probability Hai 37.08 38.06 39.20 40.00 40.48 40.98 41.29 Huai 56.48 56.48 60.58 63.38 64.79 65.29 66.47 Yellow 34.42 35.36 37.14 39.03 39.13 39.55 40.01 Total 127.98 129.89 136.91 142.41 144.40 145.82 147.77 3-H Supply 95% Probability 122.13 124.27 130.04 130.53 132.54 132.66 133.01 75% Probability 128.74 130.41 138.92 142.35 143.97 144.85 145.85 50% Probability 133.24 135.16 142.10 147.73 149.66 151.17 153.59 25% Probability 127.98 129.89 136.91 142.41 144.40 145.82 147.77 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin) 73
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 24.43 24.62 25.92 25.77 25.11 26.29 26.92 Huai 30.23 30.95 31.01 33.20 33.43 34.00 35.74 Yellow 12.30 12.62 14.49 17.22 17.31 18.34 18.93 Total 66.96 68.19 71.42 76.19 75.85 78.63 81.59 75% Probability Hai 16.95 17.28 15.78 16.52 16.90 17.60 18.25 Huai 9.60 10.23 11.17 12.57 12.55 13.00 14.18 Yellow 11.33 11.33 11.60 12.55 13.01 13.95 14.39 Total 37.88 38.84 38.54 41.64 42.46 44.54 46.82 50% Probability Hai 11.43 11.76 12.64 13.19 13.33 13.80 14.27 Huai 3.20 3.94 3.88 4.90 4.63 4.99 5.85 Yellow 8.67 8.81 9.75 10.62 11.19 12.12 12.54 Total 23.30 24.51 26.26 28.71 29.14 30.91 32.66 25% Probability Hai 6.91 7.26 8.12 8.63 8.76 9.11 9.54 Huai 2.14 2.41 2.41 2.86 2.96 3.18 3.79 Yellow 7.72 7.75 8.79 9.82 10.41 11.32 11.63 Total 16.77 17.42 19.32 21.30 22.13 23.61 24.96 3-H Basin 95% Probability 66.96 68.19 71.42 76.19 75.85 78.63 81.59 75% Probability 37.88 38.84 38.54 41.64 42.46 44.54 46.82 50% Probability 23.30 24.51 26.26 28.71 29.14 30.91 32.66 25% Probability 16.77 17.42 19.32 21.30 22.13 23.61 24.96 URBAN AND PRIORITY SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.11 3.74 4.20 4.50 4.82 Huai 2.17 2.30 3.54 5.13 5.09 5.46 6.09 Yellow 1.57 1.60 1.19 1.17 1.43 1.76 1.94 Total 5.81 6.21 7.84 10.04 10.72 11.72 12.85 75% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.13 4.42 4.73 Huai 2.11 2.24 2.85 3.88 3.81 4.13 4.63 Yellow 1.57 1.80 0.82 0.65 0.81 1.12 1.33 Total 5.75 6.35 6.74 8.22 8.75 9.66 10.69 50% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Huai 2.11 2.24 2.54 3.31 3.13 3.45 4.05 Yellow 1.57 1.40 0.48 0.15 0.24 0.47 0.66 Total 5.75 5.95 6.09 7.15 7.48 8.32 9.42 25% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.08 3.69 4.12 4.40 4.71 Huai 2.11 2.24 2.38 2.83 2.91 3.13 3.60 Yellow 1.47 1.10 0.21 0.00 0.09 0.12 0.14 Total 5.65 5.65 5.67 6.51 7.12 7.65 8.45 3-H Basin 95% Probability 5.81 6.21 7.84 10.04 10.72 11.72 12.85 75% Probability 5.75 6.35 6.74 8.22 8.75 9.66 10.69 50% Probability 5.75 5.95 6.09 7.15 7.48 8.32 9.42 25% Probability 5.65 5.65 5.67 6.51 7.12 7.65 8.45 74 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin)
TABLE A4.2-4: 3-H SUMMARY - EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT + REUSE + HIGH PRICE (Bcm/year)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL DEMANDS 95% Probability Hai 55.60 56.56 58.16 58.88 58.72 59.17 59.25 Huai 86.29 86.33 89.44 91.71 91.83 91.83 92.55 Yellow 48.70 49.57 52.10 54.24 54.95 55.86 56.04 Total 190.59 192.46 199.70 204.83 205.50 206.86 207.84 75% Probability Hai 48.92 49.98 51.54 52.43 52.59 53.04 53.12 Huai 71.75 71.90 75.22 78.02 78.56 78.56 79.28 Yellow 45.95 46.86 49.44 51.64 52.40 53.31 53.49 Total 166.62 168.74 176.20 182.09 183.55 184.91 185.89 50% Probability Hai 46.17 47.37 48.99 50.00 50.17 50.62 50.70 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 Yellow 43.56 44.53 47.05 49.29 50.08 50.99 51.17 Total 153.34 155.73 163.25 169.63 171.29 172.65 173.63 25% Probability Hai 43.99 45.33 47.03 48.12 48.33 48.78 48.86 Huai 58.62 58.87 62.26 65.59 66.42 66.42 67.14 Yellow 42.14 43.11 45.70 48.37 48.88 49.79 49.97 Total 144.75 147.31 154.99 162.08 163.63 164.99 165.97 3-H Total Demand 95% Probability 190.59 192.46 199.70 204.83 205.50 206.86 207.84 75% Probability 166.62 168.74 176.20 182.09 183.55 184.91 185.89 50% Probability 153.34 155.73 163.25 169.63 171.29 172.65 173.63 25% Probability 144.75 147.31 154.99 162.08 163.63 164.99 165.97 3-H Priority Demands 95% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 75% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 50% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 25% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 TOTAL SUPPLY 95% Probability Hai 31.17 31.95 32.27 33.58 34.35 34.31 34.22 Huai 54.57 55.37 59.62 60.01 59.92 59.76 60.00 Yellow 36.40 36.95 37.77 37.31 37.92 38.31 38.32 Total 122.13 124.27 129.66 130.90 132.18 132.38 132.54 75% Probability Hai 31.97 32.71 36.02 36.34 36.47 36.60 36.58 Huai 62.15 62.18 64.32 65.88 66.72 66.65 67.06 Yellow 34.62 35.53 38.01 39.43 39.85 40.11 40.25 Total 128.74 130.41 138.34 141.65 143.03 143.35 143.89 50% Probability Hai 34.74 35.61 36.51 37.10 37.35 37.57 37.55 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 Yellow 34.89 35.72 37.47 38.96 39.34 39.61 39.77 Total 133.24 135.16 141.20 146.40 147.73 148.22 149.08 25% Probability Hai 37.08 38.06 39.04 39.73 40.00 40.26 40.29 Huai 56.48 56.48 59.99 62.75 63.83 63.87 64.47 Yellow 34.42 35.36 37.07 38.84 38.89 39.18 39.32 Total 127.98 129.89 136.10 141.32 142.72 143.32 144.09 3-H Supply 95% Probability 122.13 124.27 129.66 130.90 132.18 132.38 132.54 75% Probability 128.74 130.41 138.34 141.65 143.03 143.35 143.89 50% Probability 133.24 135.16 141.20 146.40 147.73 148.22 149.08 25% Probability 127.98 129.89 136.10 141.32 142.72 143.32 144.09 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin) 75
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 24.43 24.62 25.88 25.32 24.36 24.86 25.03 Huai 30.23 30.95 30.31 31.70 31.92 32.08 32.54 Yellow 12.30 12.62 14.33 16.93 17.03 17.55 17.72 Total 66.96 68.19 70.52 73.95 73.30 74.48 75.29 75% Probability Hai 16.95 17.28 15.53 16.10 16.12 16.43 16.55 Huai 9.60 10.23 10.90 12.14 11.83 11.90 12.22 Yellow 11.33 11.33 11.43 12.21 12.55 13.20 13.24 Total 37.88 38.84 37.86 40.46 40.50 41.53 42.02 50% Probability Hai 11.43 11.76 12.47 12.90 12.83 13.06 13.16 Huai 3.20 3.94 3.74 4.56 4.12 4.16 4.36 Yellow 8.67 8.81 9.58 10.33 10.74 11.38 11.40 Total 23.30 24.51 25.78 27.79 27.69 28.60 28.93 25% Probability Hai 6.91 7.26 7.98 8.39 8.33 8.50 8.56 Huai 2.14 2.41 2.27 2.53 2.59 2.56 2.68 Yellow 7.72 7.75 8.64 9.53 9.99 10.61 10.65 Total 16.77 17.42 18.89 20.45 20.92 21.67 21.88 3-H Basin 95% Probability 66.96 68.19 70.52 73.95 73.30 74.48 75.29 75% Probability 37.88 38.84 37.86 40.46 40.50 41.53 42.02 50% Probability 23.30 24.51 25.78 27.79 27.69 28.60 28.93 25% Probability 16.77 17.42 18.89 20.45 20.92 21.67 21.88 URBAN AND PRIORITY SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 3.01 3.58 3.91 4.07 4.17 Huai 2.17 2.30 3.29 4.45 4.41 4.58 4.52 Yellow 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Total 5.81 6.21 7.40 9.03 9.52 10.06 10.14 75% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.85 4.00 4.10 Huai 2.11 2.24 2.71 3.56 3.35 3.42 3.57 Yellow 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Total 5.75 6.35 6.44 7.59 7.82 8.24 8.54 50% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.84 3.99 4.09 Huai 2.11 2.24 2.40 2.97 2.62 2.66 2.86 Yellow 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Total 5.75 5.95 5.79 6.56 6.59 6.90 7.24 25% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 2.99 3.53 3.84 3.99 4.09 Huai 2.11 2.24 2.24 2.50 2.54 2.51 2.63 Yellow 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Total 5.65 5.65 5.43 6.03 6.46 6.59 6.81 3-H Basin 95% Probability 5.81 6.21 7.40 9.03 9.52 10.06 10.14 75% Probability 5.75 6.35 6.44 7.59 7.82 8.24 8.54 50% Probability 5.75 5.95 5.79 6.56 6.59 6.90 7.24 25% Probability 5.65 5.65 5.43 6.03 6.46 6.59 6.81 76 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin)
TABLE A4.2-5: 3-H SUMMARY - EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT + REUSE + HIGH PRICE + S-N (Bcm/year)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL DEMANDS 95% Probability Hai 55.60 56.56 58.16 58.88 58.72 59.17 59.25 Huai 86.29 86.33 89.44 91.71 91.83 91.83 92.55 Yellow 48.70 49.57 52.10 54.24 54.95 55.86 56.04 Total 190.59 192.46 199.70 204.83 205.50 206.86 207.84 75% Probability Hai 48.92 49.98 51.54 52.43 52.59 53.04 53.12 Huai 71.75 71.90 75.22 78.02 78.56 78.56 79.28 Yellow 45.95 46.86 49.44 51.64 52.40 53.31 53.49 Total 166.62 168.74 176.20 182.09 183.55 184.91 185.89 50% Probability Hai 46.17 47.37 48.99 50.00 50.17 50.62 50.70 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 Yellow 43.56 44.53 47.05 49.29 50.08 50.99 51.17 Total 153.34 155.73 163.25 169.63 171.29 172.65 173.63 25% Probability Hai 43.99 45.33 47.03 48.12 48.33 48.78 48.86 Huai 58.62 58.87 62.26 65.59 66.42 66.42 67.14 Yellow 42.14 43.11 45.70 48.37 48.88 49.79 49.97 Total 144.75 147.31 154.99 162.08 163.63 164.99 165.97 3-H Total Demand 95% Probability 190.59 192.46 199.70 204.83 205.50 206.86 207.84 75% Probability 166.62 168.74 176.20 182.09 183.55 184.91 185.89 50% Probability 153.34 155.73 163.25 169.63 171.29 172.65 173.63 25% Probability 144.75 147.31 154.99 162.08 163.63 164.99 165.97 3-H Priority Demands 95% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 75% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 50% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 25% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 TOTAL SUPPLY 95% Probability Hai 31.17 31.95 33.67 41.00 42.85 42.87 42.77 Huai 54.57 55.37 64.07 66.98 67.07 67.20 67.46 Yellow 36.40 36.95 37.77 37.31 37.92 38.31 38.32 Total 122.13 124.27 135.50 145.29 147.85 148.39 148.55 75% Probability Hai 31.97 32.71 37.42 42.16 43.27 43.50 43.46 Huai 62.15 62.18 67.22 70.92 71.57 71.63 72.15 Yellow 34.62 35.53 38.01 39.43 39.85 40.11 40.25 Total 128.74 130.41 142.65 152.51 154.69 155.23 155.86 50% Probability Hai 34.74 35.61 37.91 42.12 43.24 43.50 43.47 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 Yellow 34.89 35.72 37.47 38.96 39.34 39.61 39.77 Total 133.24 135.16 142.60 151.42 153.62 154.15 155.00 25% Probability Hai 37.08 38.06 40.44 44.38 45.31 45.64 45.66 Huai 56.48 56.48 61.26 65.23 66.24 66.29 67.01 Yellow 34.42 35.36 37.07 38.84 38.89 39.18 39.32 Total 127.98 129.89 138.77 148.45 150.43 151.10 151.99 3-H Supply 95% Probability 122.13 124.27 135.50 145.29 147.85 148.39 148.55 75% Probability 128.74 130.41 142.65 152.51 154.69 155.23 155.86 50% Probability 133.24 135.16 142.60 151.42 153.62 154.15 155.00 25% Probability 127.98 129.89 138.77 148.45 150.43 151.10 151.99 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin) 77
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 24.43 24.62 24.48 17.87 15.88 16.29 16.48 Huai 30.23 30.95 25.88 24.75 24.75 24.64 25.10 Yellow 12.30 12.62 14.33 16.93 17.03 17.55 17.72 Total 66.96 68.19 64.70 59.55 57.65 58.48 59.30 75% Probability Hai 16.95 17.28 14.13 10.29 9.32 9.53 9.67 Huai 9.60 10.23 8.00 7.09 7.00 6.94 7.14 Yellow 11.33 11.33 11.43 12.21 12.55 13.20 13.24 Total 37.88 38.84 33.56 29.60 28.87 29.68 30.06 50% Probability Hai 11.43 11.76 11.07 7.88 6.95 7.12 7.23 Huai 3.20 3.94 1.33 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.10 Yellow 8.67 8.81 9.58 10.33 10.74 11.38 11.40 Total 23.30 24.51 21.97 18.44 17.79 18.60 18.74 25% Probability Hai 6.91 7.26 6.58 3.74 3.03 3.12 3.20 Huai 2.14 2.41 1.00 0.05 0.19 0.14 0.14 Yellow 7.72 7.75 8.64 9.53 9.99 10.61 10.65 Total 16.77 17.42 16.21 13.32 13.22 13.87 13.99 3-H Basin 95% Probability 66.96 68.19 64.70 59.55 57.65 58.48 59.30 75% Probability 37.88 38.84 33.56 29.60 28.87 29.68 30.06 50% Probability 23.30 24.51 21.97 18.44 17.79 18.60 18.74 25% Probability 16.77 17.42 16.21 13.32 13.22 13.87 13.99 URBAN AND PRIORITY SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 1.61 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Huai 2.17 2.30 1.49 0.63 0.44 0.44 0.36 Yellow 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Total 5.81 6.21 4.21 2.23 1.73 2.03 2.06 75% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Huai 2.11 2.24 1.26 0.39 0.08 0.02 0.03 Yellow 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Total 5.75 6.35 3.59 1.49 0.79 1.02 1.15 50% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Huai 2.11 2.24 0.95 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Total 5.75 5.95 2.94 0.67 0.22 0.42 0.54 25% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 1.59 0.60 0.09 0.17 0.25 Huai 2.11 2.24 0.97 0.02 0.14 0.09 0.09 Yellow 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Total 5.65 5.65 2.75 0.62 0.31 0.35 0.44 3-H Basin 95% Probability 5.81 6.21 4.21 2.23 1.73 2.03 2.06 75% Probability 5.75 6.35 3.59 1.49 0.79 1.02 1.15 50% Probability 5.75 5.95 2.94 0.67 0.22 0.42 0.54 25% Probability 5.65 5.65 2.75 0.62 0.31 0.35 0.44 78 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin)
TABLE A4.2-6: 3-H SUMMARY - EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT + REUSE + HIGH PRICE + S-N-E (Bcm/year)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL DEMANDS 95% Probability Hai 55.60 56.56 58.16 58.88 58.72 59.17 59.25 Huai 86.29 86.33 89.44 91.71 91.83 91.83 92.55 Yellow 48.70 49.57 52.10 54.24 54.95 55.86 56.04 Total 190.59 192.46 199.70 204.83 205.50 206.86 207.84 75% Probability Hai 48.92 49.98 51.54 52.43 52.59 53.04 53.12 Huai 71.75 71.90 75.22 78.02 78.56 78.56 79.28 Yellow 45.95 46.86 49.44 51.64 52.40 53.31 53.49 Total 166.62 168.74 176.20 182.09 183.55 184.91 185.89 50% Probability Hai 46.17 47.37 48.99 50.00 50.17 50.62 50.70 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 Yellow 43.56 44.53 47.05 49.29 50.08 50.99 51.17 Total 153.34 155.73 163.25 169.63 171.29 172.65 173.63 25% Probability Hai 43.99 45.33 47.03 48.12 48.33 48.78 48.86 Huai 58.62 58.87 62.26 65.59 66.42 66.42 67.14 Yellow 42.14 43.11 45.70 48.37 48.88 49.79 49.97 Total 144.75 147.31 154.99 162.08 163.63 164.99 165.97 3-H Total Demand 95% Probability 190.59 192.46 199.70 204.83 205.50 206.86 207.84 75% Probability 166.62 168.74 176.20 182.09 183.55 184.91 185.89 50% Probability 153.34 155.73 163.25 169.63 171.29 172.65 173.63 25% Probability 144.75 147.31 154.99 162.08 163.63 164.99 165.97 3-H Priority Demands 95% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 75% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 50% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 25% Probability 24.66 27.16 34.87 41.62 44.91 46.04 46.63 TOTAL SUPPLY 95% Probability Hai 31.17 31.95 32.97 35.87 36.67 36.63 36.55 Huai 54.57 55.37 62.19 64.04 63.92 63.76 64.00 Yellow 36.40 36.95 37.77 37.31 37.92 38.31 38.32 Total 122.13 124.27 132.93 137.22 138.51 138.70 138.87 75% Probability Hai 31.97 32.71 36.72 38.63 38.80 38.93 38.91 Huai 62.15 62.18 66.22 68.85 69.56 69.50 69.98 Yellow 34.62 35.53 38.01 39.43 39.85 40.11 40.25 Total 128.74 130.41 140.94 146.91 148.20 148.53 149.14 50% Probability Hai 34.74 35.61 37.21 39.38 39.67 39.88 39.87 Huai 63.61 63.83 67.21 70.34 71.04 71.04 71.76 Yellow 34.89 35.72 37.47 38.96 39.34 39.61 39.77 Total 133.24 135.16 141.90 148.68 150.05 150.54 151.40 25% Probability Hai 37.08 38.06 39.74 42.01 42.31 42.57 42.60 Huai 56.48 56.48 60.76 64.18 65.28 65.31 65.98 Yellow 34.42 35.36 37.07 38.84 38.89 39.18 39.32 Total 127.98 129.89 137.57 145.03 146.47 147.06 147.90 3-H Supply 95% Probability 122.13 124.27 132.93 137.22 138.51 138.70 138.87 75% Probability 128.74 130.41 140.94 146.91 148.20 148.53 149.14 50% Probability 133.24 135.16 141.90 148.68 150.05 150.54 151.40 25% Probability 127.98 129.89 137.57 145.03 146.47 147.06 147.90 Annex 4.2: Statistics Related to Water Resources (by Basin) 79
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 TOTAL SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 24.43 24.62 25.18 23.00 22.05 22.53 22.70 Huai 30.23 30.95 27.74 27.68 27.92 28.06 28.57 Yellow 12.30 12.62 14.33 16.93 17.03 17.55 17.72 Total 66.96 68.19 67.25 67.61 66.99 68.13 68.99 75% Probability Hai 16.95 17.28 14.83 13.79 13.80 14.10 14.22 Huai 9.60 10.23 9.01 9.18 9.02 9.08 9.32 Yellow 11.33 11.33 11.43 12.21 12.55 13.20 13.24 Total 37.88 38.84 35.26 35.18 35.37 36.38 36.78 50% Probability Hai 11.43 11.76 11.77 10.63 10.52 10.72 10.83 Huai 3.20 3.94 1.85 1.66 1.47 1.56 1.63 Yellow 8.67 8.81 9.58 10.33 10.74 11.38 11.40 Total 23.30 24.51 23.20 22.63 22.73 23.66 23.87 25% Probability Hai 6.91 7.26 7.28 6.12 6.02 6.20 6.25 Huai 2.14 2.41 1.50 1.10 1.15 1.12 1.17 Yellow 7.72 7.75 8.64 9.53 9.99 10.61 10.65 Total 16.77 17.42 17.41 16.75 17.17 17.93 18.07 3-H Basin 95% Probability 66.96 68.19 67.25 67.61 66.99 68.13 68.99 75% Probability 37.88 38.84 35.26 35.18 35.37 36.38 36.78 50% Probability 23.30 24.51 23.20 22.63 22.73 23.66 23.87 25% Probability 16.77 17.42 17.41 16.75 17.17 17.93 18.07 URBAN AND PRIORITY SHORTAGES 95% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 2.31 2.36 2.65 2.81 2.91 Huai 2.17 2.30 2.01 2.16 2.02 2.19 2.18 Yellow 1.57 1.60 1.10 1.00 1.21 1.42 1.45 Total 5.81 6.21 5.42 5.52 5.87 6.41 6.54 75% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.32 2.59 2.74 2.84 Huai 2.11 2.24 1.77 1.89 1.56 1.62 1.70 Yellow 1.57 1.80 0.74 0.49 0.62 0.82 0.86 Total 5.75 6.35 4.79 4.70 4.77 5.18 5.40 50% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.31 2.58 2.73 2.83 Huai 2.11 2.24 1.47 1.44 1.37 1.46 1.54 Yellow 1.57 1.40 0.41 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.28 Total 5.75 5.95 4.17 3.82 4.08 4.44 4.65 25% Probability Hai 2.07 2.31 2.29 2.31 2.58 2.73 2.83 Huai 2.11 2.24 1.47 1.07 1.10 1.07 1.12 Yellow 1.47 1.10 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.10 Total 5.65 5.65 3.95 3.38 3.76 3.89 4.05 3-H Basin 95% Probability 5.81 6.21 5.42 5.52 5.87 6.41 6.54 75% Probability 5.75 6.35 4.79 4.70 4.77 5.18 5.40 50% Probability 5.75 5.95 4.17 3.82 4.08 4.44 4.65 25% Probability 5.65 5.65 3.95 3.38 3.76 3.89 4.05 80 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management
ANNEX 5.1: PRINCIPLES OF FLOOD MANAGEMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
Generally the concept of flood control, that is “controlling” floods has been replaced with the more broad term of flood management. As countries develop, both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of economic wealth, there is an increased desire to consider social, economic and environmental factors as well as engineering factors when considering flood issues. A worldwide debate has developed in recent years on strategic approaches to flood control. Some practitioners in some countries now question the historical emphasis on structural measures of flood control. The severity of damages experienced on some of the world's great rivers have thrown into question the performance of flood control works and the strategies underlying their design. It has been argued that rivers should not be confined because this eliminates the flood plains that can act as natural flood control reservoirs. Critics also observe that dikes can be harmful to flora and fauna, and deprive farmland of sediment. A sociologist working in the Mekong Basin recently commented on the “need to shake hands with the flood.”
There are some areas where land can revert to unprotected floodplain, for instance where it is too costly to protect and maintain, or where it has environmental benefits that society values greatly and is willing to pay for. This has happened, for instance, in parts of the Mississippi Basin since the 1993 flood. The 1998 flood on the Yangtze has similarly led the Government to embark on a major program to reverse the encroachment in the natural water bodies close to the main rivers. Similar situations are found in the 3-H basins, notably in the Huai basin, and low-lying flood-prone areas may already be unprotected against medium to high floods and serve as detention basins for flood storage.
As we use hydrodynamic models more for flood modeling, the importance of flood storage becomes clearer. The construction of dikes reduces the opportunity to attenuate the flood as it passes down the river system. However it is recognized that options for such solutions on a general scale were foreclosed centuries ago in China. The dikes in place on most of China's rivers protect vast areas of land and huge populations from normal floods, let alone during extreme events. No doubt extensive damage arises from direct rainfall behind the dikes. The intense storms to which China is prone mean that farmers have had to learn to live with some level of intermittent floods and damage but, without the dikes and other protective works, cultivation and life itself would be impossible. It is thus unrealistic to expect any profound change in flood control strategy on environmental grounds, economic, social or engineering grounds. However the process of nonstructural flood management needs to be understood and incorporated in floodplain management strategy as and when appropriate. The next section describes the options for nonstructural solutions within an overall framework of floodplain management.
B. PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Nonstructural methods of floodplain management include land-use planning policies and associated controls on development and building. These methods will be discussed in more detail as they are applied in Australia and other countries. It is important at the outset to state that nonstructural measures are a component of an integrated approach to floodplain management which also includes structural measures to mitigate the effects of floods. It is important to discuss nonstructural methods as one of the tools that can and should be used in the broader context of integrated floodplain management.
Typically, integrated floodplain management involves formulation of: Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management 81
· A Floodplain Management Plan based on results of hydrological and hydraulic studies which outlines measures to be adopted in advance to minimize the risks and hazards of floods.
· A Flood Emergency Plan which outlines measures to be adopted to minimize hazards during floods and to assist recovery immediately after floods.
Often flood mapping complements both the Floodplain Management Plan and the Flood Emergency Plan. Mapping of flood extents assists in plan development and the identification of land within different categories of flood risk. Flood mapping is important in the application of the nonstructural measures which involve control of land use within identified flood risk zones. It can also be a key resource in flood insurance schemes. Flood risk mapping is also an important aid when responding to flood emergencies.
During the formulation of the Plans, consultation with the community to be assisted is considered a vital factor, particularly in the formulation of Floodplain Management Plans. A Floodplain Management Committee is set up to coordinate development of a Floodplain Management Plan through two phases of (a) a Flood Study, and (b) a Floodplain Management Study. Even though these may be highly technical studies, decisions are made in association and agreement with community representatives based on technical advice. Of course, their decisions must be consistent with documented government policy in order to secure funding for plan implementation. Figure A5.1-1 shows how these components of planning and investigations mesh together.
FIGURE A5.1-1: PLANNING APPROACH FRAMEWORK
Floodplain FLOOD STUDY Management Committee
FLOODPLAIN Flood MANAGEMENT Mapping Floodplain STUDY Management Committee
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLAN GIS
FLOOD Emergency EMERGENCY Services PLAN Panel
Flood Study
During the first phase of the Flood Study, technical investigations of flooding behavior define the extent, depth and velocity of floodwaters for floods of various magnitudes under current conditions. This enables the flood risk category and hazard category of the defined flood area to be determined.
The Flood Study is the principal technical foundation from which a Floodplain Management Plan is formulated during the subsequent Floodplain Management Study. 82 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management
The Flood Study identifies aspects of flooding behavior that may require special consideration. Examples are localities subject to rapid rise of flood level or the creation of islands in the rising floodwaters which present particular hazards and difficulties for effective emergency response.
The central aspects of the Flood Study are (a) hydrological analysis to estimate flood discharges and probabilities, i.e. flood frequency, and (b) hydraulic analysis to determine flood extents, depths and velocities. Typically, rainfall-runoff models are used in hydrological analysis and 1-D or 2-D numerical models are used in hydraulic analysis—depending on the complexity of flood flow distribution.
Floodplain Management Study
The Floodplain Management Study aims to identify all relevant issues, quantify them, and then manage the risk by a proposed set of measures integrated into a management strategy for the social and economic benefit of the affected community. The risk management strategy incorporates both structural and nonstructural measures. The physical impacts of structural measures can be evaluated using the hydraulic model developed in the Flood Study.
Other key components of the Floodplain Management Study include:
· socioeconomic studies with flood damage assessment and social impact assessment;
· environmental studies to evaluate environmental impacts—this may require flora, fauna and habitat surveys, determination of the ecological importance of flooding to wetlands, riparian zones and other floodplain features, etc.
· land-use studies, concerning existing and proposed future land use, location of services infrastructure and community aspirations for future use of floodplain land.
During the Floodplain Management Study the Floodplain Management Committee must select design flood events, or flood standards appropriate for risk management purposes. This selection will be based upon results of the technical investigations of existing and potential flood behavior under management strategy options, and assessments of the damage and hazard reduction afforded by each of the options.
Several design standards may be appropriate for different purposes. For example, different standards are appropriate for setting of minimum floor levels for residential or commercial premises to those appropriate for the location and floor levels of key community facilities (such as hospitals, telephone exchanges, police stations and homes for the elderly).
Risk management considers the probability of occurrence of a range of floods and their associated hazards, together with the costs and benefits of various management options.
An important outcome of the Floodplain Management Study is the identification of floodway and flood fringe areas of the floodplain, and areas of low and high hazard. This is essential for responsible land use planning.
Floodways are areas necessary to convey the main flow of floodwater, and are usually areas where significant volumes of water or high velocity flows develop during floods. Even partial blockage of these areas would cause redistribution of flood flow or adversely affect flood levels in other parts of the floodplain. They are often areas of high hazard because of deeper flow or higher flow velocities. Flood Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management 83
fringe areas (or flood storage areas) are other parts of the floodplain inundated during defined design flood events.
Flood maps identify these areas, and show the extent, depth, velocity and hazard associated with a range of nominated flood events. Flood maps are prepared using Geographic Information System (GIS), which facilitates map amendments and subsequent inclusion of subsidiary data relevant to floodplain management or emergency response during floods.
Floodplain Management Plan
The Floodplain Management Plan defines the flood risk and identifies appropriate measures to manage the risk.
The control of flood damage and hazard flood risk needs to be addressed in three specific ways:
1. to individuals and properties currently at risk; 2. in areas yet to be developed (future risk); 3. associated with the residual risk of floods larger than the designated planning events or associated with land outside protected areas.
The measures adopted to manage these risks will normally be a mix of structural and nonstructural measures.
The Floodplain Management Plan deriving from the Floodplain Management Study is based on a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of the factors which affect and are affected by the use of flood- prone land. It represents the considered opinion of the local community on how best to manage its flood risk and its flood-prone land and provides a long-term plan for the future development of the community.
The Floodplain Management Plan also provides strong links with statutory land-use planning and with flood emergency management planning. Links with land use planning are typically made through production of flood maps and the interpretation of the flood maps using planning decision guidelines. Links with emergency management planning often exist through flood warning measures and contingency planning considerations.
Flood Emergency Plan The Flood Emergency Plan addresses preparedness for, response to and recovery from flood emergencies. Its primary aim is to reduce flood hazard during an actual event, and to this end it addresses issues of flood forecasting, flood warning, evacuation and initial recovery.
Emergency management personnel would usually participate in the Floodplain Management Committee during the development of the Floodplain Management Plan. The two Plans are complementary.
The Flood Emergency Plan:
· assists the several agencies with tasks to perform during and after flood emergencies to fulfill their responsibilities effectively; 84 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management
· outlines procedures or programs to inform and educate flood-liable communities about the risks they may face and how to take actions appropriate to minimize property damage and personal hazard.
A Flood Emergency Plan typically has several trigger points (e.g. flood levels) that result in progressive implementation of plan components as a flood develops. Liaison between agencies is crucial to effective flood response, so communications are a key aspect of the plan.
C. RISK MANAGEMENT
Ideally, society would like to be free of the risk of flooding, but this is neither practically nor economically possible. What constitutes an acceptable or affordable level of risk is a difficult decision. Since the risk is borne by the local community, they should have significant input to this decision, and public consultation and explanation of the risks to the community are important.
Floods are the most manageable of all natural disasters. Unlike other natural disasters, we know specifically where floods will occur and we can estimate the probability of flooding and the consequences of flooding to a relatively high degree of reliability. For floods of nominated magnitude and probability, we can determine flood extent, flood levels and flood velocities, and the expected flood damage.
Flood risk management, or how we deal with the likelihood and consequences of flooding, is a new and formal statement of an old concept that has been practiced informally since communities began to appreciate and deal with the consequences of flooding. A Floodplain Management Plan is a plan for risk management that comprehensively deals with the issues of flood risk associated with living and working on flood-prone land.
The key elements of a risk management process involve:
· identifying the stakeholders exposed to or affected by the risk and severity of flooding; · identifying property at risk of flooding; · establishing criteria for evaluation of flood risk; · estimating the probability and consequences of flooding; · assessing the acceptability of flood risk; · defining strategies for flood risk treatment and reduction; · ongoing monitoring and review of flood risks and effectiveness of implemented strategies; · communicating risk to stakeholders.
When assessing the treatment of flood risk by floodplain management measures, it is useful to separate flood risk into three components:
· existing risk to communities and property already on flood-prone land; · future risk to communities and property which will or may be located on the floodplain in future; · residual risk which is the risk associated with floods that overwhelm the design standard of existing or proposed flood management measures.
Structural measures are most often effective or necessary in dealing with existing risk. Nonstructural measures including land-use planning measures are most effective in treating future risk. Contingency planning to develop Emergency Response Plans and flood warning measures are appropriate responses for dealing with residual risk. Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management 85
The process of risk management is more fully explained in Section D.
D. NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES
Nonstructural measures aim to avoid dangerous, uneconomic, undesirable or unwise use of floodplain land. They modify susceptibility to flood damage and disruption, maximize the benefits of using floodplain land and minimize the risks and consequences of flooding. One of the most effective aspects of a Floodplain Management Plan is the selection of appropriate land uses in flood-prone areas. Proposed land use needs to be appropriate to the hazards involved. In fact, adopted land use largely defines the hazard involved.
Land Use Policy
Local governments often have control over development in flood-prone areas. Best practice requires the timely introduction of appropriate controls and regulations into local planning schemes and development policies.
This involves zoning of land, and may involve the voluntary acquisition of properties already located in particularly hazardous parts of the floodplain.
Zoning of land into appropriate land uses is an effective and sustainable means of limiting flood damage to future developments and the hazard associated with their occupation and use. The zonings should be incorporated into Municipal Planning Schemes.
Land use is often subdivided into the following categories:
· Open Space and Recreation. Includes recreational facilities such as sports centers, provided appropriate floodproofing is provided with any buildings.
· Residential. Only appropriate for low hazard areas and only if development is designed and constructed to allow safe evacuation and not adversely impede floodwaters. Housing for the aged or those with impaired mobility are better sited on higher land with minimal or no flood risk.
· Commercial and Industrial. Siting depending on potential damage to goods and property. In the case of commercial centers social convenience can be taken into account, but industries which store or process dangerous substances should be sited away from the floodplain on higher land.
· Schools. Outdoor spaces can make use of floodway areas or land with moderate flood risk, but buildings should be located in areas of low risk.
· Public Buildings and Essential Services. Hospitals, prisons and aged care or care for disabled people should be located well away from flood-risk areas because of the difficulties of evacuating occupants; museums, libraries and other buildings housing valuable items of cultural or historical significance should not be located in flood-prone lands; and essential services like fire, police, ambulance and other services which must function continuously should not be located in floodplains.
Once the areas at risk are mapped, and zones determined according to the level of risk (e.g. high risk, low risk, very low risk) or according to function (e.g. floodway, flood storage), development policies are determined for each zone. The appropriate development policy matches the type of land use and 86 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management
regulations associated with that use to the degree of risk involved and the functional role of that zone during floods.
In some high risk areas it may be impractical or uneconomic to mitigate flood hazard to existing properties, and it may be more appropriate to purchase properties in order to rezone land to more compatible use.
Regulations
Regulations potentially have a great impact on flood damage reduction, and have been widely used in the United States and other developed countries. Minimum requirements of the US National Flood Insurance Program include:
· a system of permits for all new development; · review of land subdivision proposals to assure they will not increase potential flood damage and flood hazard, and will minimize flood damage and hazard; · anchoring and flood-proofing measures for structures to be constructed on flood-prone land; · safeguarding new water and sewerage infrastructure and utility lines from flooding; · enforcing zoning of flood risk, determination of flood level and provision of floodway requirements.
There are numerous performance and prescribed standards applicable to each of the zones delineated on flood maps.
In Australia, the most widespread form of regulation associated with zoning in planning schemes is imposition of minimum floor levels. When applications for new development are submitted to local government, location is checked against floodplain management zones and minimum floor levels are specified. These would normally provide a nominal freeboard above a predetermined design flood level. For example, a 300 mm freeboard above a flood level of 100-year return period is quite common.
Flood-proofing requirements are also often specified. Construction with appropriate water- resistant materials may be required so that structural building damage is minimized. Commercial and industrial premises may be required to have waterproof walls below design flood levels and/or have panels which can be fitted to doors and openings during flood alerts. Buildings should be designed to withstand immersion by water, and the forces due to debris and flotation.
Developers and local agencies are urged to recognize the importance of strategic site planning in advance of development, taking account of site topography, provision of suitable evacuation routes, and the orientation and type of fencing.
Raising of existing houses is a related issue, although primarily a structural measure. This can be an alternative to property acquisition in some circumstances, however not all buildings are suited to raising.
Flood Warning and Forecasting
Flood warning can reduce damages and hazards due to floods by providing adequate time to take appropriate measures to minimize potential loss. Appropriate measures may be to remove possessions, raise them above forecast flood levels, secure objects which can float away, close openings in flood- Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management 87
proofed buildings and evacuate persons at risk in advance of the flood peak. Of course in cases of extreme flood, evacuation may be necessary.
To be effective, sufficient warning time needs to be given for emergency measures to be carried out, whether by individual landholders or by emergency agencies.
Forecasts of peak flood levels are based on previous study and analysis of past flood behavior, and progressive knowledge of flood behavior in real time as a flood develops, including information on rainfall within the catchment and upstream river levels. Forecast flood levels should be interpreted in terms of “likely” flood levels, since forecasts involve a number of uncertainties—for example, estimates of catchment rainfall from point rainfall measurements, and additional rainfall which could occur after the time of forecast.
In Australia, flood warning systems are now regarded as one of the most cost effective means of reducing future flood damage.
Flood Preparedness and Emergency Response Planning Flood Emergency Plans detail plans for preparedness for, response to and recovery from flood emergencies.
Preparedness encompasses plans made in advance for emergency response measures, training of emergency response personnel, public information activities, regular exercises to test preparedness, implementation of communication facilities, readiness evaluations, provisions for mobilization of personnel, availability of transport, pumps and other equipment, and review of performance post-flood.
An emergency response plan typically includes several trigger points that result in activating and implementing measures as a flood develops. Close liaison with those responsible for flood forecasting is essential. Measures may include road closures, issuing of warnings, evacuations, surveillance of structural defense measures, etc.
Emergency planning should also include activities to protect and reinstate essential infrastructure during cleanup and recovery in the flood aftermath. Programs to assist individuals who have suffered loss and trauma should also be planned in advance and implemented during the recovery phase.
Best practice requires that flood risk and flood hazard have been assessed for a full range of floods up to and including the Probable Maximum Flood in order to recognize that level of risk may change dramatically with flood severity. The emergency planning process must be sufficiently robust to deal with rapidly changing risk as a flood develops.
Flood mapping is a valuable adjunct to emergency response planning.
Flood Insurance
Insurance is a mechanism for spreading the costs of losses both over time and over a large number of properties similarly exposed to flood risk.
In Australia, flood insurance is left to the initiative of the individual. Consequently, the cost is spread over only a smaller number of individuals and the cost of flood insurance is sometimes prohibitive, or at least a deterrent. Insurance companies sometimes refuse to cover properties at greatest risk. As a 88 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management
result, flood insurance is not an effective floodplain management measure in Australia, and in many other countries.
Under the National Flood Insurance Program in the United States, the federal government made affordable flood insurance available for existing property in flood risk areas in return for enactment and enforcement of floodplain management planning and regulations by communities designed to reduce future flood damages. The program has generally been successful in persuading communities to be proactive about floodplain management planning.
Insurance premiums are based on the location of a building within the floodplain and are determined primarily by the level of the lowest floor in relation to flood level during a designated flood. New and substantially improved developments that are not properly elevated above the designated flood level are subject to higher rates than existing buildings.
E. FLOOD DESIGN STANDARDS
Best practice requires that the design standard appropriate to a particular structural or planning measure be determined on the basis of an economic and social analysis of the costs and benefits. Benefits accrue from the reduction of flood damages, and so evaluation of flood damages based upon past flood behavior and existing and projected future development is an essential prerequisite for establishing appropriate design standards.
For more general planning purposes, however, guidelines have sometimes been established. A selection of flood standards that have been adopted in different parts of the world are discussed in this section while the next section discusses Chinese standards.
Australia
In New South Wales, the most populous State in Australia, guidelines were introduced about 20 years ago that protection should be afforded to urban areas against the 100-year flood. This “standard” was subsequently abandoned in favor of the philosophy that each community should decide for itself the level of flood immunity it desires based upon criteria of economic cost-benefit analysis, social and environmental impacts, and affordability for the community—since the community is required to make significant contribution to the costs of floodplain management, typically through its local government.
However in practice, the 100-year standard is the most common design standard adopted for urban communities in Australia. Other design criteria of either higher or lower standard are also often adopted. On the Torrens River in the State capital of Adelaide, a design standard equivalent to the 200- year flood has been adopted. In other locations the largest flood on record is used to determine the flood planning standard.
Many rural areas have no specific structural protection, as low population density is typical and land use practices are adapted to the frequency of flooding experienced. Floodplain areas with more intensive agricultural activity sometimes receive protection by rural levees. The design criteria would typically be lower than the 100-year standard most often adopted for urban areas, and design standards to withstand the 20-year flood or 25-year flood would probably represent the norm where rural levees exist. Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management 89
United States
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) dominates floodplain management practice in the United States. The policies which the NFIP encourages deter or protect residential development below the level of the 100-year flood. Public buildings such as hospitals, emergency services, aged care facilities, key utilities and facilities for storage or processing of high hazard materials are sited above the level of the 500-year flood. This does not mean that urban levees must be constructed to the 100-year level, but in practice that is most common.
It is interesting to note that despite this policy, historically approximately one third of claims paid under the NFIP are for flood damage in areas above the 100-year flood line.
Europe
Levees along the Rhine River are generally constructed to around the 1,000-year flood level. In the Netherlands, most of the levees along the Rhine and Ijssel have adopted a 1,250-year standard, and along the Meuse the flood design standard has been adopted as the 250-year flood. The Delta Plan for the North Sea dikes protects against a storm with an estimated probability of 1 in 10,000 years, however the possibility of sea level rises due to the Greenhouse Effect may now be eroding that standard.
In Great Britain, the national authority has an indicative standard for protection of high density urban land containing both residential and commercial developments. This has been set at the 100-year flood level for nontidal floodplains and at the 200-year flood level for tidal floodplains.
India
India does not prescribe a national flood standard, preferring to match the flood standard to the severity of the existing problem (i.e. the consequences of flooding) on the basis of affordability and an economic comparison of project costs and expected benefits.
For regulating land use in different flood zones, three levels of priority are set for development:
· for hospitals, emergency services, key utilities and main commercial centers, buildings should be located above the levels of the 100-year flood; · residential areas and public buildings should preferably be located outside the extent of the 25-year flood zone, but floor levels should be elevated to “far higher levels”; · parks, playgrounds and parking areas may be located in areas vulnerable to more frequent flooding.
China
China prescribes standards in accordance with Standard GB 50201-94. Some of the more important flood standards are presented in Tables A5.1-1 through A5.1-8. 90 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management
TABLE A5.1-1: GRADE AND FLOOD CONTROL STANDARD FOR CITIES Nonagricultural Flood Control Grade Importance Population (104) Standard (ARI) I Especially Important City =150 =200 II Important City 150~50 200~100 III Medium City 50~20 100~50 IV Common City =20 50~20 ARI = Average Recurrence Interval.
TABLE A5.1-2: GRADE AND FLOOD CONTROL STANDARD FOR PROTECTED RURAL AREA (TOWNSHIP) Population in Cultivated Land in Flood Control Grade Protected Area (104) Protected Area (104 mu) Standard (ARI) I =150 =300 100~50 II 150~50 300~100 50~30 III 50~20 100~30 30~20 IV =20 =30 20~10
TABLE A5.1-3: STANDARD FOR INDUSTRY Grade Scale of Industrial Enterprises Flood Control Standard (ARI) I Especially Large Size 200~100 II Large Size 100~50 III Medium Size 50~20 IV Small Size 20~10
TABLE A5.1-4: STANDARD FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND HYDROPOWER Waterlogging Irrigation Water Water Reservoir Flood control control Supply Power Station Project Total Importance Protected Waterlogging Irrigation Importance Installed Project Scale Storage of City and Farm control Area of City and Capacity Grade Capacity Industrial Land Area (104 mu) Industrial (104 kW) (108m3) Enterprises (104 mu) (104 mu) Enterprises I Large(1) =10 Especially =500 =200 =150 Especially =120 Size Important Important II Large(2) 10~1.0 Important 500~100 200~60 150~50 Important 120~30 Size III Medium 1.0~0.10 Medium 100~30 60~15 50~5 Medium 30~5 Size IV Small(1) 0.10~0.01 Common 30~5 15~3 5~0.5 Common 5~1 Size V Small(2) 0.01~0.001 =5 =3 =0.5 =1 Size
TABLE A5.1-5: GRADE FOR HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE Project Grade for Permanent Hydraulic Structure Grade for Temporary Grade Major Structure Secondary Structure Hydraulic Structure I 1 3 4 II 2 3 4 III 3 4 5 IV 4 5 5 V 5 5 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management 91
TABLE A5.1-6: FLOOD CONTROL STANDARD FOR HYDRAULIC STRUCTURE OF RESERVOIR Flood Control Standard (ARI) Mountainous and Hilly Area Plain and Coastal Area Checking Grade of Concrete Dam Earth Dam and Hydraulic Design Rockfill Dam Design Checking Structure 1 1000~500 5000~2000 PMP Flood or 300~100 2000~1000 10000~5000 2 500~100 2000~1000 5000~2000 100~50 1000~300 3 100~50 1000~500 2000~1000 50~20 300~100 4 50~30 500~200 1000~300 20~10 100~50 5 30~20 200~100 300~200 10 50~20
TABLE A5.1-7: GRADE FOR LEVEE Flood Control =100 <100, <50, <30, <20, (ARI) but=50 but=30 but=20 but=10 Grade for Levee 1 2 3 4 5 Note: The flood control standard of levee protected target should be decided as by “Standard for Flood Control,” GB 50201-94 enacted. The flood control standard of levee should be decided as by the higher standard for protected targets in protected area.
TABLE A5.1-8: FREEBOARD OF LEVEE Grade of Levee 1 2 3 4 5 Dike permitting no wave 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Freeboard overtopping (m) Dike permitting wave 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 overtopping
Dams
In Australia and the United States, dams are required to withstand the storm that is derived from a Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). This is a very large flood, typically in the order of a 1-million- year ARI event and has a flow often ten times the 100-year flood. There are of course many dams in Australia and United States that were designed and built some years ago. The standard for dam safety in these two countries has been the PMP event for many years but hydrologists have increased the estimate for the rainfall. Consequently the dams are now not able to pass the PMP flood event. One such example is a water supply dam in the hills behind the city of Adelaide in South Australia. It is only capable of passing a flood up to a frequency of about a 20,000-year event which is considered dangerously low by Australian standards.
Very large dams in China are required to be designed for the PMP but other dams only the 10,000-year ARI. However this is still a very high standard as the ratio of the PMP to 10,000 years is about 1.2. In Australia the flood frequency curve is far steeper and the ratio is 1.8 to 2.5.
F. PRINCIPLES OF PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction
China has a long and proud record of flood control works and is clearly aware of the issues that need to be addressed. However with so many flood problems it is difficult to know which projects should 92 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management
be the highest priority project for funding. This section attempts to provide general guidelines and in Section E, some of the principles are used to assist with prioritizing projects in the 3-H basins.
Guiding Principles
Proposals should be assessed on a technical, economic, social and environmental grounds with proposals consistent with the policy objectives of government.
To these ends, the responsible authority (i.e. Ministry of Water Resources) should document the policy and document guidelines for development of floodplain management and flood control projects. Ultimately it will provide a consistency of reporting and therefore allow for a rationale decision on implementation.
The 3-H basins are huge catchments but there is a need for a holistic approach to flood management for the whole basin. It is necessary to consider all the effects of any proposed works on the whole basin, not just the local affect. This requirement also extends across other disciplines and sectors. For instance the cheapest solution to a problem of say high risk of flooding is to raise levees. However it may be preferable to build a dam to reduce the peak flow which would also have an added benefit of providing increased water supply for towns and irrigation.
While the pressure is high to solve problems downstream with physical works, it is beneficial to ask why is it necessary and try to move up the catchment to solve the problems. More and more, hydrologists, planners and hydraulic engineers are trying to solve hydrological problems at source rather than ‘end of pipe’ solution. This suggests that it is important to look to source control as the primary focus. Of course there are many problems that cannot be solved immediately by source control but ‘end of pipe’ solutions should be seen as a last resort, not the optimal solution.
Consider for instance, sedimentation. It causes huge problems downstream, particularly in the Yellow River. It does seem that more should be done to try to hold this silt in the upper parts of the catchment from where it came. Ideally this will be via reforestation but can also be via check dams, detention basins, silt dams etc. If allowed to be carried downstream, there will be a constant maintenance battle to maintain waterway capacity. Ultimately levees will need to be so high that if they should fail, the consequences will be catastrophic.
It has been said before but it is worth repeating, that detention basins are a vital part of the flood control system of the 3-H basins. They will need to function as storage from time to time and there is a need to minimize damages caused by such floods. This can take the form of land-use control to restrict development in the basins but while ideal may not be practical. Another suggestion is to build elevated roads of at least 20 meters wide. They can be used as internal check dams to limit flooding but more importantly provide a safe refuge and means of egress from the basins in times of flood.
G. RISK MANAGEMENT
Introduction
Risk management provides an addition tool for the decision maker when confronted with a potential problem. The concept is quite simple but the application can be complex. Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management 93
Risk analysis, is a structured process that identifies both the likelihood and extent of adverse consequences arising from a given activity, facility or system. Within the context of risk management, the adverse consequences of concern are physical harm to people, property or the environment.
Flood engineers have been carrying out a simple form of risk management for as long as they have been building levees. They make a decision on the design ARI of the levee. If a flood exceeds that ARI, the levee may fail. What the engineer has not traditionally done is to assess the consequences of that failure. Using the techniques of risk management greatly assists with understanding the level of risk that can be tolerated. In Australia and America, the process is required for all high hazard dams in order that there is a standard assessment to allow decisions on whether to upgrade a spillway to a higher capacity.
Risk analysis attempts to answer three fundamental questions:
· What can go wrong (hazard identification)? · How likely is this to happen (frequency analysis)? · What are the consequences (consequence analysis)?
The process of risk management incorporates many different elements from the initial identification and analysis of risk, to the evaluation of its tolerability and identification of potential risk reduction options, through to the selection, implementation and monitoring of appropriate control and reduction measures.
The three questions that need to be asked for risk management are further discussed below.
Hazard Identification
The first step is to identify the undesirable outcomes from a series of events. For instance a levee may fail in a number of ways such as overtopping, seepage, slip circle failure and scouring. A dam may fail in a similar manner plus such hazards as insufficient spillway capacity, earthquakes, piping, cracking etc.
The next step is to identify the effect of the failure (undesirable outcome). For instance a dam failure may lead to a huge flood wave with enormous damage, loss of life, loss of crops, destruction of property, loss of water supply, disruption to roads, power, water, erosion, siltation etc.
The purpose of hazard identification is to understand the consequences of the hazard.
Frequency Analysis
Frequency analysis is used to estimate the likelihood of each undesired event identified at the hazard identification stage. Most of flood risks can be quantified in terms of probability or recurrence interval. All event should be identified using a fault tree and event tree analysis.
Annual exceedance probability (AEP) or average recurrence interval (ARI) are measures of the flood frequency, and are customarily estimated from observed records of stream flow.
Consequence Analysis
Consequence analysis is used to estimate the likely impact should the undesired event occur. It can be qualitative or quantitative depending upon the impact. For instance if a levee is overtopped, the 94 Annex 5.1: Principles of Flood Management
consequences can be expressed in terms of depth of water, number of houses destroyed, hectares of crops lost etc. Other consequences, such as erosion of topsoil, increased health problems, disruption to business can only be described in qualitative terms.
Risk Matrix
The results of the consequence and frequency analysis are combined in a risk matrix. They usually have the frequency down the side and the consequence across the columns. The undesired event is then placed in the appropriate square relating frequency and consequence. If an event has high consequences and high probability, then it would be considered to be high risk and steps would normally be taken to mitigate the risk.
Dams have a low probability of failure but very large consequences should they fail. They would therefore usually fall into the high or intermediate risk.
H. DECISION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK
Risk Management is one tool that can be used to assist decisionmakers to decide where to expend funds. Another tool that can also be used is called multivariate decision-making or multicriteria decision- making. It attempts to provide appropriate importance to dissimilar factors such as environment and loss of life.
The decision support system does not per se make decisions, only to support them. It will identify projects which are strong candidates and projects which fall well short of others on technical grounds. Ultimately, political factors will also influence decisions. It is important, however, that decision makers receive good technical advice. Use of a transparent system such as this which can be explained to the decision makers will reassure them that they are receiving the best technical advice.
Further details of a decision support system can be found in SKM’s report, July 1999, Flood Control and Floodplain Management in China. Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 95
ANNEX 5.2 PROPOSED WORKS UNDER CURRENT GOVERNMENT FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAMS
A. INTRODUCTION
This section proposes to summarize required works identified by the government in response to previous flood damages as identified in Chapter 3 part C.
The list is unlikely to be exhaustive as there are many different national and regional agencies assessing the need for further works. However the list will assist in understanding the current plans/ideas for upgrading the flood control system in the 3-H basins.
The lists of projects are drawn from the Nanjing Institute of Hydrology and Water Research (NIHWR) September 1999 report and the report by Sinclair Knight Merz et al., July 1999.
B. PROPOSED WORKS IN THE HAI RIVER BASIN
Major developments after the 1963 flood have reduced the risk of flooding in the important cities of Tianjin and Beijing. After over 30 years of operations, some of the works introduced after the 1963 flood have reduced capacity (e.g. new river diversions which bypass the Hai River to provide separate ocean outfalls, Guantin Reservoir and work is required to improve their function.
There also remains strong reliance on reservoirs in mountainous regions, detention areas to temporarily store floodwaters at the up-slope end of the plains, and levees to confine the attenuated flood flows as they pass through the plains. The new diversion channels then convey them to the sea. Future work therefore also focuses on rehabilitation of existing reservoirs, measures to improve security for the flood detention areas and renovation and upgrading of river levee systems. There are also plans for a limited number of new reservoirs.
Key major projects planned in the Hai River Basin are summarized in Table A5.2-1.
New Reservoirs
Panshitou Reservoir is soon to be constructed on the Qi River, tributary to the Wei. The reservoir is situated upstream of the cluster of detention areas on the upper Wei River which are currently subject to inundation with a frequency of five years or less. The detention areas are densely populated, and the new reservoir will reduce their frequency of inundation to around 10 years or more. Design of the 102 m dam is complete, and funding is organized to proceed with construction of this reservoir. Storage capacity will be 6.20 x108 m3.
Chengxiazhuang is a reservoir of capacity 63 million m3 proposed in the Cheng Gorge on the Yongding River downstream of Guantin Reservoir, but upstream of Beijing. Its primary purpose would be to regulate flood flows from the large intermediate catchment downstream of Guantin, which still has potential to cause flooding in the capital. It would also serve to reduce the required frequency of cross- catchment transfers from the Yongding to the Xiaoqing River, tributary of the Daqing (currently about 1 in 15 years). The transfers have the potential to aggravate flooding in the Daqing system if floods coincide in both catchments. There is debate about exactly where the reservoir should be located and how large it needs to be. As a consequence, Beijing Municipal Region have implemented a temporary partial 96 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
mitigation measure by constructing an off-stream flood detention storage to the south-west of the city, the Yongding flood detention storage.
TABLE A5.2-1: SUMMARY OF PLANNED MAJOR PROJECTS IN THE HAI RIVER BASIN Name River Type of Project Estimated Cost Comments (million Yuan) Panshitou Qi (Wei) New reservoir 900 flood mitigation; approved, funding organized, design complete Chengxiazhuang Yongding New reservoir 1,164 flood mitigation Wujiazhuang Zhang New reservoir 665 water supply Dalangding - New storage 500 irrigation & water supply, part of transfer scheme from Yellow River Miyun Chaobai Rehabilitation of 313 water supply, flood mitigation existing reservoir Huangbizhuang Hutuo Rehabilitation of 575 flood mitigation existing reservoir Dongwushi Ziya Rehabilitation of 55 flood mitigation existing reservoir Wangkuai Daqing Rehabilitation of 299 flood mitigation existing reservoir Anghezhuang Daqing Rehabilitation of 22 flood mitigation existing reservoir Longmen Daqing Rehabilitation of 33 flood mitigation existing reservoir Xidayang Daqing Rehabilitation of 299 flood mitigation existing reservoir Daheiting Luan Rehabilitation of 87 flood mitigation existing reservoir Yuecheng Zhang Rehabilitation of 180 flood mitigation existing reservoir Cetian Sanggan Rehabilitation of 7 flood mitigation existing reservoir New river estuaries NW Yongding Sediment removal 1,600 (approx.) hydraulic analysis and coastal engineering NW and stabilization required for permanent solution Zhangwei, Duliu, etc. New Yongding NW Yongding tidal barrage 316 Dredging required Hai River Hai river engineering 1,081 restore to design capacity of 800 m3/s N. bank levees Dongdian Daqing, Duliu levee improvements 452 increase reliability / standard and Duliu Baigou R. Daqing levee improvements 130 increase reliability / standard Hutuo R. Ziya levee improvements 117 increase reliability / standard Sanjiadian Yongding detention basin 13 new off-stream storage Yongding floodplain Yongding detention basin 247 upgrade of structures and safety measures Wei R. detention areas Wei detention basins 293 upgrade of structures and safety measures Loess plateau Yongding, soil conservation ? expansion of project areas, gully dams Hutuo, Luan Flood warning system all flood warning 600 upgrade required, incl. remote flood control
Wujiazhuang is another reservoir proposed on the Zhang River, but its primary purpose will be for water supply and not for flood control. A storage is also proposed to be developed in a depression area at Dalangding to regulate water transferred to the North China Plain in Hebei province from a project which will transfer water from the middle reaches of the Yellow River in Shanxi province. This will play no significant flood mitigation role. Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 97
A reservoir is also under consideration at Miaogong on the upper Luan River, which would serve to mitigate floods and trap sediment from the upper river, but the feasibility of this proposal has not been investigated.
Rehabilitation of Existing Reservoirs
As everywhere in China, a serious risk exists in the Hai River Basin from reservoirs constructed at a time when safety and design standards did not comply with the standards accepted today. Some reservoirs have been damaged since they were constructed. In the Hai River Basin, 28 reservoirs were identified as not complying with revised standards in 1994, and since that time remedial work has been completed or commenced on most. There remain, however, 10 for which work has yet to be undertaken. These are listed in Table A5.2-4, and the estimated total cost of these works is Y 5 billion.
Levee Improvements
Levee systems along all of the main rivers require ongoing monitoring and maintenance and efforts to improve their standards. This is a very large task in itself, but there are specific areas of special need in which priorities have been identified by the provinces and/or the Hai River Basin Commission, and these form the basis for major levee improvement projects.
These major levee projects are:
· the Duliu river diversion, which is the main outfall for the Daqing River system, and especially the north bank levee; and linked to this the levees regulating flood extent in the Dongdian detention basin; · levees along the Baigou River, northern tributary to the Daqing—this river is required to convey flood diversions from the Yongding and the levee standard is inadequate; · levees flanking the Hutuo River downstream of Huangbizhuang Reservoir.
The cost of these works, plus works required to upgrade the Yongding detention area, is estimated to be Y 4 billion.
River and Coastal Engineering
Key major projects in the Hai River Basin are modifications to the outfalls from the new rivers to the sea. Because of the huge increase in capacity, the normal flows in the lower reaches of these waterways are insufficient to flush the estuaries. Ongoing work has been necessary at great expense to dredge these river mouths to retain flood flow capacity and for navigation. A viable solution to reduce this economic burden should be identified and implemented. Most important are the New Yongding, the Duliu, the New Zhangwei and the Hai Rive, but difficulties are also experienced for the New Chaobai, New Ziya, Majia, Tuhai and Jiyun. A tidal barrage is required on the New Yongding, and relocation of the tidal barrage closer to the shoreline has been proposed for the Hai River.
Channel enlargement and levee reinforcement is required for considerable distances upstream from the river mouth along the New Yongding and the Jiyun.
The combined cost of proposed works for the eight diversion floodways to the sea referred to above is estimated to be Y 4 billion. 98 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
Detention Basins
In Henan province, the cluster of detention basins on the upper Wei floodplain require major works to improve the regulation of diversions into these basins. The basins incur a high frequency of inundation, and currently rely mainly on unregulated overtopping of river levees or intervention by breaching. The safety measures implemented in these basins are also below the standard already attained in many others and require attention.
Work is also required to increase the flood storage capacity of the Yongding floodplain area which is used for floodwater detention just upstream of the New Yongding diversion and, as noted above, improvements are also required around the Dongdian detention basin on the Daqing River.
There are few if any detention basins in the Hai River Basin where safety measures are satisfactory. In most cases, work has been done but more remains to be done. The effort required varies, and the level of detail required to attain reasonable standards in each case is not known in sufficient detail to identify specific key projects—except as noted above for the detention basins in the upper Wei floodplain. The total cost involved for 26 detention basins is estimated to be Y 10.6 billion.
Flood Forecasting and Flood Warning
Improvements are said to be required for all aspects of the flood forecasting and flood warning system. This includes expansion of the instrument monitoring network, updated data transmission technology, forecasting techniques and telecommunications for issuing warnings and maintaining contact during flood emergencies.
Soil Conservation
Requirements include extension work to assist small communities in implementing and maintaining sound soil and water conservation measures in the plateau areas, improved monitoring of conditions and of water and sediment yield, expansion of project areas, ongoing efforts in existing management areas, and construction of gully dams.
C. PROPOSALS IN THE YELLOW RIVER BASIN
Proposals to manage flooding in the Lower Yellow River are well advanced. In the past, floods produced by storms in the lower middle reaches of the river (from the Wei River confluence to Huayuankou) have been addressed through construction of Sanmenxia Reservoir on the main stream and Luhun and Guxian Reservoirs on the Yin-Luo tributary system. Completion of Xiaolangdi Reservoir, scheduled for completion next year, will virtually complete this strategy and raise the standard of the levees downstream of Huayuankou to 1,000 years and virtually eliminate the need for use of Beijindi detention area.
Future emphasis on dams will be further upstream in the middle reaches of the Yellow River in order to stabilize the sediment transport conditions, and on the remaining undammed tributary upstream of Huayuankou, the Qin River.
Reservoirs The three main proposed dams are outlined below. Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 99
Qikou Water Conservancy Scheme The Qikou water conservancy project is one of the seven backbone projects on the Yellow River.
The dam site is located on the middle reaches of the Yellow River in Lin county of Shanxi province and Wubao county of Shaanxi province. The project will trap large amounts of silt. The dam is designed as earthfill dam having a maximum height of 143.5 m. The project is featured by the small design discharge and big storage capacity. Its main task is to retain 14.4 billion tons of silt and to reduce 7.75 billion tons of silt to be accumulated in the river course and also reduce 2.44 billion tons of sand to be accumulated in the Xiaobei main river course. If taking some necessary measures and operating with Xiaolangdi reservoir, the lower reaches of the Yellow river will not be accumulated and raised, in addition the power supply will be guaranteed for the agriculture and industry along the river banks within the Shanxi and Shaanxi provinces.
A “Brief planning report of feasibility study of the Qikou Hydro complex on the Yellow river” was prepared in August 1994 and submitted to the Ministry of Water Resources in September 1994.
The main work quantity: earth and rock volume: 39.63 million m3, concrete :1.297 million m3, the farmland to be inundated: 78,600 mu, the population to be relocated: 53,700.
Guxian Water Conservancy Scheme
The Guxian water conservancy project is also one of the seven backbone projects on the Yellow River stem.
The dam site is located on the middle reaches of the Yellow River in Xiangnin of Shanxi province and Yichuang of Shaanxi province. The project has a catchment area of 490,000 km2. The normal storage level is set at El. 640 m, the total storage capacity of is 16 Bcm and sediment-retaining capacity is 11.35 Bcm, the effective storage capacity 4.65 Bcm. The dam has a maximum height of 186 m and is designed as earth-rockfill dam. Its main task is to control flood and silt and to regulate runoff. It will retain 16 billion tons of silt, reduce 2.44 billion tons of silt accumulation in the Beixiao main course, reduce 6.44 billion tons of sediment in the lower reaches’ course and mitigate the flood control burden of the Yutong river section and the Sanmenxia reservoir. After completion of the Guxian and Qikou reservoirs the lower reach levees of the Yellow River will not need to be raised.
The main work quantity: earth and rock volume: 89.59 million m3, concrete :2.51 million m3, the farmland to be inundated: 27,300 mu, the population to be relocated: 14,700.
Hekoucun Reservoir
Hekoucun Reservoir is located on the tributary—the Qinhe river in Jiyuan city of Henan province. It has a catchment area of 9,200 km2, a total storage capacity of 330 million m3 and a flood control storage capacity 290 million m3. The project can raise the 20-year flood control criteria with a discharge of 4,000 cubic meters per second (m3/s) to 200-year flood with the same discharge.
The “Report on feasibility study of the Hekoucun Reservoir on the Qinhe river” was prepared in October 1985 and a meeting to review the feasibility study of the Hekoucun Reservoir on the Qinhe river was held in 1988. The total investment of the project is Y 1.2 billion. 100 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
The massive sediment load to which the lower reaches of the river are subjected leads to river channel instability and aggradation of the river bed, and unless the sediment can be contained at its source this will always be an ongoing problem. The soil and water conservation projects being undertaken in the loess plateaus assume great importance in this context. They have long-term objectives, however, and in the short to medium term the proposed strategy involves construction of two large, multipurpose dams in the middle reaches of the Yellow River. These dams will have design allowance for very large sediment pools, which means that they are being designed to trap enormous volumes of sediment within their first 50 years of operation.
Flood Management Projects on the Lower Reaches of the Yellow River
One of the major projects to be undertaken is at Dongping Lakes. Dongping Lake reservoir was originally a natural flood storage area and is located in the alluvial plain downstream of the Wenhe river connected with the Yellow river. It was used for flood storage in 1949, 1953, 1954, 1957 and 1958. The Dongping Lake reservoir was rebuilt as the reservoir for flood detention with a total area of 627 km2. The original maximum design pool level is 46.0 m and the corresponding storage capacity 3.98 Bcm, of which the old lake covers an area of 209 km2 and the storage capacity 1.19 Bcm, the new lake area is 418 km2 with a storage capacity of 2.79 Bcm. The reservoir works include 100 km-long, 8m to 10m-high surrounding dam and 26.8 km-long lake dike, totaling 126.8 km long.
The main task the Dongping Lake reservoir is to regulate and store flood from the Yellow and Weihe river, control the discharging flow from Aishan below 10,000 m3/s and ensure the safety flood control for the Yellow river and be available to be used when the flood exceeding the standard occurs. The present population is 283,400 and farmland 462,700 mu.
It is planned that the Dongping Lake reservoir will be upgraded to have an operation water level of 44.5m, storage capacity of 3.04 Bcm, of which the old lake comprises 880 million m3 and the new lake comprises 2.16 Bcm. At present it has Shiwa, Linxin , Shilibao, Xuzhuang and Gengshankou head gates with the flood diversion capacity of 9,000 m3/s and three gates for flood relieving: Chenshankou with a design discharge of 2,500 m3/s, Qinghekou with a design discharge of 2,500 m3/s and Sihai. Owing to the accumulation and raising of the Yellow river bed and sedimentation behind the gates, the discharging capacity is only 600 m3/s at the reservoir level of 44.5m but the corresponding discharge of big rivers is 6,000 m3/s.
The total investment is planed to be Y 238 million.
The downstream dike of the Yellow river is the important component of the flood control engineering system. Heightening and strengthening work must be carried out on the basis of the design flood water level and such problems as crack, fissures , caves and seepage and piping must be solved in order to make the Yellow river dike to play its significant role for flood control.
Table A5.2-2 below itemizes the proposed works in the Yellow River. Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 101
TABLE A5.2-2: FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS OF THE YELLOW RIVER Project Size Note Serial Project Name Levee (km) Buttress Total 3,365.41 13,900
I Levee strengthening 3,365.41 5,945 (I) Type I levee 1,516.23 5,835 Protect 12×104 km2, population of 7,800×104 , 7.33×104 ha farmland Lower reach of Yellow river 1,370.70 5,748 Levee 1,370.70 Remediation of levee 5,369 Repair levee 379 Left levee of Xinghe 15.70 62 After Laolongwan 15.70 Protect North-China Oil field North levee of Hekou 52.00 25 Protect Shengli Oil field Dongpinghu weir 77.83 (II) Type II levee 1,849.18 110 1 Type II-1 levee 203.43 0 Right levee of Xinghe 141.90 South levee of Hekou 34.80 Dongpinghu second levee 26.73 Type II-2 levee 1,645.75 110 Daqinghe levee 32.45 Ningmenhe section 1,375.60 348 Protect 64×104 ha farmland and 290×104 population Weihe levee 237.70 110 III Dredging 7,955 New & continuing construction 4,255 Lower reach of Yellow river 1,728 Yutong section 683 Tongshan section 391 Lower reach of weihe 284 Ningmeng section 1,169 IV Estuary Strengthening & heightening Lower 3,700 reach of Yellow river Flood plain of Yellow river lower reach 3,956 km2 Protect 25×104 ha farmland and 179.3×104 population Detention area of Dongpinghu 627 km2 Protect 3×104 ha farmland and 32.93×104 population Detention area of Beijingdi 2,316 km2 Protect 15×104 ha farmland and 152×104 population Flood plain of Weihe lower reach Protect 0.9×104 ha farmland and 7.2×104 population Other flood control projects Hydrological, communication, others Soil & water maintenance
Table A5.2-3 summarizes these large-scale projects proposed in the lower and middle reaches of the Yellow River which impact upon flood management in the Lower Yellow River. Other works are proposed further upstream. As those are directed at local flooding problems they are not detailed here. Ongoing maintenance programs are required for existing levee systems in Neimenggu and Ningxia Autonomous Regions. 102 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
TABLE A5.2-3: SUMMARY OF PLANNED MAJOR PROJECTS IN THE YELLOW RIVER BASIN Name River Type of Project Estimated Cost Comments (Y million) Qikou Huang New reservoir ? sediment capture and flood mitigation Guxian Huang New reservoir ? sediment capture and flood mitigation Hekoucun Qin New reservoir 1,200 flood mitigation Lower reaches Huang Levee improvements 5,700 1,370 km of main levees, 5,369 river training works, 379 bank protection works Qin R. left bank Qin Levee improvements 1,610 15.7 km of levees d/s of Laolongwan, 62 river training works Delta, north bank Levee improvements 300 52 km of levees, 25 river training works to protect Shengli oil-field Dongping Lake Huang Safety measures for detention 240 regulators, levees, house raising, evacuation basin roads Loess plateau - Soil and water conservation 10,900 expansion of project areas, gully dams
The list also excludes:
· planned works for the dredging of rivers to maintain flood capacity which are proposed in the lower and middle reaches of the river, and in the delta area;
· improvements to levees classified as of lower priority or importance, including among others levees on the right bank of the Qin River, the southern side of the delta and the lower reaches of the Wei River.
Levee Improvements. The standard of levee protection is not everywhere uniform, particularly along the lowest reaches. More importantly, the condition of levees is variable, poor foundation conditions are difficult to detect, and the river course is unstable. Ongoing maintenance and repair work is essential and will continue to be a major task. With completion of Xiaolangdi, emphasis will shift to downstream of Dongping detention area. Levees in the delta area, and levees which protect the left bank of the lower Qin River and the adjoining irrigated plains will also require future attention.
Safety Measures. Construction of safety measures within Dongping Lake are to be completed, and the embankments and regulating gates surrounding the detention basin require some upgrading and improvement. There are also plans to provide safety measures to populated riparian areas within the main river levees.
Soil Conservation. Requirements include extension work to assist small communities in implementing and maintaining sound soil and water conservation measures, improved monitoring of conditions and of water and sediment yield, expansion of project areas by 12,000 km2 a year, ongoing efforts in existing management areas, construction of 5,000 gully dams (by year 2010), research, development and training.
Other Works. Other features of proposed future efforts include:
· further improvements along the lower Wei River and in and adjacent to the Sanmenxia Reservoir area, essentially remedial in nature;
· regulation of medium and small rivers for local tributary flood control and to support the role of the larger storages in flood mitigation; Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 103
· rehabilitation of existing reservoirs which are structurally unsound or have unacceptable hydrological risk, including 15 large and medium sized reservoirs throughout the basin;
· improved flood protection for regional cities, including raising of flood control standards for Zhengzhou, Kaifeng and Jinan.
D. PROPOSED WORKS IN THE HUAI RIVER BASIN
Future projects in the Huai River Basin are directed at further improvement of the flood protection standards for key areas along the middle and lower reaches of the Huai River, north-west tributary systems to the Huai River and Hongze Lake, and levees around the major lakes. Table A5.2-4 presents a summary of major projects proposed.
TABLE A5.2-4: SUMMARY OF PLANNED MAJOR PROJECTS IN THE HUAI RIVER BASIN Name River Type of Project Estimated Cost Comments (Y million) Yanshan Sha-Ying New reservoir 900 flood mitigation Bailianya Pi New reservoir 900 flood mitigation Hongshitan Huai New reservoir ? flood mitigation Xiatang ? New reservoir ? flood mitigation Gianping Sha-Ying New reservoir ? flood mitigation Huibaoling Xijia Rehabilitation of 99 Shandong province existing reservoir Xiaotashan Qingkou Rehabilitation of 176 Jiangsu province existing reservoir Huaibei levee Huai Levee improvement 315 strengthening and raising of north bank levee, Zhengyangguan to Hongze L. Nansi Lake west Si Levee improvement ? strengthening and raising of west bank shore levee Linhuaigang Huai Regulated detention 1,100 To increase standard of protection d/s storage from Zhengyangguan to Hongze L. Eastern outfall Huai diversion channel 4,260 Hongze L. to Yellow Sea N-W tributaries Hongru, Fenquan, river engineering and 1,020, increase flood conveyance capacities of Ying, Wo, Kui-Sui levees 493, main tributaries in N-W plains 709,738, 820 New Yi R. outfall New Yi R. tidal barrage ? to address estuarine siltation Detention Areas Huai safety measures 650 house raising, evacuation roads, polders New Yi R. New Yi R. river engineering and 80 strengthen levees, increase channel levees conveyance capacity Flood warning Huai, flood warning 178 upgrade required system Yi-Shu-Si
New Flood Control Reservoirs
Projects nominated as planning priorities include:
· construction of Yanshan Reservoir on the Kanjiang River, a southern tributary of the Sha-Ying system, to relieve the frequency of inundation of the Nihewa detention area and mitigate flooding on the Ying River tributary to the Huai;
· construction of Bailianya Reservoir on the Pi River to further mitigate floods deriving from the southern mountainous region. 104 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
Longer-term objectives are:
· Hongshitan, located on the main stream of the Huai River in the upper reaches, to further mitigate floods on the main stream and reduce frequency of inundation of flood detention areas;
· Xiatang;
· Gianping, to be located on a northern tributary in the Sha-Ying system.
Rehabilitation of Existing Reservoirs After the national review and revision of dam safety standards in 1994, 26 large reservoirs were identified as requiring urgent upgrading. Of these, most have been completed, 7 are still undergoing renovations, and 2—Huibaoling and Xiaotashan—remain to be undertaken.
Levee Improvements
While all existing levee systems require ongoing programs of monitoring, maintenance and occasional repair, key major projects of levee improvement include:
· the Huaibei levee, or north bank levee of the Huai River from Zhengyangguan to Hongze Lake— while considerable upgrading work has taken place since the 1991 flood, this is a very strategic levee protecting a densely populated area of 12,000 km2, including over 8,000 km2 of intensively cultivated land, and more renovation and raising is required to achieve satisfactory standards throughout;
· the west levee bounding Nansi Lake, protecting an area of over 2,500 km2, including 2,000 km2 of cultivated land, which requires renovation and raising to achieve desired structural and flood protection standards.
Other levee works are required in conjunction with river engineering works discussed below.
Detention and Storage Areas
A major project to be undertaken is the Linhuaigang project. This involves construction of a large, gated regulator on the Huai River upstream of the Ying confluence, and levee embankments surrounding a large depression area adjoining the Huai River. It would enable an on-stream regulated flood storage to be used to better control flood discharges from the upper Huai and Hong-Ru into the middle river reach from Zhengyangguan to Hongze Lake. It would incorporate existing detention areas such as Mongwa, Chengxi and Chengdong, allowing them to be inundated to greater depth. By regulating major floods, and together with upgrading of the Huaibei levees, the project would raise flood protection standards downstream to 100 years on the middle reach of the river.
Construction of safety measures is also required in existing flood detention areas. Substantial work has already taken place in those areas to be incorporated in the proposed Linhuaigang project, but much remains to be done for other, typically smaller areas. Safety measures are also being proposed and have commenced for riparian areas along the main stream downstream of Zhengyangguan, where the use of flood passage areas places significant populations at increased flood risk. Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 105
River Engineering Projects
There are large river engineering projects proposed on five main tributaries which drain from the plains in the northwest of the Huai River Basin (see Table A5.2-4). Typically, these projects comprise excavation of a larger river channel by dredging, accompanied by levee construction, raising or re- alignment. Apart from flood flows produced by storm runoff from their tributary catchments, these main tributaries to the Huai River or Hongze Lake are also influenced by backwater from flood stage in the main river or lake. River slopes are very low, so that flooding and waterlogging because of poor drainage behind the levees is aggravated by flood stage in the receiving stream or water body.
Increased capacity is also proposed for the Yi New River, which has a current design capacity equivalent only to a 20-year flood. The existing levees along this diversion channel are also of inferior standard and major work is required to bring them to a good structural condition. Future enlargement is also proposed for the Shu New River. Costs of Y 2,723 million are projected for the first stage of the integrated “East-South transfer project” of which these are part.
River Diversions
A large number of river diversions have already been implemented to bypass river reaches of limited capacity or to provide ocean outfalls. One major river diversion is proposed in future, leading east from Hongze Lake to an ocean outfall. This would run parallel to the existing North Irrigation Canal.
Table A5.2-5 shows the existing outfall design capacities from Hongze Lake. There are three existing outfalls. The levees on the east bank of Hongze Lake and on the east of the Liyun Canal have design crest levels to 100-year standard.
TABLE A5.2-5: OUTFALL CHANNELS FROM HONGZE LAKE Outfall Channel Outfall to Design Capacity (m3/s) San-he Yangtze 12 000 North Irrigation Canal ocean 800 Hong-Shu Diversion Yi New River 3 000 Eastern outfall stage 1 (proposed) ocean 3 000 Eastern outfall stage 2 (proposed) ocean 7 000
The capacity of the outfall to the Yangtze River is in practice rather less than 12,000 m3/s, and there are constraints to enlarging this because of development near the channel, and also because of the limited fall available, particularly when the Yangtze is also in flood. On the other hand, discharges higher than the design capacity of 800 m3/s were successfully transferred along the North Irrigation Canal during the 1991 flood.
There is concern that the capacity available in the Hong-Shu diversion may not be available if the Yi-Shu-Si river system is also in flood. While this is possible, past experience does not appear to justify this concern. Major historical floods have not coincided in both parts of the Huai River Basin. An hydrological analysis of joint probability should be conducted to examine the risk of coincident floods occurring. This would enable an optimization of the design capacities, in conjunction with economic analysis of the impacts.
The new diversion channel would be constructed parallel to and to the north of the existing Irrigation Canal. A new channel is preferred to avoid the expense of replacing all the infrastructure which exists on the North Irrigation Canal. 106 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
The main area expected to benefit from this project is the flat coastal belt between Hongze Lake, the Liyun Canal and the sea. Although very low-lying, it is productive land supporting a population of 5 to 6 million. It is an area which was devastated in the 1931 flood, but flood control works since 1949 have considerably reduced its flood risk. The stage 1 development would increase the level of protection to approximately 300 years, and stage 2 enlargement would ultimately increase this to 1,000 years. The economic justification of this has not been sighted, and exceeding the existing standard claimed to be 1 in 100 years would normally be hard to justify, notwithstanding the very large population affected.
Flood Forecasting and Warning
A high degree of operational management and intervention is necessary during large floods to divert floodwaters into detention areas for temporary storage and to distribute flood flows in original river channels and new river diversions through operation of regulators. Very good forecasting accuracy was achieved in the 1991 flood, which greatly aided management of the situation. Flood forecasting therefore assumes great importance in flood management of the Huai River system. Upgrading to the latest technology and maximizing flood warning time is very important, and has been identified as an objective in long-range planning to year 2010.
Proposed Urban Flood Control Projects
In the context of this study, it is impossible to identify all cities in the 3-H basin that have plans for raising the standard of their levee protection. However a sample of ten cities were researched by NIHWR and are reported upon in their 1999 report and summarized here. The ten cities are shown in Table A5.2-6.
TABLE A5.2-6: FLOOD CONTROL STANDARD OF 10 CITIES Flood Control Standard Once X years Year in which City Basin Present Planned ARI planning Stage 1 Future started Beijing Haihe 1,000 1996 Tianjin Haihe 10 50 200 1992 Zhenzhou Yellow River 20 50 100 1994 Kaifeng Yellow River 5 50 1992 Benbu Huaihe 40 40 100 1996 Huainan Huaihe 20 40 100 1995 Hefei Changjiang 20 50 100 1994 Anqing Changjiang 20 flood of 1954 100 1992 Changsha Changjiang 30 100 200 1994 Yueyang Changjiang 15 50 100 1991
The problems and proposed solutions are discussed in the next sections.
Beijing. Beijing flood threat is from Yongding River. The flood control system includes: Yongdinghe, North canal flood control system and urban water discharge system. Flood control system of Yongdinghe & North canal includes: Reservoirs, levee strengthening and heightening, Xiaoqinghe flood division project, watercourse dredging, Sanjiading detention area construction; urban discharge system refers to discharge channel improvement and dredging.
Plan of Flood Control and Drainage for Yongding River. The main projects are as follows: Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 107
· controlling the flood discharging above the Sanjiandian main channel. The recommended scheme is that dredging and clearing the silt sill in Guishui river mouth to form a diversion channel and communicate Yongding and Guishui rivers. Meanwhile the Chenjianzhuang reservoir should be constructed as soon as possible;
· improving the flood protection projects on the section from Sanjiadian to Lugouqiao, especially the left dike;
· installing the facilities of flood diversion on Lugouqiao section and constructing the nonengineering flood control system, including heightening the right dike on Xiaolaba river, enlarging the Liuzhuangzi bleeder, dredging the floodway below the bleeder and completing the construction of the roads and buildings for dispersing and sheltering the population;
· the dike on the Lugouqiao-Lianggezhuang section should be reinforced and reinstated on the requirement of training alignment at present. The main channel will be dredged and regulated in future.
The estimate of investment is as follows: the total investment is Y 594.37 million in the current projects and Y 1,751.56 million in future.
City Flood Control. The plan of channel regulation for the city proper is as follows:
· In the plan of Tonghui river regulation, the regulation principle is that storage in the west, draining in the east and flood diversion in the north and south.
· In the plan of Liangshui river regulation, the channel from the Beijing-Tianjin railway bridge to Majuqiao will be widened to 3–20 m. Moreover, the relevant 14 bridges and 2 gates will be reconstructed and enlarged.
· In the plan of Qing river regulation, the channel near the Beijing-Baotou railway will be cut off in 360 m long; the channel from Wangquan river mouth to Shenjiafen gate will be widened to 4–15 m, and 8 bridges and 4 gates will be reconstructed and enlarged;
· In the plan of Ba river regulation, the 21.7 km channel from the northeast corner to Wenyu river will be widened to 4-20 m, except of the 1.5 km channel regulated, and 11 bridges and 7 gates will be reconstructed and enlarged.
The total regulation length of the above four rivers is about 98 km and the investment Y 1,271 million. For the plan of drain branches regulation, the total regulation length is 113 km and the investment Y 571 million, involving 16 branches of more 30 ones.
Plan of Flood Control for North Canal. In the plan, the main projects are that clearing channel and reinforcing dike at present (before 2000), heightening and thickening dikes, enlarging Yulinzhuang and Yangwa sluices on the main channel of North canal in future (2000 – 2010).
The flood standards are as follows: 108 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
· Dredging main channel—design standard 10 percent; · Dike—design standard 5 percent, check standard 2 percent; · Freeboard of dike crest –on Wenyu river, check standard 2 percent and freeboard 1.0 m,
Main engineering measures:
· Before 2000. Clearing and dredging the main channel on the design drain standard for Wenyu river and North canal in 1970–74. Communicating the left and right dikes, improving the wrecking road on the dike crest. Reinforcing critic spots, including seven sections on Wenyu river (8,870 m) and six sections on North canal (5,965 m). Reconstructing retaining and river-crossing structures. Clearing trees on floodplain and setting dike for protecting villages on North canal.
· 2001–2010. Heightening and thickening the left and right dikes of North canal on the flood standard and the reviewed level; Enlarging Yulinzhuang and Yangwa sluices, in which increasing six openings with a total width 36 m for Yulinzhuang and four openings with a total width 32 m for Yangwa.
The total investment will be Y 242 million (at the price level in 1995).
Tianjin
Present Situation. Tianjin flood threat is mainly from upper and middle reach of Haihe basin (especially Daqinghe flood ), the urban flood control system is made up of flood control levee of four directions. North to south levee of New Yongdingkhe, south to north levee of Duliujianhe, east to anti- tide levee, west to flood control levee. All of these protect area of 2,700 km2.
Engineering Measures of Flood Protection
· Main stream of Hai river: desilting the coastal inlet, reinstating and reinforcing dikes, reconstructing buildings along the rivers and large sluices.
· New Yongding river: desilting the channel, setting a tide gate on the mouth; Diversion river of Duliu river: reconstructing and desilting Gongrongbing gate; Clearing a part of reed in Dagang section; Deepening the channels on the two sides of sluices and excavating a flood diversion channel in Dagang.
· West dikes: heightening and thickening a part of dikes, and proving slope protection.
· tide dike: heightening the existing dike
· emergency discharging channel on the south side of Dagang: construct a flood dike, with a length of 17 km, on the south side of Dagang oil field which will serve as the north dike of emergency discharging channel.
· Desilting and regulating the secondary channels with total length of 520 km, completing facilities there. Reconstructing 56 pump stations and 24 sluices and gates.
Zhengzhou City Present Situation. Menace of flood to Zhengzhou city is mainly from the Yellow river in its north side and Jialu river in the urban district. The flood control system was composed of the Yellow river Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 109
flood protection works and city proper one. The former included dikes, river regime control, and culvert and sluice works for the Yellow river; the latter consisted of river channel works, dikes and reservoirs in the upstream side.
In the city flood disasters occurred frequently. By history recording, over 80 breaks of Yellow river happened in the city proper. Flood disasters took place and the loss larger and larger after 1949. For examples, the flood disaster, in July 1978, brought about the direct economic loss of Y 5.2 million over, and the flood disaster, in August 1983, brought about the direct economic loss of Y 50 million.
Proposed Works. The engineering measures for the flood control of the Yellow river include strengthening of dike, heightening and modification of critical works, regulation works of river channel, strengthening and reconstruction of culverts and sluices.
For other rivers, the engineering measures are as follows:
· The dikes of the Soxu river and branch of Jialu river will be reconstructed;
· the right dike of Dongfeng channel and main stream of Qili river above Qili river mouth will be reconstructed at a 50-year flood.
· The dike from the junction of Qili and Dongfeng channel to the Jialu river mouth reconstructed according to a 20-year flood,
· Several key medium-size reservoirs, such as Dingdian in the upstream of Soxu river, Houhu in the upstream of Qili river, will be strengthened and perfected.
Kaifeng City Existing Situation. Menace of flood to Kaifeng city is mainly from the main stream of the Yellow river. Its flood control system was made up of Yellow river dikes, city protection dike and city wall, and seven river channels of the Huiji and other rivers in the urban district were used for water logging drainage.
Proposed Works.
· Modification works of the Yellow river dike
· In the planning scheme, the original flood control standard, 60 - year flood, for the Yellow river in the boundary of Kaifeng is raised to 100-year flood,
· Widening and regulating works of the city dike,
· Improving works of the city wall.
The investment of flood control works for the Yellow river is Y 82.2 million. The investment of the city dike works is Y 26.8 million. The investment of the city wall works is Y 21.0683 million. The investment of flood and waterlogging control works for the inland rivers is Y 40.0847 million. 110 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
Bengbu City
Existing Conditions. Flood in the main stream of the Huaihe river threatens the safety of Bengbu city. Its flood control system consisted of semi-ring-shaped dike works around the city proper. The water logging control was accomplished through drainage pipe networks with 15 zonings.
Proposed Works.
· Elimination of safety risks for the existing circular dikes and strengthening them
· Circular flood protection dike works in the West District
· Nonengineering measures, including floodplain management, removing obstacles from the submerged bank areas, constructing flooding preventing roads, communication and alarm devices, collecting the charges for dike repair and management, etc.
· Improving the Longzi river (Longzi he)
· Improving the Xijiagou river.
· Improving the Baligou river
· Waterlog control for the western circular dike area
· Waterlog control for the old circular dike area
The cost estimated of the works totals Y 152.84 million, of which the flood control cost is Y 63.01 million, that of waterlog control Y 77.33 million and management charges Y 12.50 million.
Huainan City
Existing Situation. Menace of flood to Huainan city is also mainly from the main stream of the Huaihe river. The dike works was a main measure for flood protection of the city. Because most of the urban district is at the south bank of the Huaihe river, the dike works, including six dike sections, was constructed in the south bank.
In 1954 when Huainan city suffered from an extreme flood, the direct economic losses had been determined as Y 766 million (at 1993 price). In other words, the direct benefit from the present flood control works at a flood of 40-year return period would be Y 766 million, Based on calculations, the average multiannual direct benefit of flood control would be Y 15.32 million a year and that indirect Y 3.82 million a year. Thus, the average multiannual benefit of flood control for the Huainan city totals Y 19.15 million a year.
Proposed Works. The criteria of flood control adopted for the Huainan city in the short term must permit to withstand the 1954 flood (corresponding the 40-year flood). The long-term flood control criterion is required to resist the 100-year flood.
The main works required consist of about 6 km of levee and internal drainage works. The estimated cost is Y 51 million. Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 111
Hefei City
Existing Conditions. Flooding of Hefei city is mainly from the Nanfeihe river, a tributary of the Yangtze river. Its flood control system consists the flood protection works of the river across the city, in which there are two upstream reservoirs, Dongpu and Dafangying, dike on the middle reach of the river in city proper and dredging of the downstream reach. The waterlogging drainage system included pump stations and drainage pipe networks, drained to the Nanfeihe river and its branch rivers.
Proposed Works. The main works of this alternative include the Dafangying reservoir and dike works which refer to strengthening, heightening and constructing some local sections of the main stem’s dikes from the Cooperation road bridge to Tunqi road bridge, as well as partial dike sections along the tributaries such as Sili, Banqiao and Ershilipu rivers.
The total cost estimated for the Hefei city’s flood and waterlog control works has been calculate as Y 524 million (at 1993 price, the same for below), of which the flood control is Y 366 million, the waterlog control is Y 150 million and the cost of facilities management is Y 8 million.
Anqing City
Existing Conditions. Flood in the main stream of the Yangtze river threatens the safety of Anqing city. Its flood control works was made from city flood protection wall and Yangtze dike in Guangjixu. In the planning scheme, 30 km long flood protection dike will be constructed to form a complete ring dike for the city.
Proposed Works. The works are divided into two phases: the first phase consists of heightening and strengthening the Guanjiyu dike and the city's flood protection wall, which total 16.742 km and requires an investment of Y 52.6 million; the second phase is to built dividing dikes and crossing structures, totally Y 79.8 million.
Changsha City
Existing Conditions. Changsha city is menaced with the flood in the main stream of the Xiangjiang river and its branch rivers and Dongting lake. Its flood and water logging control system was composed of dikes, walls, drainage sluices, flood discharging channels and pump stations. In the planning scheme, several independent flood-protection rings for the city will be formed through river regulation, dike construction and widening on natural topography and the existing river dikes of the main stream and branch rivers.
Proposed Works. The whole program of flood control is as follows:
· Heightening and strengthening existing earth dikes to form a closed circle.
· Heightening and strengthening existing the flood protection walls
· 4.829 km of flood protection walls need to be newly built in order to enclose three deficient areas
· Constructing 22.872 km of earth dikes to form a closed protective circle for flood control on the left bank of the Laodao river.
· 151 existing culverts and gates have to be reinforced and lengthened, 2 culverts and gates newly built. 112 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
Yueyang City
Existing Conditions. Menace of flood to Yueyang city is from the main stream of the Yangtze river and Tongting lake. Its flood control system included five dikes against flood in the Yangtze river in the north side, east Tongting lake in west side and Dongfeng lake in the city proper. The waterlogging control system was made up of waterlog storage in lake, flood discharging channels gravity and mechanical drainage works by sluices and pipes.
Proposed Works. There are five sections of front dikes with a total length of 31.26 km. The planning measures are to heighten and strengthen the existing dikes, change the line and move the position of the dikes, or prolong the new sections of the dikes.
With the projects to be constructed, the direct economic loss of Y 3.66 million caused by floods and waterlogging will be reduced. If a flood occurs again like that in 1954, direct economic losses of Y 422 million in the central area can be saved. And a loss of Y 24 million can also be saved if a flood occurs like that in 1988. Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs 113
FIGURE A5.2-1: HAI RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS , PUMPS AND TRANSFER WORKS 114 Annex 5.2: Proposed Works Under Current Government Flood Control Programs
FIGURE A5.2-2: HUAI RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS , PUMPS AND TRANSFER WORKS
FIGURE A5.2-3: HUANG RIVER BASIN RESERVOIRS , PUMPS AND TRANSFER WORKS Annex 6.1: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Irrigation) 115
ANNEX 6.1: STATISTICS RELATED TO CHAPTER 6 (IRRIGATION)
TABLE A6-1: 3-H TOTAL IRRIGATION AREA UNDER VARIOUS SCENARIOS (Million mu)
1997 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Base Case Rainfed 95% Prob 118.25 108.32 110.77 124.84 131.29 134.79 139.1 75% Prob 57.33 54.21 56.15 65.67 69.73 71.2 74.52 50% Prob 31.99 29.43 35.43 42.42 45.33 46.99 48.41 25% Prob 21.56 17.7 21.85 26.45 28.88 30.48 30.89
Partial Irrigation 95% Prob 185.58 208.34 212.25 202.45 194.26 192.85 193.12 75% Prob 162.78 168.73 155.41 159.74 163.56 168.13 167.2 50% Prob 99.52 101.21 98.46 93.79 93.09 93.22 96.12 25% Prob 81.66 80.79 85.48 86.69 87.78 88.62 94.66
Full Irrig. 95% Prob 151.95 139.38 137.81 134.33 136.06 133.98 129.41 75% Prob 235.66 233.1 249.26 236.21 228.32 222.3 219.9 50% Prob 324.26 325.41 326.95 325.4 323.2 321.41 317.08 25% Prob 352.54 357.54 353.49 348.47 344.95 342.51 336.07 W/O S-N (Efficiency 10% Improvement + Reuse + High Price) Rainfed 95% Prob 118.25 108.32 105.85 112.32 113.15 114.91 115.74 75% Prob 57.33 54.21 56.56 62.89 63.09 63.61 64.28 50% Prob 31.99 29.43 34.38 39.68 39.71 40.35 40.81 25% Prob 21.56 17.7 21.77 25.65 26.5 26.94 27.15
Partial Irrig. 95% Prob 185.58 208.34 212.56 212.13 215.48 214.38 216.52 75% Prob 162.78 168.73 147.67 151.9 158.74 160.31 160.23 50% Prob 99.52 101.21 98.04 92.03 95.51 96.74 95.81 25% Prob 81.66 80.79 82.8 78.36 77.71 79.03 77.92
Full Irrig. 95% Prob 151.95 139.38 142.43 137.17 132.97 132.33 129.36 75% Prob 235.66 233.1 256.59 246.83 239.78 237.7 237.09 50% Prob 324.26 325.41 328.41 329.9 326.38 324.51 324.99 25% Prob 352.54 357.54 356.26 357.6 357.41 355.65 356.54 With S-N Water Transfer Project Rainfed 95% Prob 118.25 108.32 97.72 92.26 93.28 94.05 95.02 75% Prob 57.33 54.21 51.65 48.22 49.12 49.92 50.45 50% Prob 31.99 29.43 33.45 29.36 29.16 29.87 30.47 25% Prob 21.56 17.7 21.77 21.76 22.52 22.96 23.18
Partial Irrig. 95% Prob 185.58 208.34 219.14 208.77 204.15 206.93 210.63 75% Prob 162.78 168.73 151.58 149.06 152.54 153.34 153.62 50% Prob 99.52 101.21 92.3 94.07 96.68 97.83 96.76 25% Prob 81.66 80.79 82.8 65.86 67.18 68.58 67.88
Full Irrig. 95% Prob 151.95 139.38 143.98 160.58 164.19 160.64 155.96 75% Prob 235.66 233.1 257.59 264.35 259.95 258.36 257.54 50% Prob 324.26 325.41 335.08 338.18 335.77 333.9 334.38 25% Prob 352.54 357.54 356.26 373.99 371.91 370.08 370.55 116 Annex 6.1: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Irrigation)
FIGURE A6.1-1: PERCENT OF FULL, PARTIAL IRRIGATION AND RAINFED AREA IN 3-H B ASINS UNDER DIFFERENT RUNOFF PROBABILITIES , B ASE CASE
80%
70%
60% Percent Full 50% Irrigation Area 40% in 3 H Basins, 30% Base Case 20%
10%
0% 25% 50% 75% 95% 1997 2000
2010 Proba 2020 2030
Year 2040 bility 2050 95% 75% 50% 25%
50% 45% 40% Percent Partial 35% 30% Irrigation Area 25% in 3 H Basins, 20% Base Case 15% 10% 5%
0% 95% 75% 50% 25% 2050 2040
2030 Proba 2020 2010
Year 2000 bility 1997 95% 75% 50% 25%
35%
30%
25% Percent Rainfed Area in 20% 3 H Basins, 15%
Base Case 10%
5%
0% 95% 75% 50% 25% 2050 2040
2030 Proba 2020 2010
Year 2000 bility 95% 75% 50% 25% 1997 Annex 6.1: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Irrigation) 117
FIGURE A6.1-2: PERCENT OF FULL, PARTIAL IRRIGATION AND RAINFED AREA IN 3-H B ASINS UNDER DIFFERENT RUNOFF PROBABILITIES , WITHOUT S-N WATER TRANSFER
80%
70%
60% Percent Full 50% Irrigation Area 40% in 3 H Basins, 30% W/O S-N 20%
10%
0% 25% 50% 75% 95% 1997 2000
2010 Proba 2020 2030
Year 2040 bility 2050 95% 75% 50% 25%
50% 45% 40% Percent Partial 35% 30% Irrigation Area 25% in 3 H Basins, 20% W/O S-N 15% 10% 5%
0% 95% 75% 50% 25% 2050 2040
2030 Proba 2020 2010
Year 2000 bility 1997 95% 75% 50% 25%
30%
25%
Percent 20% Rainfed Area in 15% 3 H Basins, W/O S-N 10%
5%
0% 95% 75% 50% 25% 2050 2040
2030 Proba 2020 2010
Year 2000 bility 95% 75% 50% 25% 1997 118 Annex 6.1: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Irrigation)
FIGURE A6.1-3: PERCENT OF FULL, PARTIAL IRRIGATION AND RAINFED AREA IN 3-H B ASINS UNDER DIFFERENT RUNOFF PROBABILITIES , WITH S-N WATER TRANSFER
90%
80%
70%
60% Percent Full 50% Irrigation Area 40% in 3 H Basins 30% 20% 10%
0% 25% 50% 75% 95% 1997 2000
2010 Proba 2020 2030
Year 2040 bility 2050 95% 75% 50% 25%
50% 45% 40% 35% Percent Partial 30% Irrigation Area 25% in 3 H Basins 20% 15% 10% 5%
0% 95% 75% 50% 25% 2050 2040
2030 Proba 2020 2010
Year 2000 bility 1997 95% 75% 50% 25%
30%
25%
20% Percent Rainfed Area in 15%
3 H Basins 10%
5%
0% 95% 75% 50% 25% 2050 2040
2030 Proba 2020 2010
Year 2000 bility 95% 75% 50% 25% 1997 Annex 6.1: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Irrigation) 119
MAP A6.1-1: TOTAL IRRIGATION AREA IN 3-H B ASINS IN 2020, B ASE CASE, P75
II-1
Hu heh ot
IV-3B II-2A Beijin g II-2B
II-3A Tianjin IV-8 II-3 C
Shijiazh uan g Taiy uan IV-4 II-3 E
II-3B II-3D II-4 II-7 IV-3 A Jin an
IV-7B Q in gda o II-3 F Lan zh ou IV-5 A
IV-2 III-6
II-5 IV-7A IV-5B Zhe ng zh ou IV -1 IV-6 Xuz ho u Xi'an
II-4 III-3
III-2 Ben gb u
III-1
LEGEND N CHIN A WATER SECTOR AC TIO N PRO GRAM WORL D BAN K- MI NISTR Y OF WATER RESO URC ES UN IT: Mmu Full Irr igat ion Are as Par tial Irr iga tion Ar ea s Low Irr iga tion Are as FIGUR E No. Cit y Perce nt 75 Tota l Ir rig atio n Ar ea fo r Ba se C ase in 202 0 Na tion al Boun dar y in th e Ye llow Huai Hai River Ba sin s
MAP A6.1-2: TOTAL IRRIGATION AREA IN 3-H B ASINS IN 2050, B ASE CASE, P75
II-1
Hu heh ot
IV-3B
II-2A Beijin g II-2B
II-3A Tianjin IV-8 II-3 C
Shijiazh uan g Taiy uan IV-4 II-3 E
II-3B II-3D II-4 II-7 IV-3 A Jin an IV-7B Q in gda o
Lan zh ou IV-5 A II-3 F
IV-2 III-6
IV-7A II-5 IV-5B Zhe ng zh ou IV -1 IV-6 Xuz ho u Xi'an
II-4 III-3 III-2 Ben gb u
III-1
LEGEND N CHIN A WATER SECTOR AC TIO N PRO GRAM WORL D BAN K- MI NISTR Y OF WATER RESO URC ES UN IT: Mmu Full Irr igat ion Are as Par tial Irr iga tion Ar ea s Low Irr iga tion Are as FIGUR E No. Cit y Per cen t 7 5 Tot al Irr iga tion Are a for Bas e Ca se i n 20 50 Na tion al Boun dar y in the Yellow Hu ai Ha i Rive r Basins 120 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management)
ANNEX 6.2: STATISTICS RELATED TO CHAPTER 6 (AGRICULTURE AND MANAGEMENT)
TABLE A6.2-1: DETAILS OF GOVERNMENT ONGOING INVESTMENT PROGRAM (100 M ILLION YUAN) FOR SOCAD, LIS AND WATER SAVING TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPMENT AND THE PHYSICAL WORKS (‘000 HA) UNDER SUCH INVESTMENT
SOCAD Investment (100 million yuan) Level II Area 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 3.1 II-2 North Haihe 3.9 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.6 10.5 II-3 South Haihe 10.7 6.0 5.2 6.1 5.7 33.8 II-4 Tuhaimajia 6.7 3.8 3.3 3.9 3.7 21.3 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 3.4 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 7.6 4.4 3.8 4.4 4.2 24.3 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 2.5 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.4 8.0 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 3.5 2.0 1.8 2.1 1.9 11.3 III-5 Nansi Lake 5.2 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.9 16.6 III-6 Lower Yishusi 3.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.1 12.3 III-7 Peninsula 6.7 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.7 21.4 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.7 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 6.0 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.4 15.7 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 2.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 5.8 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 10.0 5.1 4.4 5.1 4.9 29.5 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 2.6 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 1.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 6.2 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4
SOCAD Development (‘000 ha) Level II Area 2000* 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 120.6 21.3 11.3 9.0 9.2 7.8 58.6 II-2 North Haihe 294.3 86.5 35.6 28.4 29.0 24.4 203.9 II-3 South Haihe 1,307.7 238.7 124.0 98.8 101.1 85.0 647.6 II-4 Tuhaimajia 533.1 148.0 79.0 62.9 64.4 54.1 408.3 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 180.1 23.4 12.5 10.0 10.2 8.6 64.6 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 1,035.6 168.6 90.0 71.6 73.4 61.7 465.2 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 294.0 55.8 29.8 23.7 24.3 20.4 154.1 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 459.5 78.7 42.0 33.5 34.3 28.8 217.3 III-5 Nansi Lake 433.3 115.5 61.7 49.1 50.3 42.2 318.8 III-6 Lower Yishusi 397.1 85.7 45.7 36.4 37.3 31.3 236.4 III-7 Peninsula 513.6 148.5 79.3 63.1 64.6 54.3 409.9 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 4.8 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 2.3 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 53.1 12.9 6.2 4.9 5.0 4.2 33.2 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 593.0 133.9 52.2 41.6 42.5 35.8 306.0 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 96.7 43.4 20.7 16.4 16.8 14.2 111.5 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 487.5 221.9 105.2 83.7 85.7 72.1 568.6 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 105.5 18.8 9.6 7.7 7.9 6.6 50.6 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 228.7 43.1 23.0 18.3 18.7 15.7 118.8 IV-8 Inland Basin 14.6 3.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.0 8.1
SOCAD: State Office for Comprehensive Agricultural Development LIS: Large Irrigation Scheme Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management) 121
Level II Area Water-saving Irrigation Investment (100 Million Yuan) 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 1.7 3.2 3.3 2.8 3.1 14.2 II-2 North Haihe 4.5 9.0 7.1 6.0 6.7 33.3 II-3 South Haihe 19.1 33.6 36.0 30.6 33.7 152.9 II-4 Tuhaimajia 10.4 16.9 5.2 5.8 6.3 44.6 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 2.5 2.8 5.0 4.2 4.6 19.1 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 11.8 13.1 25.6 19.3 21.3 91.0 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 2.7 3.0 6.1 4.4 4.9 21.1 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 5.1 5.7 8.3 8.4 9.2 36.7 III-5 Nansi Lake 8.0 12.8 4.5 5.0 5.5 35.8 III-6 Lower Yishusi 5.8 7.9 6.1 6.5 7.1 33.5 III-7 Peninsula 10.2 16.9 4.3 5.0 5.5 41.9 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 3.0 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.3 11.1 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 8.0 8.3 9.0 9.1 9.9 44.3 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.5 12.7 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 15.6 16.8 15.2 13.2 14.6 75.3 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 1.6 1.8 2.8 2.4 2.7 11.4 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 3.7 5.1 4.7 4.2 4.6 22.3 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0
Level II Area Water-saving Irrigation Area Development (‘000 ha) 2000* 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 166.8 25.5 42.4 40.4 32.8 34.6 175.6 II-2 North Haihe 661.9 66.8 119.7 86.2 70.1 74.0 416.8 II-3 South Haihe 1,754.5 283.1 447.4 436.2 354.2 373.9 1,894.9 II-4 Tuhaimajia 837.9 153.6 226.0 63.3 66.7 70.4 580.0 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 111.1 37.6 37.6 61.1 48.3 51.0 235.5 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 444.4 174.3 174.3 310.2 224.1 236.6 1,119.5 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 86.1 40.1 40.1 73.5 51.6 54.4 259.8 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 211.6 75.6 75.6 101.0 97.2 102.5 451.8 III-5 Nansi Lake 625.0 118.8 170.7 54.8 57.7 60.9 462.8 III-6 Lower Yishusi 351.7 86.0 105.3 74.5 75.2 79.4 420.5 III-7 Peninsula 842.1 151.3 225.8 51.6 58.1 61.3 548.0 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 1.4 2.9 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.8 8.8 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 87.4 43.9 24.8 21.8 24.7 26.0 141.1 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 479.3 117.8 110.8 109.3 105.0 110.2 553.1 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 134.5 38.1 38.1 30.4 26.5 27.9 161.1 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 609.6 230.6 223.7 183.7 153.2 161.7 952.9 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 93.7 24.2 24.2 34.4 28.2 29.8 140.8 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 228.4 55.2 67.4 57.5 48.5 51.2 279.7 IV-8 Inland Basin 9.6 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.7 12.9 122 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management)
Government Proposed Large Scheme Rehabilitation Program (2001~2015) (‘000 ha) Level II Area Large Scheme Irrigation Area 2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-15 Total Present(2) New(3) Improve- New Improve- New Improve- New Improve- New Improve- ment(4) ment ment ment ment II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 155.3 1.1 11.4 1.8 27.2 0.3 21.7 0.6 15.1 2.7 64.1 II-2 North Haihe 200.5 6.1 59.3 1.3 35.1 2.3 28.1 14.3 19.5 17.9 82.7 II-3 South Haihe 676.7 13.9 132.4 28.1 118.4 23.6 94.7 12.7 66.0 64.4 279.1 II-4 Tuhaimajia 1,288.9 87.0 108.4 13.8 225.6 12.7 180.4 23.5 125.7 50.0 531.7 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 195.0 2.3 15.6 0.1 34.1 24.7 27.3 70.4 19.0 95.2 80.4 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 1,124.7 28.1 217.0 77.4 196.8 44.9 157.5 35.9 109.7 158.2 463.9 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 175.9 9.9 78.0 (0.6) 30.8 11.3 24.6 20.9 17.2 31.6 72.6 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 196.7 4.1 22.5 0.6 34.4 3.8 27.5 5.1 19.2 9.4 81.1 III-5 Nansi Lake 369.9 63.6 80.1 (19.5) 64.7 (14.7) 51.8 (9.3) 36.1 (43.5) 152.6 III-6 Lower Yishusi 446.7 25.3 36.8 21.7 78.2 37.8 62.5 57.5 43.6 117.0 184.3 III-7 Peninsula 369.4 90.3 109.5 20.5 64.6 21.3 51.7 39.4 36.0 81.2 152.4 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 29.4 0.8 3.6 4.7 5.1 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.9 4.7 12.1 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 1,186.5 8.6 62.6 10.4 207.6 2.3 166.1 9.4 115.7 22.1 489.4 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 28.7 3.6 30.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 4.0 12.7 2.8 12.7 11.8 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 927.6 20.3 168.2 32.3 162.3 27.4 129.9 35.6 90.4 95.3 382.6 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 97.3 1.7 11.7 0.0 17.0 15.4 13.6 28.1 9.5 43.5 40.1 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 227.3 16.7 29.9 12.8 39.8 10.0 31.8 0.8 22.2 23.6 93.8 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: (1) Large Scheme Rehabilitation since 1996; (2) Present: Existing large Scheme Irrigation Area in 2000; (3) Newly: Large Scheme Irrigation Newly Increased Area from 1996 to 2000; (4) Improvement: Large Scheme Improvement Irrigation Area from 1996 to 2000.
Government Proposed Large Scheme Rehabilitation Investment Program (2001~2015) (100 Million Yuan) Level II Area Large Scheme 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 3.9 2.5 2.3 8.6 II-2 North Haihe 4.1 6.0 9.1 19.2 II-3 South Haihe 10.3 20.2 7.3 37.8 II-4 Tuhaimajia 36.2 9.3 8.1 53.6 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 0.0 5.6 12.3 17.9 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 21.8 18.7 14.2 54.8 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 0.6 10.5 12.4 23.5 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 3.6 6.4 4.6 14.6 III-5 Nansi Lake 1.3 4.3 4.9 10.5 III-6 Lower Yishusi 11.0 28.8 29.8 69.5 III-7 Peninsula 4.2 13.0 12.6 29.8 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 42.6 32.2 13.7 88.5 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 0.0 0.0 10.4 10.4 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 38.9 37.0 32.5 108.3 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 0.0 4.4 5.2 9.6 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 4.2 6.3 3.3 13.8 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management) 123
TABLE A6.2-2: DETAILS OF PROPOSED INVESTMENT (100 MILLION YUAN) FOR SOCAD, LIS AND WATER SAVING TECHNOLOGIES BY ACTION PLAN PROPOSED AND PROJECTED PHYSICAL WORKS DEVELOPMENT (1,000 HA) UNDER SUCH INVESTMENT
SOCAD Investment (100 million yuan) Level II Area 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 4.0 II-2 North Haihe 5.6 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.7 13.8 II-3 South Haihe 15.3 8.6 7.4 6.7 6.0 44.2 II-4 Tuhaimajia 9.5 5.5 4.7 4.3 3.8 27.9 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 4.4 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 10.8 6.3 5.4 4.9 4.4 31.8 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 3.6 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 10.5 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 5.1 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.0 14.8 III-5 Nansi Lake 7.4 4.3 3.7 3.4 3.0 21.8 III-6 Lower Yishusi 5.5 3.2 2.7 2.5 2.2 16.1 III-7 Peninsula 9.5 5.5 4.7 4.3 3.9 28.0 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.3 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 8.6 3.6 3.1 2.8 2.5 20.7 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 2.8 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 7.6 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 14.3 7.3 6.3 5.7 5.1 38.7 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 3.4 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 2.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 8.1 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6
SOCAD Development Works (‘000 ha) Level II Area 2000* 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 120.6 30.4 16.2 12.9 10.3 8.2 77.8 II-2 North Haihe 294.3 123.6 50.9 40.5 32.3 25.7 272.9 II-3 South Haihe 1,307.7 341.1 177.2 141.1 112.3 89.5 861.1 II-4 Tuhaimajia 533.1 211.4 112.8 89.8 71.5 57.0 542.5 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 180.1 33.5 17.9 14.2 11.3 9.0 85.9 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 1,035.6 240.9 128.5 102.4 81.5 64.9 618.2 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 294.0 79.8 42.6 33.9 27.0 21.5 204.7 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 459.5 112.5 60.0 47.8 38.1 30.3 288.7 III-5 Nansi Lake 433.3 165.0 88.1 70.1 55.8 44.5 423.6 III-6 Lower Yishusi 397.1 122.4 65.3 52.0 41.4 33.0 314.1 III-7 Peninsula 513.6 212.2 113.3 90.2 71.8 57.2 544.6 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 4.8 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 3.1 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 53.1 18.5 8.8 7.0 5.6 4.4 44.3 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 593.0 191.3 74.5 59.4 47.3 37.6 410.2 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 96.7 62.0 29.5 23.5 18.7 14.9 148.6 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 487.5 317.0 150.2 119.6 95.3 75.9 757.9 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 105.5 26.8 13.8 11.0 8.7 7.0 67.2 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 228.7 61.5 32.8 26.1 20.8 16.6 157.8 IV-8 Inland Basin 14.6 4.7 2.1 1.7 1.3 1.1 10.9 124 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management)
Level II Area Proposed Water-saving Irrigation Investment (100 Million Yuan) 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 2.5 4.5 4.8 3.1 3.3 18.2 II-2 North Haihe 6.4 12.8 10.2 6.7 7.0 43.2 II-3 South Haihe 27.3 47.9 51.4 33.9 35.4 196.0 II-4 Tuhaimajia 14.8 24.2 7.5 6.4 6.7 59.6 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 3.6 4.0 7.2 4.6 4.8 24.3 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 16.8 18.7 36.6 21.5 22.4 115.9 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 3.9 4.3 8.7 4.9 5.2 26.9 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 7.3 8.1 11.9 9.3 9.7 46.3 III-5 Nansi Lake 11.5 18.3 6.5 5.5 5.8 47.5 III-6 Lower Yishusi 8.3 11.3 8.8 7.2 7.5 43.1 III-7 Peninsula 14.6 24.2 6.1 5.6 5.8 56.2 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.9 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 4.2 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.5 14.3 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 11.4 11.9 12.9 10.1 10.4 56.6 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 3.7 4.1 3.6 2.5 2.6 16.5 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 22.2 24.0 21.6 14.7 15.3 97.9 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 2.3 2.6 4.1 2.7 2.8 14.5 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 5.3 7.2 6.8 4.6 4.8 28.8 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.3
Level II Area Proposed Water-saving Irrigation Area Improvement (‘000 ha) 2000* 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 166.8 36.4 60.5 57.7 36.4 36.4 227.4 II-2 North Haihe 661.9 95.4 171.0 123.1 77.9 77.9 545.3 II-3 South Haihe 1,754.5 404.4 639.2 623.2 393.6 393.6 2,453.9 II-4 Tuhaimajia 837.9 219.4 322.8 90.5 74.1 74.1 781.0 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 111.1 53.7 53.7 87.2 53.7 53.7 301.9 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 444.4 249.0 249.0 443.1 249.0 249.0 1,439.2 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 86.1 57.3 57.3 105.0 57.3 57.3 334.3 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 211.6 107.9 107.9 144.3 107.9 107.9 576.1 III-5 Nansi Lake 625.0 169.7 243.8 78.4 64.1 64.1 620.0 III-6 Lower Yishusi 351.7 122.9 150.5 106.5 83.6 83.6 547.0 III-7 Peninsula 842.1 216.1 322.6 73.6 64.5 64.5 741.4 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 1.4 4.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 11.4 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 87.4 62.7 35.4 31.1 27.4 27.4 184.0 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 479.3 168.3 158.3 156.1 116.7 116.1 715.4 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 134.5 54.5 54.5 43.5 29.4 29.4 211.3 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 609.6 329.4 319.6 262.4 170.2 170.2 1,251.9 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 93.7 34.6 34.6 49.2 31.3 31.3 181.0 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 228.4 78.8 96.3 82.2 53.8 53.8 365.0 IV-8 Inland Basin 9.6 3.5 3.5 4.0 2.8 2.8 16.6 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management) 125
Government Proposed Large Scheme Rehabilitation Program (2001~2015) (‘000 ha) Level II Area Large Scheme Irrigation Area 2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-15 Total Present(2) New(3) Improve- New Improve- New Improve- New Improve- New Improve- ment(4) ment ment ment ment
Proposed Large Scheme Rehabilitation Program (2001~2015) (‘000 ha) Level II Area Large Scheme Irrigation Area 2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 Total Present(2) New(3) Improve- New Improve- New Improve- New Improve- New Improve- ment(4) ment ment ment ment II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 155.3 1.1 11.4 2.6 38.8 0.4 31.1 0.9 23.3 3.9 93.2 II-2 North Haihe 200.5 6.1 59.3 1.8 50.1 3.3 40.1 22.0 30.1 27.1 120.3 II-3 South Haihe 676.7 13.9 132.4 40.2 169.2 33.7 135.3 19.5 101.5 93.4 406.0 II-4 Tuhaimajia 1,288.9 87.0 108.4 19.7 322.2 18.1 257.8 36.2 193.3 74.0 773.3 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 195.0 2.3 15.6 0.1 48.8 35.3 39.0 108.3 29.3 143.7 117.0 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 1,124.7 28.1 217.0 110.6 281.2 64.2 224.9 55.2 168.7 230.0 674.8 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 175.9 9.9 78.0 (0.8) 44.0 16.1 35.2 32.2 26.4 47.5 105.5 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 196.7 4.1 22.5 0.8 49.2 5.4 39.3 7.8 29.5 14.0 118.0 III-5 Nansi Lake 369.9 63.6 80.1 (27.9) 92.5 (21.0) 74.0 (14.3) 55.5 (63.2) 221.9 III-6 Lower Yishusi 446.7 25.3 36.8 31.0 111.7 54.0 89.3 88.5 67.0 173.5 268.0 III-7 Peninsula 369.4 90.3 109.5 29.3 92.4 30.4 73.9 60.6 55.4 120.3 221.6 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 29.4 0.8 3.6 6.7 7.4 0.0 5.9 0.0 4.4 6.7 17.6 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 1,186.5 8.6 62.6 14.9 296.6 3.3 237.3 14.4 178.0 32.6 711.9 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 28.7 3.6 30.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 5.7 19.6 4.3 19.6 17.2 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 927.6 20.3 168.2 46.2 231.9 39.2 185.5 54.7 139.1 140.1 556.6 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 97.3 1.7 11.7 0.0 24.3 22.0 19.5 43.3 14.6 65.3 58.4 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 227.3 16.7 29.9 18.3 56.8 14.3 45.5 1.2 34.1 33.8 136.4 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Note: (1) Large Scheme Rehabilitation since 1996; (2) Present: Existing large Scheme Irrigation Area in 2000; (3) Newly: Large Scheme Irrigation Newly Increase Area from 1996 to 2000; (4) Improvement: Large Scheme Improvement Irrigation Area from 1996 to 2000.
Proposed Large Scheme Rehabilitation Investment Program (2001~2015) Unit: 100 Million Yuan Level II Area Large Scheme 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 Total II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 5.5 3.5 3.5 12.5 II-2 North Haihe 5.9 8.5 14.0 28.4 II-3 South Haihe 14.7 28.8 11.3 54.8 II-4 Tuhaimajia 51.7 13.3 12.5 77.5 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 0.0 8.0 18.9 26.9 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 31.2 26.7 21.9 79.8 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 0.9 15.0 19.1 35.0 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 5.1 9.2 7.0 21.3 III-5 Nansi Lake 1.9 6.1 7.5 15.5 III-6 Lower Yishusi 15.7 41.1 45.8 102.6 III-7 Peninsula 6.0 18.5 19.4 43.9 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 60.9 46.0 21.0 127.9 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 0.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 55.5 52.8 50.0 158.3 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 0.0 6.3 8.0 14.3 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 6.0 9.0 5.0 20.0 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 126 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management)
TABLE A6.2-3: GROSS WATER IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY PROJECTION UNDER GOVERNMENT’S ONGOING PROGRAM
Government Proposed Irrigation Water Use Efficiency Level II Area 1998 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 0.45 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.52 II-2 North Haihe 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.56 II-3 South Haihe 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 II-4 Tuhaimajia 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.53 II 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.54 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.61 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.55 0.55 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.61 0.62 0.62 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.52 III-5 Nansi Lake 0.48 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.53 0.53 III-6 Lower Yishusi 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.57 III-7 Peninsula 0.50 0.51 0.52 0.56 0.64 0.65 0.65 III 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.56 0.57 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.52 0.55 0.55 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.51 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 0.54 0.64 0.45 0.63 0.62 0.63 0.63 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.50 0.52 0.55 0.55 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.51 0.66 0.67 0.67 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.55 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 IV 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.53 Total 3-H 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.55
TABLE A6.2-4: GROSS WATER IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY UNDER PROPOSED ACTION PROGRAM
Proposed Irrigation Water Use Efficiency Level II Area 1998 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 II-1 Luanhe and East Coast Hebei 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.55 0.55 II-2 North Haihe 0.46 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.62 0.62 0.63 II-3 South Haihe 0.46 0.47 0.51 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 II-4 Tuhaimajia 0.46 0.46 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.57 0.57 II 0.46 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.58 0.58 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.54 0.60 0.61 0.61 III-2 Wangjiabu to Bengbu 0.46 0.46 0.51 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.61 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze Lake 0.49 0.50 0.54 0.61 0.62 0.62 0.62 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lake 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.56 0.56 III-5 Nansi Lake 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.57 0.57 III-6 Lower Yishusi 0.45 0.46 0.50 0.55 0.64 0.64 0.64 III-7 Peninsula 0.50 0.51 0.58 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 III 0.46 0.47 0.51 0.56 0.63 0.63 0.63 IV-1 Upstream of Longyangxia 0.44 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.46 IV-2 Longyangxia to Lanzhou 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.56 0.60 0.60 0.60 IV-3 Lanzhou to Hekouzhen 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.51 0.54 0.54 0.54 IV-4 Hekouzhen to Longmen 0.54 0.64 0.45 0.79 0.63 0.63 0.63 IV-5 Longmen to Sanmenxia 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.60 IV-6 Sanmenxia to Huayuankou 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.56 0.67 0.67 0.67 IV-7 Downstream of Huayuankou 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.60 IV-8 Inland Basin 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 IV 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.53 0.57 0.58 0.58 Total 3-H 0.46 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.59 0.60 0.60 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management) 127
TABLE A6.2-5: WINTER WHEAT PRODUCTION PER WATER USE UNIT IN BASE CASE (km/cm)
Level II 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 II-1 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 II-2A 2.61 3.75 5.45 7.48 8.19 10.60 Beijing µ µ µ µ µ µ Tianjin 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 II-2B µ µ µ µ µ µ II-3A 1.03 1.48 1.66 1.78 1.83 1.88 II-3B 1.55 0.98 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.08 II-3C 1.48 1.54 1.65 1.69 1.71 1.74 II-3D 1.03 0.98 0.98 1.02 1.03 1.03 II-3E 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 II-3F 1.75 1.68 1.67 1.68 1.67 1.65 II-4 1.15 1.24 1.36 1.43 1.48 1.51 SUM 1.31 1.27 1.32 1.36 1.38 1.39 III-1 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 III-2 0.59 0.61 0.66 0.69 0.69 0.72 III-3 1.42 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 III-4 1.86 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 III-5 1.57 1.35 1.50 1.50 1.53 1.77 III-6 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 III-7 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 SUM 0.99 0.98 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.05 IV-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IV-3A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IV-3B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IV-4 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 IV-5A 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 IV-5B 0.69 0.61 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.48 IV-6 1.08 0.89 0.70 0.59 0.51 0.48 IV-7A 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 IV-7B 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 SUM 0.88 0.83 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.74
TABLE A6.2-6: WINTER WHEAT PRODUCTION PER WATER USE UNIT UNDER THE SCENARIO OF IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT (km/cm) Level II 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 II-1 1.12 1.15 1.20 1.23 1.23 1.23 II-2A 2.61 3.23 3.53 3.61 3.72 4.08 Beijing µ µ µ µ µ µ Tianjin 1.03 2.96 1.10 1.13 1.13 1.13 II-2B µ µ µ µ µ µ II-3A 1.03 1.06 1.61 1.29 1.75 1.78 II-3B 1.55 1.01 1.05 1.12 1.13 1.13 II-3C 1.48 1.26 1.54 1.63 1.55 1.56 II-3D 1.03 1.01 1.05 1.08 1.08 1.09 II-3E 0.98 1.01 1.05 1.08 1.08 1.08 II-3F 1.75 1.69 1.66 1.63 1.60 1.59 II-4 1.15 1.23 1.33 1.39 1.43 1.45 SUM 1.31 1.28 1.34 1.38 1.39 1.41 III-1 2.22 2.29 2.38 2.44 2.44 2.44 III-2 0.59 0.60 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.71 III-3 1.42 1.47 1.53 1.57 1.57 1.57 III-4 1.86 1.94 2.01 2.07 2.07 2.07 128 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management)
Level II 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 III-5 1.57 1.30 1.38 1.34 1.37 1.56 III-6 0.79 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.86 0.86 III-7 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.62 0.62 SUM 0.99 0.99 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.10 IV-2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IV-3A 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IV-3B 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 IV-4 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 IV-5A 1.07 1.10 1.15 1.18 1.18 1.18 IV-5B 0.69 0.64 0.60 0.59 0.55 0.53 IV-6 1.08 0.94 0.80 0.71 0.62 0.56 IV-7A 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.07 1.07 IV-7B 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.15 1.15 1.15 SUM 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.82
TABLE A6.2-7: GRAIN PRODUCTION PER WATER USE UNIT IN BASE CASE (km/cm) Level II 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 II-1 1.66 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 II-2A 2.55 2.75 2.92 3.02 3.05 3.11 Beijing 3.43 3.83 5.49 5.49 7.71 7.71 Tianjin 1.78 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 II-2B 3.88 5.16 5.49 7.69 7.69 7.69 II-3A 1.78 2.69 2.96 3.14 3.22 3.28 II-3B 2.73 1.57 1.82 1.82 1.82 1.93 II-3C 2.62 2.78 2.95 3.01 3.04 3.08 II-3D 1.78 1.57 1.57 1.70 1.79 1.82 II-3E 1.55 1.53 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 II-3F 3.04 3.00 2.97 2.99 2.98 2.94 II-4 1.68 1.83 1.99 2.08 2.14 2.18 SUM 2.10 2.04 2.15 2.22 2.26 2.29 III-1 1.68 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 III-2 0.44 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.49 0.51 III-3 1.25 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 III-4 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 III-5 1.67 1.53 1.63 1.63 1.65 1.78 III-6 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 III-7 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 SUM 0.86 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90 IV-2 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 IV-3A 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 IV-3B 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 IV-4 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 IV-5A 1.55 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 IV-5B 0.90 0.87 0.83 0.81 0.80 0.80 IV-6 1.24 1.13 1.02 0.95 0.91 0.89 IV-7A 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 IV-7B 1.20 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.21 SUM 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.04 Annex 6.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 6 (Agriculture and Management) 129
TABLE A6.2-8: GRAIN PRODUCTION PER WATER USE UNIT UNDER THE SCENARIO OF IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY 10% IMPROVEMENT (km/cm)
Level II 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 II-1 1.66 1.74 1.81 1.86 1.86 1.86 II-2A 2.55 2.73 2.87 2.95 2.97 3.02 Beijing 3.43 3.93 5.36 6.03 6.72 8.49 Tianjin 1.78 4.48 1.95 2.01 2.01 2.01 II-2B 3.88 4.78 5.88 7.11 8.47 8.47 II-3A 1.78 1.88 2.92 2.32 3.14 3.19 II-3B 2.73 1.61 1.69 1.86 2.01 2.01 II-3C 2.62 2.29 2.80 2.95 2.82 2.83 II-3D 1.78 1.59 1.68 1.72 1.72 1.77 II-3E 1.55 1.56 1.66 1.72 1.73 1.73 II-3F 3.04 3.02 2.99 2.94 2.90 2.89 II-4 1.68 1.82 1.97 2.05 2.10 2.13 SUM 2.10 2.05 2.17 2.25 2.28 2.31 III-1 1.68 1.74 1.81 1.86 1.86 1.86 III-2 0.44 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.50 III-3 1.25 1.28 1.33 1.37 1.37 1.37 III-4 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.78 0.78 0.78 III-5 1.67 1.52 1.60 1.59 1.61 1.73 III-6 0.86 0.88 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 III-7 0.78 0.80 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.86 SUM 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.95 IV-2 1.85 1.91 1.98 2.04 2.04 2.04 IV-3A 0.98 0.99 1.02 1.05 1.05 1.05 IV-3B 0.98 1.01 1.05 1.08 1.08 1.08 IV-4 0.94 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.00 0.98 IV-5A 1.55 1.62 1.68 1.73 1.73 1.73 IV-5B 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.88 IV-6 1.24 1.18 1.12 1.09 1.03 1.00 IV-7A 1.17 1.22 1.26 1.30 1.30 1.30 IV-7B 1.20 1.25 1.29 1.33 1.33 1.33 SUM 1.09 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.16 1.16 130 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
ANNEX 7.1: WATER POLLUTION MANAGEMENT DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
A. THE TASK
Assessment of Sources of Pollution
In the Stage 1 study, sectors were defined according to the available statistics and the availability of results of water demand and economic growth in sectors similar to those used by IWHR and other project team members. as follows:
1. Urban life, inclusive of domestic, institutional, commercial, municipal uses but excluding industrial uses, 2. Power Industry 3. Urban nonpower Industry, >100 tons/day discharge 4. Urban nonpower Industry, <100 tons/day discharge 5. Rural life, inclusive of domestic, town & village enterprises, commercial and municipal in smaller villages 6. Rural nonpower Industries (Town and Village Enterprises, TVE) 7. Livestock 8. Irrigated agriculture in designated and dispersed schemes.
These sectors were rationalized for analysis in the Stage 2 study as discussed in the following.
Urban. The main source categories of surface water pollution in Urban areas will include (not necessarily in order of importance or magnitude) the following:
1. “urban life” comprising waterborne wastes from residential, commercial, service and institutional premises. 2. “urban industrial” comprising waterborne process wastes from primary, secondary and tertiary industries including power generation, construction, and light industry sectors. The State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) > 100 m3 per day industry included these and some larger TVEs. 3. stormwater runoff which occurs following rainfall and comprises contaminants in the rainfall itself, washoff of accumulated pollutants on impervious surfaces.. 4. discharge of groundwater contaminated with leakage from underground storage tanks, buried contaminants and landfill leachates.
Rural. Surface water pollution sources outside the larger cities in rural areas includes the following (not necessarily in order of importance or magnitude):
1. “rural life” comprising waterborne wastes from mainly residential premises in small cities and communal style living. 2. “rural industry” which includes the TVEs and a broad range of industrial types similar to the urban industries, 3. “irrigated agriculture” comprising return flows from irrigation (very little returns to the river in practice due to water shortages and the actual irrigation practices), Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 131
4. rural runoff comprising contaminants from irrigated and nonirrigated agricultural and forestry lands picked up during storm events and by floodwaters. Some contaminants may be naturally occurring
Focus on Pollution Sources. While the Action Plan recognizes the importance of all sources of pollution, detailed investigations have not been undertaken to estimate stormwater runoff and contaminated groundwater discharges.
Climate and Seasonality
The following figure shows the typical variability in runoff and river temperatures.
Climatic relationships
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 4 30 Irrigation demand, ratio to average Runoff. ratio to average Water temp
3.5 25
3
20 2.5
2 15
1.5 Ratio to average value 10 Mean Monthly Water Temp (deg C) 1
5 0.5
0 0 The typical dry season extends from November to March when the instream assimilation processes are slow due to the low temperatures and low river flows. The data for the Huai and Hai shows that in the main, the typical dry season concentrations of COD in rivers are worse than the nondry-season concentrations. This is not universally true but the samples are normally only once per month and in the influence of flow on the readings cannot be determined. Data on the Huai indicates that COD and NH3 loads increase significantly during periods of high river flow reflecting a pollution contribution from catchment runoff sources, some flushing of storage pits and ponds and reduced water use for irrigation.
Refer to the following figures on concentrations and loads.
Hai Basin Flow Patterns Huai Basin Flows
6.0 3.50
5.0 3.00
2.50 4.0
2.00 3.0
1.50 2.0 1.00
1.0 0.50
0.0 0.00
-1.0
Luan Chaobai Ji Canal Daqing Huai Flow Guo Flow Xiangh Res Flow 132 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
B. AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Water Quality
Available water quality data was provided from various sources, some of which have unknown or uncertain paths although all are expected to be either MWR or SEPA records originally. A reasonable set of consistent flow and quality data was available from the Pacific Consultants International(PCI) study of the Huai basin upstream of Hongze Lake and from the World Bank’s database.
Issues
Issues with the data provided were accounted as follows:
· the original data source is not always known · the locations of observations are not referenced to any consistent description. Each agency collecting the data and institute processing the data used different names or digital identifiers which is made difficult for the international consultants by variable translations into pinyin. · the COD values are not always annotated with the particular procedure for determination, be it using the Manganese (Mn) or the Chromium (Cr) method. · the Dissolved oxygen values appear to be laboratory values rather than field measurements. · rarely is coincident flow data or a relevant time series of flow at the same location available to indicate if the sample represents wet or dry conditions. · No two data sets have the same format · processed and collated results are not referenced back to the source data set. · the information appears to be distributed among the Provinces and there was not sufficient time nor resources to establish contacts at the Province level. Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 133
Preliminary recommendations on environmental data collection are:
· refer earlier report · national numbering system with location coordinates to standard map grids. · rationalized collection and processing of data among SEPA and MWR agencies
C. DESIGN DATA
Population, Production and Water Demand
Water demands and other related data where provided by IWHR and the project economist in a file entitled IWHRwdxnew.xls. The key statistics are given in the following tables.
TABLE A7.1-1: KEY STATISTICS , HAI BASIN Item Unit 1997 2000 2010 2020 2050 Total population million 123.2 126.2 135.7 143.8 153.4 Urban population million 37.7 41.6 53.4 65.8 95.1 Urban life dem. Mcm/year 2,607 2,900 3,848 4,871 7,488 Urban Industry dem. Mcm/year 5,284 5,676 6,778 7,489 7,918 GDP Y 108 8,549 10,580 20,949 37,398 102,932 Gross Industry prod. Y 108 13,312 17,373 38,943 74,899 199,630 Rural Industry prod Y 108 5,023 6,620 15,339 30,275 84,655 Rural Population million 85.5 84.7 82.3 77.9 58.29 Rural Life dem. Mcm/year 1717 1843 2002 2123 2015 Rural Industry dem Mcm/year 85.5 84.7 82.3 77.9 58.3 Livestock no million 61.9 66.2 70.2 72.2 66.6 Irrigated areas 1000 km2 71.0 72.7 69.8 - Livestock includes all animals except poultry and rabbits. Source: Present study (Stage 2).
TABLE A7.1-2: KEY STATISTICS , HUAI BASIN Item Unit 1997 2000 2010 2020 2050 Total population million 194.3 201.4 217.2 231.8 250.0 Urban population million 44.0 45.6 66.7 86.4 137.1 Urban life dem. Mcm/year 2,234 2,403 3,709 5,033 9,024 Urban Industry dem. Mcm/year 7,535 8,243 9,901 10,830 11,574 GDP Y 108 11,191 13,872 27,561 48,989 140,219 Total Industry prod. Y 108 16,956 22,727 51,998 102,384 288,774 Rural Industry prod Y 108 5,057 6,888 16,590 33,794 100,597 Rural Population million 150.3 155.8 150.5 145.3 112.9 Rural Life dem. Mcm/year 3,182 3,491 3,745 3,952 3,884 Rural Industry dem Mcm/year 2,126 2,393 3,161 3,595 3,925 Livestock no million 103.0 110.7 122.1 126.2 124.5 Irrigated areas 1000 km2 86.0 88.0 94.2 - Source: Present study.
Industrial Wastes
See Annex 7.4, Volume 3. 134 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
D. WATER AND WASTE ESTIMATION MODEL (WWEM)
Spatial Definitions
For the purpose of data and result assemblage, each basin was divided into unique subarea polygons defining province divided by level-2 basin. The level-2 basins where further divided into Control Unit catchments, related to the catchments of major Pollution Control Sections. Unique polygons of control unit by subarea define the basic element for the distribution and accumulation of spatial data. City information was allocated directly to Pollution Control Sections and thence to Control Unit catchments.
Modeling Schematics
The overall calculation scheme is illustrated on Figure A7.1-1.
Calculation of water and waste volumes and loads by the model is performed throughout each of the Hai and Huai River basin and are based on input and output statistics for various sectors as listed in Table A7.1-3. TABLE A7.1-3: INPUT AND OUTPUT INFORMATION Sector Input detail (1) Output detail (1) Current Potential Urban, Domestic City Level 2 B,C,D,E, industry Urban, industry (1) City Level 2 B,C,D,E, industry Urban, Industry (2) Level 2 Level 2 B,E, industry Rural Industry Level 2 Level 2 B,E, industry Rural population Subarea Level 2 B Livestock Subarea Level 2 B Irrigated agriculture Subarea Level 2 B,C (1) See following for definitions. (2) Legend as follows: B Subarea polygons (16 in each basin). C Control Unit polygons (41 & 23). D City points(226 in Hai, 153 in Huai). E Element polygons, region subdivided by control unit (91 & 45) Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 135
FIGURE A7.1-1: OVERALL SCHEMATIC OF WASTE CALCULATIONS
Rural population, calculation of consumption & wastes (volume and load) to river for the population defined rural by IWHR. Provides for treatment to a concentration and for reuse, on a Sub-area basis. 1997 to 2050
Hai & Huai rural population.xls
Rural livestock, calculation of consumption & wastes (volume and load) to river for the livestock population defined rural by IWHR. (excludes poultry and small animals). Deals separately with intensive pig enterprises, non-intensive pigs and other animal populations. Runoff coefficients define dry season and annually volumes and loads reaching river on a Sub-area basis. 1997 to 2050
Hai & Huai livestock.xls
Rural Industry, calculation of consumption & wastes (volume and load) to river for the rural industry defined by IWHR. Input data is on Level 2 output is on either "element" or "city basis". Consumption and waste volume can be varied according to Level 2 and industry (6 no) intensity curves. Industry volumes and loads can be calibrated to known wastes and strengths. Benificial use factors can be varied on an annual, Level 2 and industry basis. Wastes are directed to river, municipal plants or reuse. Loads are defined by concentrations and modified to a treatment standard on an IWHR data, annual, and industry basis. Industry wastes are initially 2 types, high concentration and low concentration. Development indices, consumptions, Hai scenario ind rural.xls quotas for rural and Huai scenario ind rural.xls urban industry and life. Urban Industry , similar to rural Plotting. IHWRwdxnew use.xls Industry wastes are initially 6 types, types 1 to 5 are from SEPA survey and type 6 is balance. Collation of outputs at whole of basin level. Provided October Processes SEPA survey data into City based data for use in City based models 2000 xxx.xls Hai scenario ind urb.xls Huai scenario ind urb.xls
SEPA >100t Industry , allocates industries to cities and combines for input to City calcs models.
Hai ind data 2000.xls Huai ind data 2000.xls
City Calculations, combined calculation of consumption and wastes based on individual city Plotting. populations and SEPA survey for 100 t industries. Cities either have populations >500,000 or are included in SEPA survey. Collation of outputs as required Industry wastes are initially 6 types, types 1 to 5 are from SEPA survey and type 6 is balance. Calibrate to IHWR urban populations and consumptions and urban industry consumptions. as required.xls Provides treatment of industry to a standard and municipal to a removal standard . Industry proportion to municipal . Internal
Hai city calcs 6ind.xls Huai city calcs 6ind.xls
Basin Maps
Control Units, major cities Pollution Control Cells are shown along with rivers and Provincial boundaries on the GIS maps (Volume 4) prepared by the Chinese Research Academy for Environment Science (CRAES) and developed in this project.
E. CITY-BASED MODELS
General
These models provide City Calculations using models Hai city calcs 6ind.xls and Huai city calcs 6ind.xls. 136 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
Larger industries were analyzed on a city basis in a manner identical with that for urban domestic water and wastes described in Chapter 7. For Stage 2, a sixth industry type was added to the five defined from the SEPA survey and to better represent the general and smaller industries not included in the SEPA survey.
Industry Waste Load Projections
A study of available data on the waste volumes and loads for industries in each basin with waste volumes greater than 100 tons/day (0.1 million liters—ML— per day) is described elsewhere. Each industry was assigned to a city in this Project which had not been attempted previously.
That study of the industrial waste situation provided projections of generated waste loads and volumes based on a close study of trends. The projected loads take into account programs and practices in place or applying in the past and projected GDP growth as provided by IHWR.4 The pertinent values from that study are given in Table A7.1-3.
TABLE A7.1-3: LARGE INDUSTRY LOAD GROWTH Scenario Generated volume Generated COD Load 1,000 tons/year 1000 ML/year 1997 2000 2010 2020 Hai, no intervention 2,435 1,878 1,514 2,371 2,867 Hai, high expenditure 2,435 1,878 1,197 441 103 Huai, no intervention 1,416 1,968 1,685 2,678 3,296 Huai, high expenditure 1,416 1,968 1,343 560 227 Source: COD and Vol projections, Chapter 2.
Water use was calculated from the waste volumes using relationships described below. The fundamental unit used for industrial water and waste calculation is the process waste load which was assumed to grow at a rate related to GDP projections for the value of industrial production provided by IHWR.
Water usage and waste discharge volume was assumed to vary with the process water requirement subject to management intervention which could change the system losses, process type, consumptive use and water reuse practices. Waste load was assumed to vary with volume and a process changes which affect waste concentration.
Urban Industry Classes
To enable strategies for different industries to be dealt with in the model, industries were subdivided into five classes as follows:
1. Paper Industry 2. Chemical and Fertilizers, 3. Food Processing 4. Textile and related 5. Miscellaneous 100 tons/day industries 6. General industry <100 tons or not covered above.
4 From Cleland (1999), file EHHHWDp2.xls. Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 137
Functional Outline
Sheet, Indust. wastes This is derived directly from Hai scenario ind urb.xls as described elsewhere. This provides estimates of waste volume (ML/day) and load of COD (tons/day) for each city and each time horizon to 2020. Waste concentrations are given.
Sheet, Demand calib IHWR demands for subareas are input at C7:G22. Calibration factors at Q42 to U42 can be varied to force the total demand in the model to equal the IWHR total demand. Some significant anomalies between the model and IWHR occur for one or two subareas and is due to discrepancies between the IHWR population for a subarea and the population for a subarea derived from city data. There has been no opportunity to resolve this.
Sheet, population IHWR urban populations for Sub areas are input at AQ10 to AW26. Model populations start with “Urban populations” which differ from the IHWR populations. An area at AF28 to AI28 provides for input of factors to adjust model total populations to IWHR populations,
Annual growth rates are extracted for subsequent calculation of the population from the previous periods population.
IWHR quotas are input at W31 to AW26. these are factored later (see sheet demand calib!) to give the required total water demands.
Sheet, costs and treat Removal efficiencies and costs for different type and size of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) are tabulated. These are accessed by links from sheet WWTP & priorities!. Used defined categories allow for a mix of plant types in one City.
Sheet, WWTP & Priorities An input section enable the capacity of WWTPs and their types to be nominated. Reticulation cost factor (construction difficulty) flags can also be set. A separate section provides the cumulative capacities and removal for transfer to Sheet City Factors!.
Sheet, Global Factors This provides input of annual factors which apply across all cities. Commonly used ones are linked to Steering Wheel. Refer to sheet for detailed descriptions.
Sheet, City Factors This lists factors applying to individual cities. · column C to D presents the removal efficiencies for treatment plants selected in WWTP& priorities · column H to L presents treatment capacities selected in WWTP & priorities · column M to Q gives the fraction of wastes from the city which go to reuse and not to the river. This is an input section. · column R is an input section which nominates the initial leakage rate in the reticulation system. It is multiplied by an annual factor in I6 to M6 to represent leakage reduction or escalation. 138 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
· columns S to W are input sections giving the percent of industrial wastewater discharged to a municipal plant, if there is spare capacity. · column X is a priority tag to assist with data entry and filtering. It is set in sheet WWTP& priorities.
Sheets, Start Year, 1997, 2000, 2010, 2020 These undertake the basic calculations and contain no inputs. Pivot tables are applied to these sheets to extract the desired summary or cumulative information on loads and volumes by industry type or municipal source.
Sheet, Steering Wheel This allows changing parameters from one place. Selected frequently used parameters are used. See sheet for explanations of parameters. Also provides a summary of inputs for comparison with outputs.
Sheet, Scenarios This contains a number of pivot tables which contain the most recent results. Copy results to another part of the sheet to retain a copy before analyzing next scenario. Symbols are given in the following: Number Urban domestic (A) Urban industrial (B) 1 Total Total 2 To River Treated To River Treated 3 To River Untreated To River Untreated 4 Untreated to reuse Untreated to reuse 5 Treated reuse Treated to reuse 6 To Domestic/municipal TTR Total to river tons/day tons CODmn per day
Basic Equations (Domestic)
Relationships used in the model are as follows:
gross_usei,k =populationi,k* gross_Lhdi,m (j-i) populationj,k =populationi,k*(1+growth_factori,m) gross_Lhd95,m = Base_Lhd95,m*calibratn_coeff.i*escalation_factori gross_Lhdj,m =Base_Lhd95,m*calibratn_coeffj*(1-lossi)/(1-lossj)*escalation_ factori lossi =loss95*loss_reduction_factori net_Lhdi =gross_Lhdi*(1-lossi) waste_volumei =gross_usei*(net_Lhdi/gros_Lhdi)*(1-consumptive_use_factori) waste_loadi,k =populationi,k*waste_generation_ratei,k where indices represent: i initial year j subsequent year k city m subarea nil whole basin variable Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 139
The calibration constant for water use is included to allow the initial gross water use to be adjusted to measured values. In this project calibration was to IHWR urban demand values.
Basic Equations (Urban Industry)
The formulations are based on waste volumes as the known variable from which demands and revised loads were calculated.
Basic equations used are: gross_usei =waste_volumei,n/(1-consumptive_usei,n)/(1-loss95*loss_reduction_factori) where consumptive_usei = (supplied_wateri-waste_volumei)/supplied_wateri (j-i) waste_volumej =waste_volumei* process_change_factori*(1+growth_factori) (j-i) waste_loadj =waste_volumei* waste_concentration_factori*(1+growth_factori) where indices represent: i initial year j subsequent year k city n industry class m subarea nil whole basin variable
Parameter Values
Domestic
Water loss values were derived from the available statistics as given in Table A7.1-4.
TABLE A7.1-4: ADOPTED WATER LOSS
Basin Reticulation loss (% net demand) Total loss (% net demand) Hai 12 17 Huai 10 15 Source: Present study.
· Gross Lhd. · Consumptive use 0.15 percent of water supplied · Waste generation rate 0.04 kg COD/head per day 140 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
Industrial
Default values used are:
· loss rate as for urban domestic · consumptive use 15 percent of supply volume · growth factor for waste volumes zero · growth factor for load zero.
Scenario Variables
Urban Domestic
User selected factors for urban water demand are:
Basin annual constants.
· Demand escalation factor to allow for changes in gross unit consumption with changing water use patterns in the communities. Owing to way in which unit demands where derived, this factor is a change from the values inherent in the IHWR water use figures. · Water Loss reduction factor to allow for programs of water leakage reduction. A base figure was derived from water use statistics and the loss reduction factor varies this quantity. · unit waste generation rates · ratio waste volume to supplied volume · septic waste reuse · septic removal rate · global multiplier volume (not used) · global multiplier loads (not used)
Subarea constants · Gross unit water use · population growth rates
City constants · initial urban population · proportion sewered · removal rate for sewered wastes · municipal waste reuse · initial water loss (production & reticulation)
Scenario Variables, Larger Industries (Types 1 to 5)
Basin variables
1. loss reduction losses allow for water lost in the treatment of water, and from the distribution system. Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 141
2. consumptive use reduction allows for reduction in process water losses, other than to product, such as boiler purge or evaporation, and reduction in water use by workers, etc. Factor applied relative to the conditions in the base year. 3. process changes allows for basic changes in the waster use characteristics of the process used to create products relative to the situation in the base year, 1995 in general. 4. internal reuse application allows for changes which reduces the amount of new water required. Linked with process change factor but provided to allow possible differences between industry types. Set to 1 for all analyses.
Industry-time variables are: · growth rate in COD · load removal rates · ratio waste volume to supplied volume (consumptive use factor) · waste reduction factor · external reuse proportions · waste strength factor · proportion of untreated industrial waste to municipal sewer.
Smaller industries (Type 6)
These were assumed to comprise the difference between the >100-ton industries and the total industries included in the IWHR projections. In terms of volume, they represent a large proportion of the total and were assumed to have a waste strength of 200 mg/L.
F. RURAL DOMESTIC
General Situation
Water source by sector information is not available but it is likely that most rural water supplies derive their water from self-operated groundwater systems. Some use is made of the irrigation water supply system, where available. Little use appears to made of water directly from rivers for rural purposes other than for irrigation.
The basis of estimates is the IWHR populations and quotas.
Functional Relationships
Sheet, Rural Pop Loads! Note Calculations are made on a subarea basis, that is level II by province. These are not same as level III. Note CRAES disagrees with IWHR subareas in Huai basin. That is, CRAES do not accept that there is a Subarea no. 37. 142 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
Calculations IWHR populations are pasted at F57:L114 Demand is calculated at Column N to T as demand Mcm = factor x population x quota! X365/10^5 “factor” is used to change IWHR inputs on an annual basis (rather than change populations or quotas, e.g. to allow for leakage)
Waste volume at Column W to AS as waste Mcm = annual factor x use factor x demand Mcm “annual factor” is used to change “use factor” on an annual basis use factor’ is ration of waste volume to gross demand.
Waste load at Column AF to Al as load 1,000 tons/year = annual factor x load rate x population x 365/10 “annual factor” is used to change “load rate” on an annual basis “load rate” is ghd of COD. 30 is suggested as 75 percent of urban rate.
Reuse factors at Column AO to AU as reuse factor = annual factor x reuse ratio “annual factor” is used to change “reuse ratio” on an annual basis “reuse ratio” is derived volume & load not reaching river. No data is available, 0.4 is suggested “annual factor” is used to change “use factor” on an annual basis
Volume to river at Column AY to BE as volume (Mcm) = waste Mcm x (1-reuse factor)
Concentration of waste stream at Column BH to BN as concentration = load 1,000 tons/year x 1,000/ waste Mcm
Treatment standard at Column BQ to BW as input per year and per subarea as necessary. When greater than “concentration” there is no treatment. Use 200 mg/L for primary treatment and 100 mg/L for secondary unless specialist advice suggests otherwise.
Load to river after treatment at Column BZ to CF as load to river 1000 tons/year = (1-reuse factor) x waste Mcm x minimum[concentration, treatment standard] Level 2 totals at Columns CI to CO as uses “sumif” function to accumulate volumes and loads from Subarea basis to Level 2 basis. Various rows are pasted to other sheets for graphing. Sheet, quotas!
Quotas are pasted direct from IWHR at D5 to J62. Use IWHRwdxnew_use.xls.
Other sheets store information on subareas from CRAES, etc. but are not used in calculations. Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 143
Parameter Values, rural domestic
Little is know to the project team as to the extent, condition and operation of rural water supply systems. Preliminary parameters are proposed as follows:
· load generation rate 0.030 kg COD /head/day · supply loss Not included explicitly · consumptive use 15 percent of supply (i.e. wastes equal 85 percent of supply volume) · water reuse/loss 90 percent (all processes) · load reuse/loss 90 percent (all processes)
G. RURAL INDUSTRY
General discussion
Rural industries were treated in much the same way as in the Urban industry Scenario model. That is the basic water consumptions were derived from IWHR projections and transformed into waste volumes and loads as described below.
Functional Relationships Sheet, RIinput Range Description H10:O13 pasted input from IWHR, Mcm for Level II S10:V14 calculated annual growth rate for information H21:O24 pasted rural industry Gross production value Y x 108 R21:Y24 input consumption intensity from above H30:O33 design consumption intensity, modifies intensity curve using input at R28:Y31 R40:Y45 modifies consumption for each industry type. H40:O43 gives consumptions for design intensity and industry factors H51:O5 input transforms consumption to waste volumes along with input at R51:Y56 for each industry type. H61:O66 input defines reuse fraction for each industry type R61:Y66 input defines proportion to municipal for each industry type AA61:AA66 gives fraction of each industry to river (remainder from reuse & municipal) H81:O84 total waste volume after Level 2, annual and industry waste ratios R81:Y84 waste volume to reuse H93:O96 waste volume to municipal WWTP R93:Y96 waste volume to river using above factors H104:H109 input waste concentrations for each type at year 0 I104:O109 input factors to modify year 0 concentration by year and by industry (cleaner production) R104:Y109 resultant concentrations of waste stream leaving each industry H115:O120 input design effluent maximum concentrations for discharge to river I104:Y109 input design concentrations for discharge to municipal WWTP R126:Y129 gross COD load after internal cleaner production and prior to treatment H126:Y129 gross load to river after reuse and diversion to municipal. Load to river via municipal not included in total. Hence use zero diversion to municipal. H149:O160 Area to paste scenario results for graphing. 144 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
Sheet, RIFlow Calculates waste volumes and loads for each industry for each element. Apportionment between elements is based on areas of elements from Sheet RI_param. Apportionment between industries is ultimately determined at RIinput AB40:AI48.
Sheet, RI_param Generates factors for apportionment of water consumption from Level2 to elements.
Parameter Values
Recommended parameter values are as follows: · Heavy industry volumes as per TVE data, · Light industry balance of IWHR projections · generation rate heavy industry 2000 mg/L, light industry 200 mg/L. · waste volume 85 percent of consumption · water consumption from IHWR,
H. LIVESTOCK
General Discussion
Waste loads to rivers are expected to arise from a combination of washing down of compounds and holding areas and from the rainfall washoff process on unroofed yards and manure stockpiles. Larger piggeries and other feedlots are expected to produce relatively greater direct discharge to rivers due the nature of the holding sheds and waste management practices.
Accordingly, the waste volumes are not likely to be a unique relationship with water supply. A figure of 15 percent consumptive use was allowed to give a volume for calculations but this volume is likely to be an over estimate of the total polluted waste volume from the “animal husbandry” sector.
A load generation rate in terms of kg COD/animal was derived from the study of nonpoint sources (NPS). Although such enterprises are unlikely to be treated as NPS, the discharge to river estimates are the best available.
Provision is made for differentiating between dry season and annual loads.
Functional Relationships
Sheet, Data (1)! Basic data from 1998/1999 livestock yearbook. Data on livestock numbers used rather than production figures. Gives breakdown of large animals and pigs on a Province basis. Also number of pigs in intensive enterprises, i.e. where number of pigs is greater than 3,000 per enterprise.
Sheet, Pigs & chicken! Summary of data from Data (1) to indicate proportion of intensive piggeries
Sheet, Steering Wheel! Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 145
Further summarizes animal statistics and gives in rows 18 to 27 basic proportions of large animals, nonpigs, general pigs and intensively housed pigs. · Proportion of pigs is calculated from the data or adopted from nearby Province · Proportion of intensive pigs is adopted from ‘pigs & chicken!’ · generation rate for pigs is 50 kg/beast per annum from CRAES · runoff coefficient for intensive pigs (dry season and annual) varies from 0 to 1. CRAES adopted annual figure of 0.1 in 1999. Propose 0.1 for dry season coefficient and 0.5 for annual average. (Note critical pollution season is dry season as a general rule) · runoff coefficient for nonintensive pigs or general pigs (dry season and annual) varies from 0 to 1. CRAES adopted annual figure of 0.1 in 1999. Propose 0.01 for dry season coefficient and 0.1 for annual average. · load generation rate for nonpigs is weighted value of 50 kg/beast/year for small animals and 200 kg/beast/year for large animals. · runoff coefficient for nonpigs (dry season and annual) varies from 0 to 1. CRAES adopted annual figure of 0.1 in 1999. Propose 0.01 for dry season coefficient and 0.1 for annual average · water loss for intensive pigs and other animals is a factor to convert demand to waste volume if needed. Waste volume is notional. Note; waste = (1-loss).
Sheet, Animal Loads and Volume! Livestock numbers are pasted from IWHR at E62 to L119 and demands are input at N62 to T119
N10 to T10 and V10 to AB 10 are the percent of pigs which are intensively housed. This is arbitrarily increased from 1998 figure to 10 percent in year 2050.
Intensive pig consumption (col n to col t) is calculated as intensive pig demand Mcm = livestock Mcm x proportion pigs x proportion intensive x annual factor1
Nonintensive pig consumption (col v to col ab) is calculated as nonintensive pig demand Mcm = livestock Mcm x proportion pigs x (1- proportion intensive) x annual factor2
Nonpig consumption (col ad to aj) is calculated as nonpig demand Mcm = livestock Mcm x (1-proportion pigs) x annual factor3
Consumption is totaled (cal al to col ar)
Intensive pig waste volume is calculated as intensive pig waste Mcm = intensive pig demand Mcm x (1- loss1) x annual factor
Nonpig (other animal) waste volume (col bb to col bh) is calculated as intensive pig waste Mcm = (nonintensive pig demand Mcm x (1- loss2) + x nonpig demand Mcm x (1- loss2))x annual factor
Intensive pig equivalent unit load is calculated as intensive pig load 1,000 tons/year = 10 x % pigs x pigs load rate x runoff coeff intensive pigs (dry) x % intensive pigs x annual factor General pig equivalent unit load is calculated as 146 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
general pig load 1,000 tons/year = 10 x % pigs x pigs load rate x runoff coeff general pigs (dry) x (1-% intensive pigs) x annual factor
Nonpig (large animal) equivalent unit load is calculated as general pig load 1,000 tons/year = 10 x (1-% pigs) x nonpigs load rate) x runoff coeff nonpigs (dry) x annual factor
Dry season Loads are totaled at column cg to column cn by multiplying unit loads by total livestock numbers and converted to tons per day of COD.
Dry season Volumes are totaled at column cp to column cv and converted to ML/d
Annual loads are calculated at column cx to column dd by multiplying livestock numbers individual dry season unit loads by annual coefficients and dividing by dry season coefficients.
Annual volumes are calculated in a similar manner to loads with the addition of a dilution factor, set to 2 to allow for rainfall runoff dilution. The volumes are notional.
Level 2 totals at Columns DZ to EG as uses “sumif” function to accumulate volumes and loads from Subarea basis to Level 2 basis. Various rows are pasted to other sheets for graphing. Other Sheets The data is plotted on several sheets but the main output is obtained from columns DZ to EG of Animal Load & Volume!. Other sheets are not used.
Parameter Values, Rural Livestock
Parameter values are: · Generation rate =refer to NPS study · Water use = From IHWR
· Consumptive use = Adopted 15 percent
I. IRRIGATION
General Discussion
This component of the project did not involve any detailed study of the irrigation systems and operational practices. The provisions of the model, therefore, are based on general irrigation practice.
Although a model was prepared, the estimated total loads on the river were not estimated due to uncertainties about return flow magnitudes and quality (in terms of COD).
J. INVESTMENT COSTS
The models for City Calculations include provision for determining investment costs for wastewater treatment and collection systems on a city project basis. However cost estimates for specific projects were not required for the later phases of the project. Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 147
K. CALIBRATION OF THE WPM-DSS
(i) Modeling Pollution Loads Using the WPM-DSS
In order to understand water quality degradation, the Chinese government commissioned a study of industrial COD loads in the 3-H basins. This 1999 SEPA Survey was based on 1995 monitoring data of effluent quality from hundreds of industries and calculated their COD loads by industry type and by cities throughout the 3-H basins The reason for selecting large industries (above 100 m3/day COD) seems to be that (a) the process of industrialization in China is paramount to successful transition and so industries are seen as the backbone of economic growth and much attention is being paid to this sector, (b) the current regulatory system is focused on concentration and enterprise based monitoring/regulation. However, the SEPA Survey accounts only for the COD contribution from industries and overlooks other sources of pollution such as livestock, rural industry, rural life etc. Thus, it has been necessary to “construct” a more complete picture of pollution by seeking data from other sources including statistical yearbooks, existing studies from Chinese researchers and local experts.
This section describes the development of the spreadsheet-based water pollution management decision support system (WPM-DSS). The objectives of the WPM-DSS were to (a) review the Hai and Huai Pollution Control Plans which themselves aimed to identify an investment strategy inter alia to arrest and improve water quality in the 3-H basins. In order to achieve this, the format and development approach of the WPM-DSS model as described above were adopted. More details of the actual model are presented in this Annex.
Following discussions with MWR, a simple spreadsheet pollution load forecast model was judged more appropriate than commercially available water quality models such as MIKE BASIN or SWMM and AQUALM because (i) it provided greater accessibility to the model and allowed future modification, (ii) it assisted with data in disparate form, (iii) it reflected current practices and data types in China, and (iv) it allowed integration of investment with future scenario analysis. The model needed to be capable of (a) tracking gross water usage by sector, (b) evaluating water demand strategies, (c) calculating gross waste production in terms of COD and volume by sector, (d) calculating waste discharge and loads to rivers with provision for various waste treatment and reuse scenarios, (e) calculating investment cost accumulation for municipal/industrial waste treatment and collection system and (f) summarizing results at a city, control unit, sub-area or level-2 basin degree of detail. The WPM-DSS spreadsheet model is presented in this Annex and described schematically in Figure A7.1-1. The model provides a systematic compilation of water use data consistent with basin wide water assessments, calculates COD loads and wastewater quantities for major pollution sources identified. The model was run by CRAES, the World Bank and GIWHP in a “forward” usage where pollution from urban and rural industry and municipal and livestock sources were subjected to intervention (called Program 1, 2 and 3) from WWTP, reuse and pollution prevention programs and the resulting water quality improvements were determined.
Despite the advantages offered by the KBA, model development posed considerable problems firstly due difficulties in obtaining data and secondly due to incompatible spatial or temporal scale at which the data was collected. For example, a considerable amount of time was devoted to interpret and adjust the spatial distribution of data to coincide with the unit of investigation i.e. from the provincial or county level to basin level II or “control unit”. In addition, data tended to be several years old which is acceptable for documenting historical trends but in a fast changing society such as China, data quickly looses its value and may not represent current water quality or pollution load situation. For example, 2000 pollution loads from large industry (100 m3/day +) had to be forecasted based on 1995 data because real 2000 data was not available. (This is described below.) Calibration was also problematic because of the 148 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
reasons stated above and lack of compatibility between flow and water quality data both spatially and temporally.
Thus in many instances the analysis had to rely on old and infrequent data which increased the level of uncertainty of conclusions and recommendations and increased time necessary to arrive at meaningful conclusions. This is costly because environmental improvement relies to a large extent on infrastructure such as WWTPs, water treatment plants (WTPs), and associated pipe networks and there is a need to know prior to undertaking such projects, the improvements to be gained from proposed solutions relative to their costs. However, it is acknowledged that a broad reconnaissance study cannot go into the level of detail of feasibility study (FS) for example and that it will be necessary to follow-up the recommended action plan with pre-FS and FS in the identified cities or for industries. Nevertheless, in order to provide a meaningful strategy, there is a need for an improved information base. It is significant however, that China benefits from an unusually large collection of data in all sorts of fields including those necessary for environmental management and some minor adjustment to the frequency, location and level of reporting coupled with stream lining between collecting agencies could enhance the usefulness of this data from management perspective.
While the 1995/1997 data from the SEPA Survey is dated and pollution from industry is certain to have changed, it serves the very important purpose of assessing progress made under the Ninth Five- Year Plan. This plan called for pollution to be reduced to 1995 levels by year 2000. The spreadsheet model offers a convenient method of assessing progress under the “business as usual” scenario.
Based on the WPM-DSS, it has been possible to gain a clearer picture of the relative and absolute contribution from various pollution sources although it is still not possible to show to what extent these sources contribute to water quality degradation in a particular river reach or area because the WPM-DSS does not model in-stream processes. Due to the inability to use a complex water quality model, it was simply assumed that improvement in water quality would be in proportion to the modeled reduction in pollution loads.5
Toxic contaminants are included in the spreadsheet model because their release into the water environment can have serious effects on public health. The issue of toxic contaminants has been addressed by characterizing the waste profile of the six classes of industry in terms of the toxic pollutant(s) they release and incorporating these pollutants into a prioritizing matrix where (pre) treatment infrastructure will be recommended by the spreadsheet model in cities generating the highest load of COD and the most toxic pollutants. Toxic pollution is discussed further in the section on prioritization. Toxic pollutants may not necessarily end up in the water column and into the water supply but it can be expected that the residual level of these toxic contaminants in water bodies will be higher in areas where large quantities of wastewater/COD loads are generated and which have toxic-type of industries.
The model design was developed based on observations in many countries that as water consumption increases, so does wastewater generation and this required a link between wastewater generation and water consumption. The water consumption data for industry and municipalities were derived from IWHR. These projections of water demand were developed in parallel with the water demands derived in the sub study and link expected social and economic trends to wastewater productions providing a more realistic view of future load generations and resulting pollution problems. This view of the future is in turn subjected to a number of intervention scenarios which show how pollution could be
5 It is acknowledged that water flow management will have substantial impact on water quality. Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 149
gradually lowered given a certain level of investment. Thus, water demand strategies can be also assessed in terms of their impact on wastewater generation and pollution levels.
(ii) Calibration of the WPM-DSS
Calibration of the WPM-DSS was attempted by two separate methods including (a) analysis of actual water quality and flow data (i.e. loads) at level II basin compared with loads produced by the WPM-DSS and (b) comparison of level I basin loads (for the Huai only) from actual effluent monitoring survey.6
(iii) Calibration by Comparison with Effluent Load Monitoring Survey
The survey used for this purpose is Huai River Basin City and Township Effluent Monitoring Report (1998). The SEPA survey described could not be used for calibration because it forms the basis of the WPM-DSS although it is included in Figure A7.1-2 for comparison. Figure A7.1-2 shows the results of different COD loads from (a) the Huai River Committee Survey; (b) the SEPA Survey and (c) the WPM-DSS model. Figure A7.1-2 shows that the WPM-DSS calculates higher loads in the Huai river basin. In order to understand the reasons for this it is necessary to review the Huai River Committee (HRC) Survey.7
FIGURE A7.1-2: DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL COD LOADS RESULTS FROM VARIOUS DATA SOURCES
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
year
MWR Huai Survey SEPA Survey WPM-DSS Model results
The HRC survey was carried out in 1993 and repeated in 1997 and 1998 and was designed to identify COD loads from industries with a view to assess their ability to meet effluent standards as required by the Ninth Five-Year Plan. Pollutants analysis includes temperature, pH, COD, BOD, NH3-IV and volatile hydroxybenzene. Sampling was undertaken over a three-day period (1:00, 9:00; 16:00 hrs) by measuring volume of effluent and concentration in January of each year. Samples were taken from the outlet of factories or groups of factories and from some municipal drainage outlets. The report contains the names of sampled 597 effluent outlets in 188 counties/townships/cities. It is clear then that the intent
6 Only the Huai River Basin City and Township Effluent Monitoring Report (1998) by the Huai River Committee was available. 7 The industries generating WPM-DSS predicts higher industry loads than the SEPA survey because it includes (a) < 100 m3/day and (b) > 100 m3/day while the SEPA Survey only includes (b). 150 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
of the survey is to assess industries and some municipalities and so other point sources such as livestock and nonpoint sources discussed in this report and included in the WPM-DSS are not included. Table 7.2-5 compares the SEPA Survey results (upon which the WPM-DSS is based) and the HRC results. It is evident that both the number of sample points for all industry categories and the average concentrations of effluent (are much smaller in the HRC survey) showing that it is a much more restricted survey and that its results may be less reliable.8 Reasons for the lower average concentrations may include (a) some of the industries had lowed their production because sampling was done close to the Spring Festival (which is the biggest national Chinese holiday) and so “monitoring results may show lower pollution values than might be normally be the case” as noted in the HRC report; (b) as industries knew of the intended monitoring, some of them kept effluent on site during the three days of sampling; (c) for similar reason, some industries used clean water to dilute effluent. These points are also noted in the report.
In addition, Table A7.1-6 shows that the survey did not sample all the township/counties/cities in the four provinces of the Huai learning out at least 53 such locations.
TABLE A7.1-5: COMPARISON OF SEPA SURVEY AND HRC SURVEY
No. Industry Type SEPA Survey Result in 1997 Huai Committee survey result in 1998 % of No. % of No. of Average No. of Average (HRC/SEPA Concentration Enterprises Concentration Enterprises Concentration survey HRC/SEPA mg/l mg/l survey 1 Paper Making 463 2,086 50 1,360 11 65 2 Brewing/Distillation 171 3,658 68 830 1,583* 40 23 3 Food 177 2,725 25 1,726 14 63 4 Chemical 147 396 38 439 26 111 5 Miscellaneous 36 2,453 4 294 2,301** 11 12 6 Pharmaceutical 49 1,140 12 583 24 51 7 Textile 194 636 44 327 23 51 8 Fertilizer 91 137 49 177 54 128 9 Leather/Tanning 63 1,459 11 330 17 23 10 Power 20 225 9 205 45 91 11 Steel/Metallurgy 15 704 3 110 20 16 12 Other light Industry 18 576 12 264 67 46 13 Machinery 54 114 5 112 9 98 14 Mining 30 135 0 0 15 Building Materials 27 167 3 212 11 127 16 Coking 7 248 3 180 43 72 Oil 1 272 Average 1,562 1,390 337 672 22 48 Note: *: average value for this category if too high COD concentration are included ( "16,700" and "36,169") **: average value for this category if too high COD concentration is included ( "8,324").
8 Terms of the Survey does not captive all the industry/municipal sources and so loads compiled based on this survey will naturally be lower than the more comprehensive SEPA survey. Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System 151
TABLE A7.1-6: COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF ACTUAL AND SAMPLED CITIES /COUNTIES Province No. of Actual Counties & Cities No. Sampled Difference Jiangsu 52 42 10 Anhui 46 36 10 Shandong 54 40 14 Henan 99 70 29 Total 251 188 63 Notes: Townships are not included because data are not available on GIS at the time of writing so the number of omitted locations by the HRC survey is at least 63 locations. Source: HRC survey (1998) and GIS arc View (CRAES).
Thus it is evident that the HRC survey did not capture all the COD load generated in the Huai Basin for these years. The above review of the HRC survey suggest possible reasons why loads calculated by this survey were lower than the predicted values of the WPM-DSS.
However, due to the many different sources of data used to construct the WPM-DSS, it has been suggested that some overlapping or double counting may have occurred especially with respect to the rural industries (or TVEs) and the large industries based on the SEPA survey. The SEPA survey did not differentiate between locations (urban or rural) but only selected industries discharging above 100 m3/day of wastewater. Despite reasonably good calibration results suggested in Table A7.1-7, it must be acknowledged that this may be the case and that the WPM-DSS may be on “the high side” in terms of load generation. Moreover, we do not really know how much of this load makes its way to the rivers and so there is a need to take into account the assimilative capacity of the environment which could well “absorb” some of the BOD/COD prior to the river. This may be the case for example, where effluent volumes are small during dry season in areas with low grades implying that it may be difficult for the loads to get to the river. However at some stage in the future, say during flood season, this load would be taken to the drainage and river as slugs of pollutant. Thus it are used here that even if loads calculated by the WPM-DSS are 10-20 percent higher than actual loads, these large quantities of pollutant produced still need to be treated or reduced and it is critical that the authorities acknowledge all sources or pollution in planning. The following sections suggest prioritizing methodology for the action plan.
Calibration using actual water quality and flow data. The results of the preliminary calibration of the WPM-DSS are shown below in Table A7.1-7. As noted above, disparate flow and water quality data combined with irregular access to data has prevented more complete calibration. However, the results below show that the WPM-DSS can reproduce observed data with an acceptable degree of accuracy. In the case of the Hai basin, a number of monitoring stations were used throughout the basin to calculate average water quality value for the level II basins within the Hai basin. These were multiplied by corresponding flow data in the hydrologic catchments of the monitoring stations to calculate loads. In the case of the Huai basin, available flow data with corresponding water quality data occurred at Fuyang and Bengbu and so these data were used to calibrate the model at these two locations following the same procedure as for the Hai basin.
TABLE A7.1-7: CALIBRATION RESULTS FOR THE WPM-DSS Basin Huai Basin Huai Basin Hai Basin Hai Basin Level II basin Upstream of Wangjiaba to Luanhe & East Coast North Hai (II-2) Wangjiaba(III-1) Bengbu (III-2) Hebei (II-1) Monitoring stations Fuyang Station Bengbu Station Various Various Model 288,000 2,155,000 551,000 790,000 Data 200,729 1,975,040 567,173 611,390 152 Annex 7.1: Water Pollution Management Decision Support System
L. REFERENCES
Hallam, B. (1999). “Irrigation Water Demands—Background Paper,” Action Program Study for Water Resources, Ministry of Water Resources/World Bank, Beijing.
IWHR (2000). Spreadsheet file on water consumptions and development index projections to 2050. IWHRwdxnew.xls
Kutcher (World Bank) (1999–ongoing). “Basin Level Modeling, Action Program Study for Water Resources,” Ministry of Water Resources/World Bank, Beijing.
State Statistical Bureau (SSB) (various editions). Urban Statistical Yearbook of China.
Working Group for Water Pollution Control Plan (1996). Huai River Basin Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP).
Working Group for Water Pollution Control Plan (1999). Hai River Basin Water Pollution Control Plan (HRWPCP), report of May 1999.
Zeng, C. (1999). “Industrial Wastewater—Background Paper,” Action Program Study for Water Resources, Ministry of Water Resources/World Bank, Beijing.
Zeng, C. (2000). “Industrial Wastewater—Additional Investigations for Phase II,” Action Program Study for Water Resources, Ministry of Water Resources/World Bank, Beijing. Annex 7.2: Title Missing 153
ANNEX 7.2: INPUT AND OUTPUT DATA OF WPM-DSS MODEL
A. INPUT—HAI BASIN
TABLE A7.2-A1: PROGRAMS CONSISTING OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR HAI BASIN A B C D Urban Industry + Municipal Rural Industry Rural Domestic Livestock 1 RevE-0: Base Case scenario 1: Base Case scenario 1: Reuse=0.1, septic scenario 1: Base Case tanks treat to 180 mg/L 2 RevE-2: Treatment scenario 2: Intervention scenario 2: Reuse=0.1, septic scenario 2: 50% reduction of focusing on treatment tanks treat to 80 mg/L runoff in Beijing, Hebei & Shandong 3 RevE-3: Cleaner Production Only scenario 3: Intervention focusing on PPP scenario 3: 50% reduction of (PPP) runoff in all provinces 4 RevE-4: Treatment + PPP scenario 4: Treatment & PPP scenario 4: 75% reduction of runoff in 2010 and 90% in 2020 for all provinces 5 RevE-5: Treatment + Reuse only 6 RevE-6: Treatment + PPP + Reuse Program 1: A1 + B1 + C1 + D1 Program 2: A4 + B4 + C2 + D2 Program 3: A6 + B4 + C 2 + D4 PPP = Pollution Prevention Program 154 Annex 7.2: Title Missing Annex 7.2: Title Missing 155
BASE CASE Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6
TREATMENT TREATMENT + PPP A CLEANER PRODUCTION ONLY TREATMENT + REUSE ONLY TREATMENT + PPP + REUSE septic reuse fraction 0.1 untreated domestic waste water city reuse 0 untreated industry reuse industry reuse 0 0 percent of industry to municipal for city 0% global figure, use set city factors for priority cities proportion for industry 1 1 proportion for industry 2 1 proportion for industry 3 1 set for all years, use city factors for scenario analysis proportion for industry 4 1 proportion for industry 5 1 proportion for industry 6 1 STRD STRD STRD STRD STRD STRD
Industry standard & proportion complying proportion in industry treated (not to municipal) 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Waste strength 1 2000 1800 1600 1400 2000 1800 200 100 2000 1800 1600 1400 2000 1800 200 100 2000 1800 200 100 2000 1800 200 100 2 520 455 455 455 520 455 150 100 520 455 455 455 520 455 150 100 520 455 150 100 520 455 150 100 3 1524 1375 1375 1375 1524 1375 200 100 1524 1375 1375 1375 1524 1375 200 100 1524 1375 200 100 1524 1375 200 100 4 525 425 425 425 525 425 150 100 525 425 425 425 525 425 150 100 525 425 150 100 525 425 150 100 5 228 175 175 175 228 175 100 100 228 175 175 175 228 175 100 100 228 175 100 100 228 175 100 100 6 200 175 175 175 200 175 100 100 200 175 175 175 200 175 100 100 200 175 100 100 200 175 100 100
1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Proportion treated 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 VOLUME 3 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 4 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 6 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 0 0 0.9 1 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 industry waste reduction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 VOLUME 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 industry waste reduction 1 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 3 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 STRENGTH 4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 5 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 6 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 industry reuse 1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.5 2 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.5 3 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.5 treated waste 4 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.5 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.5 6 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.5 TABLE A7.2-A2: HAI BASIN WPM-DSS INPUT DATA FOR URBAN INDUSTRY 156 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
WWTP WWTP Reuse WWTP type[g] capacity WWTP type capacity scenarios (ML/d)*** (ML/d) 2000 2010 2020 2010** 2020 RevE-0: Base case [a] P1 cities 0 0.05* 0.08 2 2000 8 2500 P2 cities 0 0.03 0.05 1 5000 2 5000 P0 cities 0 0 0 0 2000 1 2500 RevE-2:WWTP [b] P1 cities 0 0.05* 0.08 5 2000 7 2500 P2 cities 0 0.03 0.05 3 5000 6 5000 P0 cities 0 0 0 2 2000 4 2500 RevE-3:PPP [c] P1 cities 0 0.05* 0.08 2 2000 8 2500 P2 cities 0 0.03 0.05 1 5000 2 5000 P0 cities 0 0 0 0 2000 1 2500 RevE-4:WWTP+PPP [d] P1 cities 0 0.05* 0.08 5 2000 7 2500 P2 cities 0 0.03 0.05 3 5000 6 5000 P0 cities 0 0 0 2 2000 4 2500 RevE-5: WWTP+Reuse [e] P1 cities 0 0.2 0.35 5 2000 7 2500 P2 cities 0 0.15 0.3 3 5000 6 5000 P0 cities 0 0.1 0.25 2 2000 4 2500 RevE-6: WWTP+PPP+Reuse [f] P1 cities 0 0.2 0.35 5 2000 7 2500 P2 cities 0 0.15 0.3 3 5000 6 5000 P0 cities 0 0.1 0.25 2 2000 4 2500 Notes: *: 0.12 for Beijing (City ID 8-4), ** for list of P1 and P2 cities refer to Table A7.5-7 and A7.5-11. *** 1997 WWTP capacity is shown in Chapter 3F Table 3F-15 [a]: RevE-0: Base case or business as usual consists of no major intervention except for ongoing government programs. [b]: RevE-2: Wastewater treatment plants for large industry [c]: RevE-3: Pollution prevention program for large industry [d]: RevE-4: [b] and [c]. [e]: RevE-5: [b] + reuse of industrial wastewater. [f]: RevE-6: [c] and [e]. [g]: 12 WWTP types are defined in the WPM-DSS as shown below: Type Removal Type Removal factor factor 0: None 0 7: Tertiary 0.95 1: Primary 0.15 8: User defined 50%P+50%S 0.525 2: Primary 0.25 9: User defined 95%P+ 50% S 0.7 3: Primary 0.65 10: User defined 100%P+75% S 0.725 4: Primary 0.65 11: User Defined 100%P+ 50% T 0.785 5: Secondary 0.8 12: User Defined Primary only 0.15 6: Secondary 0.8 TABLE A7.2-A3: M UNICIPAL WATER REUSE FACTORS AND WWTP TYPES AND CAPACITY FOR DIFFERENT INTERVENTIONS FOR HAI BASIN Annex 7.2: Title Missing 157
TABLE A7.2-A4: HAI BASIN WPM-DSS INPUT DATA FOR RURAL INDUSTRY
SCENARIO 1: BASE CASE SCENARIO 2: INTERVENTION FOCUSING ON SCENARIO 3: INTERVENTION FOCUSING ON SCENARIO 4: TREATMENT & PPP TREATMENT PPP
Industry Reuse % Ind 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 6 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Waste concentration factor Ind 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 after treatment & PPP 1 1.0 0.9 0.56 0.35 1.0 0.90 0.35 0.20 1.0 0.90 0.32 0.21 1.0 0.90 0.20 0.12 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6 1.0 0.9 0.70 0.52 1.0 0.9 0.60 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.525 0.40 1.0 0.9 0.45 0.30
Waste concentration factor Ind 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 after treatment 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 0.9 0.875 0.8 1 0.9 0.75 0.6 1 0.9 0.875 0.8 1 0.9 0.75 0.6
Waste concentration factor Ind 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 after PPP 1 1 0.9 0.7 0.5 1 0.9 0.7 0.5 1 0.9 0.4 0.3 1 0.9 0.4 0.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 0.9 0.8 0.65 1 0.9 0.8 0.65 1 0.9 0.6 0.5 1 0.9 0.6 0.5 158 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
TABLE A7.2-A5: HAI BASIN WPM-DSS INPUT DATA FOR RURAL DOMESTIC
SCENARIO 1: Reuse = 0.1, septic tanks treat to 180 mg/L SCENARIO 2: Reuse = 0.1, septic tanks treat to 80 mg/L
Province Level II Reuse factors Concentration after treatment Reuse factors Concentration after treatment code 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Hebei 2-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Liaoning 2-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Inner Mongolia 2-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Beijing 2-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Hebei 2-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Inner Mongolia 2-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Shanxi 2-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Tianjin 2-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Beijing 2-3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Hebei 2-3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Henan 2-3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Shanxi 2-3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Tianjin 2-3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Hebei 2-4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Henan 2-4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Shandong 2-4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Annex 7.2: Title Missing 159
TABLE A7.2-A6: HAI BASIN WPM-DSS INPUT DATA FOR LIVESTOCK SCENARIO 1: BASE CASE SCENARIO 2: 50% reduction SCENARIO 3: 50% reduction SCENARIO 4: 75% of runoff in Hebei, Beijing & of runoff in all provinces reduction of runoff in Shandong 2010 and 90% in 2020 for all provinces
Weighted annual runoff Weighted annual runoff Weighted annual runoff Weighted annual runoff coefficiency coefficiency coefficiency coefficiency Province pigs nonpigs pigs nonpigs pigs nonpigs pigs nonpigs Beijing 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Tianjin 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Hebei 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Shanxi 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Jiangsu 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Anhui 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Shandong 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Henan 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Liaoning 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Inner Mongolia 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 160 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
B. OUTPUT (LOAD)—HAI BASIN
TABLE A7.2-A7: COD LOADS FROM MAJOR POLLUTION SOURCES OF VARIOUS PROGRAMS IN HAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year)
Urban Industry Urban municipal Rural industry Livestock Rural municipal (1000 tons/year) (1000 tons/year) (1000 tons/year) (1000 tons/year) (1000 tons/year) (1000 tons/year)
Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks treat RevE-0: Base case RevE-0: Base case Basecase 0% reduction of runoff Total COD to 180 mg/L 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020
II-1 Luanhe & east 296 286 188 161 30 38 46 48 127 127 106 73 75 76 83 95 24 24 26 27 552 551 449 403 coast Hebei
Program 1 II-2 North Haihe 257 249 163 140 105 124 167 173 240 241 198 129 128 132 143 165 44 43 42 44 773 790 714 651 II-3 South Haihe 1323 1279 823 701 232 286 391 433 1134 1114 857 583 311 323 362 421 137 149 167 181 3137 3151 2600 2318 II-4 Tuhaimajia 413 399 261 223 33 39 51 59 122 125 104 73 129 132 143 167 36 37 40 41 733 733 599 563 Hai Basin 2289 2213 1435 1225 401 488 656 713 1623 1607 1266 858 643 663 730 848 239 254 276 292 5195 5225 4361 3935 50% reduction of runoff in Hebei, Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks treat RevE-4:WWTP+PPP RevE-4:WWTP+PPP Treatment and PPP Total COD Beijing & Shandong to 80 mg/L
1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 II-1 Luanhe & east 296 286 67 38 30 38 26 22 127 127 41 27 75 76 55 65 24 24 17 12 552 551 205 164 coast Hebei
Program 2 II-2 North Haihe 257 249 85 56 105 124 100 85 240 241 74 47 128 132 110 131 44 43 28 19 773 790 397 338 II-3 South Haihe 1323 1279 293 178 232 286 241 221 1134 1114 319 208 311 323 258 310 137 149 112 80 3137 3151 1222 997 II-4 Tuhaimajia 413 399 58 28 33 39 31 30 122 125 39 26 129 132 97 120 36 37 27 18 733 733 251 222 Hai Basin 2289 2213 503 300 401 488 398 358 1623 1607 473 308 643 663 518 625 239 254 184 130 5195 5225 2076 1721 75% reduction RO in 2010 & 90% Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks treat RevE-6:WWTP+PPP+reuse RevE-6:WWTP+PPP+reuse Treatment and PPP reduction RO in 2020 in all Total COD to 80 mg/L provinces 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 II-1 Luanhe & east 296 286 58 21 30 38 23 18 127 127 41 27 75 76 34 36 24 24 17 12 552 551 173 114 coast Hebei
Program 3 II-2 North Haihe 257 249 73 31 105 124 89 67 240 241 74 47 128 132 64 72 44 43 28 19 773 790 329 237 II-3 South Haihe 1323 1279 254 99 232 286 217 175 1134 1114 319 208 311 323 150 165 137 149 112 80 3137 3151 1052 728 II-4 Tuhaimajia 413 399 51 16 33 39 28 24 122 125 39 26 129 132 67 78 36 37 27 18 733 733 213 162 Hai Basin 2289 2213 437 167 401 488 357 284 1623 1607 473 308 643 663 316 352 239 254 184 130 5195 5225 1766 1240 Annex 7.2: Title Missing 161
TABLE A7.2-A8: COD LOADS FROM LIVESTOCK IN HAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 75% reduction of RO in 2010 & 50% reduction of RO for Beijing, 50% reduction of RO for all in Hai Level II Subbasin Base case 90% reduction of RO in 2020 for Hebei and Shandong in Hai Basin basin all provinces in Hai basin 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 II-1 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 75 76 83 95 75 76 55 65 75 76 50 60 75 76 34 36 II-2 North Haihe 128 132 143 165 128 132 110 131 128 132 90 111 128 132 64 72 II-3 South Haihe 311 323 362 421 311 323 258 310 311 323 221 271 311 323 150 165 II-4 Tuhaimajia 129 132 143 167 129 132 97 120 129 132 92 115 129 132 67 78 Total of Basin 643 663 730 848 643 663 518 625 643 663 454 558 643 663 316 352
TABLE A7.2-A9: COD LOADS FROM RURAL INDUSTRY IN HAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Level II Subbasin Base case Intervention focusing on treatment Intervention focusing on PPP Treatment and PPP
1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 II-1 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 127 127 106 73 127 127 69 43 127 127 62 45 127 127 41 27 II-2 North Haihe 240 241 198 129 240 241 127 76 240 241 116 79 240 241 74 47 II-3 South Haihe 1134 1114 857 583 1134 1114 546 340 1134 1114 498 356 1134 1114 319 208 II-4 Tuhaimajia 122 125 104 73 122 125 66 43 122 125 61 45 122 125 39 26 Total of Basin 1623 1607 1266 858 1623 1607 808 501 1623 1607 736 524 1623 1607 473 308
TABLE A7.2-A10: COD LOADS FROM RURAL DOMESTIC IN HAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks treat Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks treat Level II Subbasin to 180 mg/L to 80 mg/L 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 II-1 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 24 24 26 27 24 24 17 12 II-2 North Haihe 44 43 42 44 44 43 28 19 II-3 South Haihe 137 149 167 181 137 149 112 80 II-4 Tuhaimajia 36 37 40 41 36 37 27 18 Total of Basin 239 254 276 292 239 254 184 130 162 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
TABLE A7.2-A11: COD LOADS OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE IN HAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year)
TIR TMR Toxic COD Paper [a] [a] [a] [a] Cities RevE-0: Base case RevE-6: RevE-0: Base case RevE-6: RevE-0: Base case RevE-6: RevE-0: Base case RevE-6: WWTP+PPP+ WWTP+PPP+ WWTP+PPP+Re WWTP+PPP+ [b} [b} [b} [b} Reuse Reuse use Reuse P1 Priority Cities 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 Anyang 118.09 64.69 6.84 8.61 7.70 2.11 31.52 17.75 3.81 70.47 37.88 1.30 Baoding 50.50 28.43 7.02 7.26 10.40 2.64 22.91 12.90 3.36 11.76 6.62 1.34 Beijing 130.17 73.28 17.00 61.67 71.17 25.64 33.26 18.73 4.88 13.62 7.67 0.75 Changzhi 86.88 47.45 7.23 7.74 7.12 1.87 38.40 20.16 5.09 42.05 23.67 1.31 Chengde City 63.28 35.62 4.18 4.19 4.92 1.25 10.56 5.94 1.55 45.26 25.48 1.88 Datong 25.73 14.48 3.15 12.43 13.77 3.49 9.94 5.60 1.43 0.12 0.07 0.02 Handan city 68.62 38.63 4.79 13.19 18.91 4.79 6.20 3.49 0.91 48.76 27.45 1.96 Jiaozuo 119.43 63.45 5.04 8.50 7.72 2.01 38.63 18.01 1.67 71.21 40.09 2.24 Shijiazhuang city 155.77 87.69 15.64 17.65 23.54 6.91 87.88 49.47 9.64 34.08 19.18 2.56 Tangshan 202.67 114.09 14.34 21.25 20.94 7.06 38.39 21.61 5.63 138.17 77.79 5.81 Tianjin city 271.26 142.86 17.66 75.84 63.10 21.96 105.41 49.82 5.26 39.59 22.29 1.85 Xingtai city 48.60 27.36 3.65 6.44 7.35 2.01 6.54 3.68 0.96 36.00 20.27 1.92 Xinxiang 146.89 82.63 7.82 2.46 11.83 5.73 8.25 4.58 0.65 123.92 69.76 5.18 Xinzhou 8.16 4.60 1.15 6.33 5.81 1.52 2.44 1.38 0.36 1.21 0.68 0.13 Zhangjiakou City 42.53 23.94 4.37 9.95 9.43 3.19 13.94 7.85 2.04 15.40 8.67 0.66 P2 Priority Cities 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 Binzhou 15.01 8.30 0.68 2.67 3.26 1.10 0.44 0.25 0.06 10.90 6.14 0.28 Cangzhou 9.04 4.93 0.77 2.04 3.06 1.02 2.31 1.28 0.34 3.24 1.82 0.16 Dezhou 60.44 34.03 1.77 1.74 2.71 0.89 0.58 0.33 0.08 55.05 30.99 1.33 Hebi 6.37 3.02 0.32 2.01 2.21 0.73 3.05 1.27 0.09 1.38 0.71 0.02 Hengshui 11.46 6.45 0.96 1.96 2.93 0.98 6.08 3.42 0.55 2.79 1.57 0.12 Jinan 3.88 2.17 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.03 3.35 1.89 0.12 Langfang 3.37 1.89 0.37 2.30 3.65 1.20 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Liaocheng 65.25 36.20 2.50 4.20 5.12 1.71 5.40 2.50 0.46 52.44 29.52 1.26 Puyang 8.03 4.51 0.64 2.19 4.02 1.32 3.69 2.06 0.26 1.92 1.08 0.07 Qinghuangdao city 5.32 2.99 0.59 2.42 3.79 1.24 0.52 0.29 0.08 2.49 1.40 0.18 Shuozhou 6.66 3.75 0.87 2.51 2.92 0.97 3.69 2.08 0.54 0.33 0.19 0.03 Yangquan 5.25 2.93 0.77 2.90 3.63 1.20 3.19 1.76 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 Level II Sub-basin 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 2000 2020 2020 II-1: Luanhe & east coast Hebei 285.84 160.92 20.93 38.27 47.92 17.80 50.37 28.36 7.38 190.26 107.11 8.17 II-2: North Haihe 248.65 139.97 31.23 124.03 173.05 67.39 67.64 38.08 9.89 30.07 16.93 1.52 II-3: South Haihe 1279.16 701.01 99.12 286.32 432.83 174.72 399.11 208.48 36.45 513.78 287.28 21.13 II-4: Tuhaimajia 399.30 222.91 15.56 39.09 59.50 23.77 17.59 8.43 1.67 324.35 182.59 7.85 Hai Basin 2212.95 1224.81 166.84 487.71 713.30 283.68 534.71 283.34 55.39 1058.46 593.91 38.67 Note: [a]: Part of Program 1; [b]: Part of Program 3. Annex 7.2: Title Missing 163
FIGURE A7.2-A1: COD LOADS OF URBAN FIGURE A7.2-A2: COD LOAD OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE IN P1 &P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN 2000 IN P1 & P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN 2020 UNDER BASE CASE, HAI BASIN UNDER BASE CASE, HAI BASIN in 2000 under Base Case, Hai Basin
TIR TMR TIR TMR COD (1,000 t/a) 0 100 200 300 400 COD (1,000 t/a) 0 100 200 300 400 Tianjin city Tianjin city Tangshan Tangshan Beijing Beijing Liaocheng Liaocheng Shijiazhuang city Shijiazhuang city Dezhou Dezhou Xinxiang Xinxiang Jiaozuo Jiaozuo Anyang Anyang Changzhi Changzhi Handan city Handan city Chengde City Chengde City Baoding Baoding Xingtai city Xingtai city Zhangjiakou City Zhangjiakou City Binzhou Binzhou Datong Datong Hengshui Hengshui Cangzhou Cangzhou Puyang Puyang Shuozhou Shuozhou Hebi Hebi Yangquan Yangquan Qinghuangdao city Qinghuangdao city Langfang Langfang Xinzhou Xinzhou Jinan Jinan Note: COD load data of each city refers to Table A7.2-A11. 164 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
FIGURE A7.2-A3: COD LOAD OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE IN P1 & P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN 2020 UNDER SCENARIO 6, HAI BASIN
TIR TMR
COD (1,000 t/a) 0 100 200 300 400
Tianjin city Tangshan
Beijing Liaocheng
Shijiazhuang city Dezhou
Xinxiang Jiaozuo Anyang Changzhi
Handan city Chengde City Baoding Xingtai city Zhangjiakou City
Binzhou Datong
Hengshui Cangzhou
Puyang Shuozhou
Hebi Yangquan Qinghuangdao city Langfang
Xinzhou Jinan Annex 7.2: Title Missing 165
FIGURE A7.2-A4: COD LOAD OF URBAN TOXIC INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE IN P1 & P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN HAI BASIN
Load in 2000, Base Case Load in 2020, Base Case Load in 2020, Senario 6
COD (1,000 t/a) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Tianjin city
Shijiazhuang city
Jiaozuo
Changzhi
Tangshan
Beijing
Anyang
Baoding
Hengshui
Liaocheng
Zhangjiakou City
Chengde City
Puyang
Shuozhou
Datong
Yangquan
Hebi
Xinxiang
Xingtai city
Cangzhou
Handan city
Xinzhou
Dezhou
Qinghuangdao city
Binzhou
Jinan
Langfang 166 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
FIGURE A7.2-A5: COD LOAD OF URBAN PAPER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE IN P1 & P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN HAI BASIN
Load in 2000, Base Case Load in 2020, Base Case Load in 2020, Senario 6
COD (1,000 t/a) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Dezhou
Liaocheng
Tangshan
Xinxiang
Jiaozuo
Anyang
Handan city
Chengde City
Changzhi
Tianjin city
Xingtai city
Shijiazhuang city
Binzhou
Zhangjiakou City
Beijing
Baoding
Jinan
Cangzhou
Hengshui
Qinghuangdao city
Puyang
Hebi
Xinzhou
Shuozhou
Datong
Langfang Annex 7.2: Title Missing 167
C. INPUT, HUAI BASIN
TABLE A7.2-B1: PROGRAMS CONSISTING OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR HUAI BASIN A B C D Urban Industry + Municipal Rural Industry Rural Domestic Livestock 1 RevE-0: Base Case scenario 1: Base Case scenario 1: Reuse=0.1, septic scenario 1: Base Case tanks treat to 180 mg/L 2 RevE-2: Treatment scenario 2: Intervention scenario 2: Reuse=0.1, septic scenario 2: 50% reduction of focusing on treatment tanks treat to 80 mg/L runoff in Henan & Shandong 3 RevE-3: Cleaner Production scenario 3: Intervention focusing on PPP scenario 3: 50% reduction of Only (PPP) runoff in all provinces 4 RevE-4: Treatment + PPP scenario 4: Treatment & PPP scenario 4: 75% reduction of runoff in 2010 and 90% in 2020 for all provinces 5 RevE-5: Treatment + Reuse only 6 RevE-6: Treatment + PPP + Reuse Program 1: A1 + B1 + C1 + D1 Program 2: A4 + B4 + C2 + D2 Program 3: A6 + B4 + C 2 + D4 168 Annex 7.2: Title Missing Annex 7.2: Title Missing169
Scenaririo 0 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 CLEANER PRODUCTION TREATMENT + REUSE TREATMENT + PPP + A BASE CASE TREATMENT ONLY TREATMENT + PPP ONLY REUSE septic reuse fraction 0.1 untreated domestic waste water city reuse 0 untreated industry reuse industry reuse 0 0 percent of industry to municipal for city 0% global figure, use set city factors for priority cities proportion for industry 1 1 proportion for industry 2 1 proportion for industry 3 1 set for all years, use city factors for scenario analysis proportion for industry 4 1 proportion for industry 5 1 proportion for industry 6 1 STRD STRD STRD STRD STRD STRD
Current and proposed 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Industry treatment 1 1880 1800 1600 1400 1880 1800 100 75 1880 1800 1600 1400 1880 1800 100 75 1880 1800 100 75 1880 1800 100 75 Waste Strength 2 277 260 200 200 277 260 100 75 277 260 200 200 277 260 100 75 277 260 100 75 277 260 100 75 3 2947 2800 2500 2000 2947 2800 100 75 2947 2800 2500 2000 2947 2800 100 75 2947 2800 100 75 2947 2800 100 75 4 708 670 500 425 708 670 100 75 708 670 500 425 708 670 100 75 708 670 100 75 708 670 100 75 5 731 700 600 500 731 700 100 75 731 700 600 500 731 700 100 75 731 700 100 75 731 700 100 75 6 200 190 175 150 200 190 100 75 200 190 175 150 200 190 100 75 200 190 100 75 200 190 100 75
1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Proportion treated 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 VOLUME 3 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 4 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 6 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 0 0 0.8 0.95 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 industry waste reduction 1 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 2 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 VOLUME 3 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 4 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 5 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 6 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1 1 0.9 0.8 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 industry waste reduction 1 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 3 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 STRENGTH 4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 5 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 6 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.3 0.2 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 industry reuse 1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 2 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 3 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 treated waste 4 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 5 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 6 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 0 0 0.2 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 TABLE A7.2-B2: HUAI BASIN WPM-DSS INPUT DATA FOR URBAN INDUSTRY 170 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
TABLE A7.2-B3: M UNICIPAL WATER REUSE FACTORS AND WWTP TYPES AND CAPACITY FOR DIFFERENT INTERVENTIONS FOR HUAI BASIN
WWTP [g] WWTP capacity Reuse WWTP type capacity WWTP type Senarios (ML/d) (ML/d)*** 2000 2010 2020 2010** 2020 [a] RevE-0: Base case P1 cities 0 0.05 0.08 2 5000 8 2500 P2 cities 0 0.03 0.05 1 5000 2 5000 P0 cities 0 0 0 0 5000 1 2500 [b] RevE-2:WWTP P1 cities 0 0.05 0.08 5 5000 7 2500 P2 cities 0 0.03 0.05 3 5000 7 5000 P0 cities 0 0 0 2 5000 5 2500 [c] RevE-3:PPP P1 cities 0 0.05 0.08 2 5000 8 2500 P2 cities 0 0.03 0.05 1 5000 2 5000 P0 cities 0 0 0 0 5000 1 2500 [d] RevE-4:WWTP+PPP P1 cities 0 0.05 0.08 5 5000 7 2500 P2 cities 0 0.03 0.05 3 5000 6 5000 P0 cities 0 0 0 2 5000 5 2500 [e] RevE-5: WWTP+Reuse P1 cities 0 0.2 0.35 5 5000 7 2500 P2 cities 0 0.15 0.3 3 5000 7 5000 P0 cities 0 0.1 0.25 2 5000 5 2500 RevE-6: WWTP+PPP+Reuse P1 cities 0 0.2 0.35 5 2000 7 2500 P2 cities 0 0.15 0.3 3 5000 6 5000 P0 cities 0 0.1 0.25 2 2000 4 2500 Notes: *: 0.12 for Beijing (City ID 8-4), ** for list of P1 and P2 cities refer to Table A7.5-7 and A7.5-11. *** 1997 WWTP capacity is shown in Chapter 3F Table 3F-15 [a]: RevE-0: Base case or business as usual consists of no major intervention except for ongoing government programs. [b]: RevE-2: Wastewater treatment plants for large industry [c]: RevE-3: Pollution prevention program for large industry [d]: RevE-4: [b] and [c]. [e]: RevE-5: [b] + reuse of industrial wastewater. [f]: RevE-6: [c] and [e]. [g]: 12 WWTP types are defined in the WPM-DSS as shown below: Type Removal Type Removal factor factor 0: None 0 7: Tertiary 0.95 1: Primary 0.15 8: User defined 50%P+50%S 0.525 2: Primary 0.25 9: User defined 95%P+ 50% S 0.7 3: Primary 0.65 10: User defined 100%P+75% S 0.725 4: Primary 0.65 11: User Defined 100%P+ 50% T 0.785 5: Secondary 0.8 12: User Defined Primary only 0.15 6: Secondary 0.8 Annex 7.2: Title Missing 171
TABLE A7.2-B4: HUAI BASIN WPM-DSS INPUT DATA FOR RURAL INDUSTRY
BASE CASE: scenario 2: INTERVENTION FOCUSING ON scenario 3: INTERVENTION FOCUSING ON scenario 4: TREATMENT & PPP TREATMENT PPP
Industry Reuse % Ind 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 2 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 6 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Waste concentration factor Ind 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 after treatment & PPP 1 1.0 0.9 0.56 0.35 1.0 0.90 0.35 0.20 1.0 0.90 0.32 0.21 1.0 0.90 0.20 0.12 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6 1.0 0.9 0.70 0.52 1.0 0.9 0.60 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.525 0.40 1.0 0.9 0.45 0.30
Waste concentration factor Ind 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 after treatment 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 1 0.9 0.5 0.4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 0.9 0.875 0.8 1 0.9 0.75 0.6 1 0.9 0.875 0.8 1 0.9 0.75 0.6
Waste concentration factor Ind 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 after PPP 1 1 0.9 0.7 0.5 1 0.9 0.7 0.5 1 0.9 0.4 0.3 1 0.9 0.4 0.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 0.9 0.8 0.65 1 0.9 0.8 0.65 1 0.9 0.6 0.5 1 0.9 0.6 0.5 172 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
TABLE A7.2-B5: HUAI BASIN WPM-DSS INPUT DATA FOR RURAL DOMESTIC
scenario 1: Reuse = 0.1, septic tanks treat to 180 mg/L scenario 2: Reuse = 0.1, septic tanks treat to 80 mg/L
Province Level II code Reuse factors Concentration after treatment Reuse factors Concentration after treatment 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Anhui 3-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Henan 3-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Hebei 3-1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Anhui 3-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Henan 3-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Jiangsu 3-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Anhui 3-3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Henan 3-3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Jiangsu 3-3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Anhui 3-4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Jiangsu 3-4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Anhui 3-5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Henan 3-5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Jiangsu 3-5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Shandong 3-5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Jiangsu 3-6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Shandong 3-6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Shandong 3-7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 180 180 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 180 180 120 80 Annex 7.2: Title Missing 173
TABLE A7.2-B6: HUAI BASIN WPM-DSS INPUT DATA FOR LIVESTOCK
scenario 1: BASE CASE scenario 2: 50% reduction of scenario 3: 50% reduction of scenario 4: 75% reduction of runoff in Shandong & Henan runoff in all provinces runoff in 2010 and 90% in 2020 for all provinces
Weighted annual runoff Weighted annual runoff Weighted annual runoff Weighted annual runoff coefficiency coefficiency coefficiency coefficiency Province pigs nonpigs pigs nonpigs pigs nonpigs pigs nonpigs Hebei 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Jiangsu 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Anhui 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Shandong 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 Henan 0.06 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.005 0.015 174 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
D. OUTPUT (LOAD)—HUAI BASIN
TABLE A7.2-B7: COD LOADS FROM MAJOR POLLUTION SOURCES OF VARIOUS PROGRAMS IN HUAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year)
Urban Industry Urban municipal Rural industry Livestock Rural municipal (1000 ton/year) (1000 ton/year) (1000 ton/year) (1000 ton/year) (1000 ton/year) Total COD Name of Subbasin Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks (1000 ton/year) RevE-0: Base case RevE-0: Base case Base case 0% reduction in runoff treat to 180 mg/L 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiaba 80 79 53 47 28 37 64 74 139 132 98 67 79 81 89 104 32 34 39 39 358 362 342 332 III-2 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 744 683 406 330 173 258 408 460 915 840 569 382 359 369 412 481 133 143 148 160 2324 2294 1943 1813 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze lake 279 258 161 134 42 53 94 112 423 378 246 152 136 105 116 156 38 48 56 63 918 842 674 616 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake 286 277 162 136 43 51 75 87 300 273 182 106 88 94 105 128 61 60 63 63 778 755 588 520 to Huang Sea III-5 Nansi Lake 587 545 324 267 58 53 106 122 337 310 206 119 203 212 230 279 61 70 76 78 1246 1191 941 864 III-6 Lower Yishusi 330 316 199 158 46 53 92 110 221 203 131 77 135 121 135 167 58 65 69 71 791 758 626 582 III-7 Shandong peninsula 315 307 192 152 109 117 159 173 160 150 104 70 107 109 122 149 55 61 65 69 745 744 643 614 Huai Basin 2621 2467 1497 1223 499 622 999 1138 2495 2287 1536 974 1107 1091 1210 1463 439 481 516 544 7160 6947 5758 5341 50% reduction in runoff for Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks Total COD RevE-4: WWTP+PPP RevE-4: WWTP+PPP Treatment and PPP Name of Subbasin Shandong & Henan treat to 80 mg/L (1000 ton/year) 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiaba 80 79 18 12 28 37 30 26 139 132 37 25 79 81 56 68 32 34 26 17 358 362 167 149 III-2 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 744 683 160 100 173 258 192 184 915 840 225 147 359 369 315 382 133 143 98 71 2324 2294 990 884 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze lake 279 258 56 35 42 53 36 36 423 378 95 57 136 105 109 142 38 48 38 28 918 842 334 300 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake 286 277 73 49 43 51 34 31 300 273 72 41 88 94 105 128 61 60 42 28 778 755 326 277 to Huang Sea III-5 Nansi Lake 587 545 117 73 58 53 51 52 337 310 84 48 203 212 160 206 61 70 51 35 1246 1191 463 414 III-6 Lower Yishusi 330 316 65 38 46 53 43 39 221 203 51 29 135 121 108 138 58 65 46 31 791 758 313 276 III-7 Shandong peninsula 315 307 108 69 109 117 81 71 160 150 44 29 107 109 80 103 55 61 44 31 745 744 356 303 Huai Basin 2621 2467 597 376 499 622 466 440 2495 2287 608 377 1107 1091 933 1167 439 481 344 242 7160 6947 2948 2602 75% reduction in RO in 2010 & 90% Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks Total COD RevE-6: WWTP+PPP+reuse RevE-6: WWTP+PPP+reuse Treatment and PPP reduction in RO in 2020 for all Name of Subbasin treat to 80 mg/L (1000 ton/year) provinces 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiaba 80 79 16 10 28 37 27 21 139 132 37 25 79 81 37 41 32 34 26 17 358 362 143 114 III-2 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 744 683 142 80 173 258 174 148 915 840 225 147 359 369 165 180 133 143 98 71 2324 2294 805 626 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze lake 279 258 51 28 42 53 32 30 423 378 95 57 136 105 44 54 38 48 38 28 918 842 259 198 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake 286 277 65 39 43 51 30 25 300 273 72 41 88 94 50 60 61 60 42 28 778 755 259 193 to Huang Sea III-5 Nansi Lake 587 545 105 58 58 53 47 42 337 310 84 48 203 212 109 132 61 70 51 35 1246 1191 395 315 III-6 Lower Yishusi 330 316 59 31 46 53 38 32 221 203 51 29 135 121 65 80 58 65 46 31 791 758 259 203 III-7 Shandong peninsula 315 307 94 54 109 117 74 57 160 150 44 29 107 109 58 71 55 61 44 31 745 744 314 242 Huai Basin 2621 2467 531 300 499 622 422 354 2495 2287 608 377 1107 1091 528 617 439 481 344 242 7160 6947 2434 1890 Annex 7.2: Title Missing 175
TABLE A7.2-B8: COD LOADS FROM LIVESTOCK IN HUAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 75% reduction in RO in 2010 & 50% reduction in RO for Shandong 50% reduction in RO for all Subbasin of Huai O% reduction in RO in Huai 90% reduction in RO in 2020 for all & Henan in the Huai only Provinces in the Huai provinces 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiaba 79 81 89 104 79 81 56 68 79 81 54 67 79 81 37 41 III-2 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 359 369 412 481 359 369 315 382 359 369 247 305 359 369 165 180 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze lake 136 105 116 156 136 105 109 142 136 105 68 96 136 105 44 54 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake to Huang Sea 88 94 105 128 88 94 105 128 88 94 68 88 88 94 50 60 III-5 Nansi Lake 203 212 230 279 203 212 160 206 203 212 149 193 203 212 109 132 III-6 Lower Yishusi 135 121 135 167 135 121 108 138 135 121 88 116 135 121 65 80 III-7 Shandong peninsula 107 109 122 149 107 109 80 103 107 109 80 103 107 109 58 71 Whole basin 1107 1091 1210 1463 1107 1091 933 1167 1107 1091 755 970 1107 1091 528 617
TABLE A7.2-B9: COD LOADS FROM RURAL INDUSTRY IN HUAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Subbasin of Huai Business as usual Intervention focusing on treatment Intervention focusing on PPP Treatment and PPP
1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiaba 139 132 98 67 139 132 63 40 139 132 57 42 139 132 37 25 III-2 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 915 840 569 382 915 840 373 232 915 840 339 241 915 840 225 147 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze lake 423 378 246 152 423 378 160 91 423 378 145 95 423 378 95 57 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake to Huang Sea 300 273 182 106 300 273 119 65 300 273 108 67 300 273 72 41 III-5 Nansi Lake 337 310 206 119 337 310 137 74 337 310 124 76 337 310 84 48 III-6 Lower Yishusi 221 203 131 77 221 203 85 46 221 203 77 48 221 203 51 29 III-7 Shandong peninsula 160 150 104 70 160 150 70 45 160 150 64 46 160 150 44 29 Whole basin 2495 2287 1536 974 2495 2287 1009 593 2495 2287 915 616 2495 2287 608 377 176 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
TABLE A7.2-B10: COD LOADS FROM RURAL DOMESTIC IN HUAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Reuse = 0.1 and septic tanks treat Reuse=0.1, septic tanks treat to 80 Subbasin of Huai to 180 mg/l mg/L 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 III-1 Upstream of Wangjiaba 32 34 39 39 32 34 26 17 III-2 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 133 143 148 160 133 143 98 71 III-3 Bengbu to Hongze lake 38 48 56 63 38 48 38 28 III-4 Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake to Huang Sea 61 60 63 63 61 60 42 28 III-5 Nansi Lake 61 70 76 78 61 70 51 35 III-6 Lower Yishusi 58 65 69 71 58 65 46 31 III-7 Shandong peninsula 55 61 65 69 55 61 44 31 Whole basin 439 481 516 544 439 481 344 242 Annex 7.2: Title Missing 177
TABLE A7.2-B11: COD LOADS OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE IN HUAI BASIN (‘000 tons/year) TIR Waste Loads under Different Interventions (ton/day) in Hai Basin RevE-6: WWTP+PPP+Reuse [f} RevE-5: WWTP+Reuse [e] RevE-4:WWTP+PPP [d] RevE-3:PPP [c] RevE-2:WWTP [b] RevE-0: Base case [a] 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 P1 Priority Cities Bengbu 146 134 25 13 146 134 37 22 146 134 27 17 146 134 49 34 146 134 41 27 146 134 82 67 Fuyang 200 183 39 22 200 183 62 39 200 183 44 28 200 183 65 44 200 183 70 48 200 183 109 88 Heze 461 425 74 40 461 425 117 69 461 425 83 50 461 425 149 102 461 425 129 86 461 425 248 203 Huaiyin 135 128 23 12 135 128 33 18 135 128 25 15 135 128 47 31 135 128 37 22 135 128 79 62 Jining 859 777 107 52 859 777 161 81 859 777 118 64 859 777 260 173 859 777 175 98 859 777 433 346 Kaifeng 168 151 27 14 168 151 40 22 168 151 30 17 168 151 51 34 168 151 44 28 168 151 85 67 Lianyungang 178 169 30 15 178 169 44 23 178 169 34 19 178 169 62 41 178 169 49 29 178 169 104 81 Linyi 300 280 32 13 300 280 46 16 300 280 34 15 300 280 100 64 300 280 48 19 300 280 166 127 Pingdingshan 353 313 43 20 353 313 63 30 353 313 47 25 353 313 103 67 353 313 69 37 353 313 172 134 Shangqiu 110 100 14 6 110 100 21 10 110 100 15 8 110 100 35 24 110 100 23 12 110 100 59 48 Suzhou 132 130 34 21 132 130 53 36 132 130 38 26 132 130 53 39 132 130 60 45 132 130 88 77 Xuzhou 299 275 47 25 299 275 73 41 299 275 53 31 299 275 100 69 299 275 80 51 299 275 167 137 Yancheng 307 298 73 44 307 298 113 76 307 298 82 56 307 298 104 73 307 298 128 96 307 298 174 147 Zhengzhou 243 222 44 25 243 222 70 43 243 222 50 31 243 222 79 53 243 222 78 54 243 222 131 106 Zhumadian 117 113 16 8 117 113 24 12 117 113 18 10 117 113 42 31 117 113 25 14 117 113 71 61 Sum of P1 4009 3699 629 331 4009 3699 958 537 4009 3699 697 412 4009 3699 1301 876 4009 3699 1055 665 4009 3699 2168 1753 P2 Priority Cities 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Chuzhou 66 61 13 7 66 61 20 12 66 61 14 9 66 61 23 16 66 61 22 15 66 61 38 32 Huaian 42 44 17 11 42 44 29 21 42 44 20 14 42 44 20 15 42 44 33 26 42 44 34 29 Huaibei 80 75 16 9 80 75 26 16 80 75 18 12 80 75 29 20 80 75 29 20 80 75 48 40 Huainan 212 193 39 21 212 193 59 35 212 193 43 27 212 193 67 44 212 193 66 44 212 193 111 89 Liuan 217 199 43 24 217 199 67 41 217 199 48 31 217 199 70 47 217 199 75 52 217 199 117 95 Luohe 13 13 4 3 13 13 7 5 13 13 5 4 13 13 5 4 13 13 8 7 13 13 9 8 Nanyang 35 38 15 11 35 38 25 20 35 38 17 14 35 38 18 15 35 38 29 26 35 38 30 29 Rizhao 101 97 27 16 101 97 45 29 101 97 31 20 101 97 36 23 101 97 52 37 101 97 59 46 Suqian 75 75 21 13 75 75 34 23 75 75 24 16 75 75 31 21 75 75 39 29 75 75 51 43 Taian 141 135 37 21 141 135 61 39 141 135 42 26 141 135 49 32 141 135 69 49 141 135 82 64 Taizhou 146 137 23 12 146 137 34 20 146 137 26 15 146 137 44 30 146 137 38 24 146 137 74 60 Xinyang 60 58 10 6 60 58 15 9 60 58 11 7 60 58 22 16 60 58 16 11 60 58 37 32 Xuchang 105 94 14 7 105 94 20 10 105 94 15 8 105 94 31 20 105 94 22 13 105 94 52 41 Yangzhou 205 193 35 19 205 193 53 32 205 193 39 24 205 193 63 43 205 193 59 39 205 193 106 87 Zaozhuang 183 179 41 23 183 179 66 41 183 179 46 29 183 179 71 48 183 179 73 51 183 179 118 96 Zhoukou 133 118 16 7 133 118 23 11 133 118 17 9 133 118 39 25 133 118 25 14 133 118 65 51 Zibo 210 205 62 36 210 205 103 67 210 205 71 45 210 205 77 50 210 205 118 85 210 205 128 101 Sum of P2 2025 1914 434 246 2025 1914 688 431 2025 1914 489 309 2025 1914 696 471 2025 1914 773 540 2025 1914 1160 942 P0 Priority Cities 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Bozhou 60 59 21 13 60 59 34 25 60 59 24 17 60 59 24 18 60 59 39 31 60 59 41 35 Changge 29 29 10 6 29 29 17 12 29 29 12 8 29 29 12 9 29 29 19 15 29 29 20 17 Dengfeng 27 26 9 6 27 26 15 11 27 26 11 7 27 26 11 8 27 26 18 14 27 26 18 16 Gaoyou 85 87 29 19 85 87 49 36 85 87 33 24 85 87 34 25 85 87 55 45 85 87 57 51 Jieshou 32 31 11 7 32 31 18 13 32 31 12 9 32 31 13 9 32 31 21 16 32 31 21 19 Jinan 181 179 58 34 181 179 97 63 181 179 66 43 181 179 68 45 181 179 110 80 181 179 114 90 Qufu 63 63 22 15 63 63 37 27 63 63 25 18 63 63 26 19 63 63 42 35 63 63 44 39 Ruzhou 41 40 14 9 41 40 23 17 41 40 16 11 41 40 17 12 41 40 27 21 41 40 28 24 Tengzhou 54 57 22 14 54 57 37 26 54 57 25 18 54 57 26 19 54 57 42 33 54 57 43 38 Weifang 89 88 28 17 89 88 47 31 89 88 32 21 89 88 33 22 89 88 54 39 89 88 56 44 Weihai 32 32 10 6 32 32 17 11 32 32 12 8 32 32 12 8 32 32 20 14 32 32 20 16 Wugang 7 8 3 2 7 8 5 4 7 8 3 3 7 8 4 3 7 8 6 5 7 8 6 6 Xiangcheng 48 48 17 11 48 48 28 20 48 48 19 13 48 48 20 14 48 48 32 25 48 48 33 28 Xinmi 32 31 11 7 32 31 18 13 32 31 13 9 32 31 13 9 32 31 21 17 32 31 22 19 Xinyi 32 34 13 8 32 34 22 16 32 34 15 11 32 34 16 11 32 34 25 20 32 34 26 23 Xinzheng 27 26 9 6 27 26 15 11 27 26 10 7 27 26 11 8 27 26 17 14 27 26 18 16 Yantai 109 107 35 20 109 107 58 38 109 107 40 26 109 107 41 27 109 107 66 48 109 107 68 54 Yanzhou 60 60 21 14 60 60 35 26 60 60 24 18 60 60 25 19 60 60 41 33 60 60 42 37 Yingyang 29 28 10 6 29 28 16 12 29 28 11 8 29 28 12 8 29 28 19 15 29 28 19 17 Zoucheng 111 111 39 26 111 111 65 48 111 111 45 32 111 111 46 34 111 111 75 61 111 111 77 69 sum of P0 1147 1146 393 244 1147 1146 655 461 1147 1146 449 309 1147 1146 463 328 1147 1146 749 582 1147 1146 772 656 LII Sub-basin 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 1997 2000 2010 2020 Upstream of Wangjiaba 219 216 45 27 219 216 69 45 219 216 50 33 219 216 86 64 219 216 76 55 219 216 144 129 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 2039 1873 390 219 2039 1873 612 377 2039 1873 437 274 2039 1873 668 452 2039 1873 684 472 2039 1873 1113 903 Bengbu to Hongze lake 763 708 139 77 763 708 216 131 763 708 154 96 763 708 264 183 763 708 240 163 763 708 441 366 Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake to Huang Sea 785 759 177 106 785 759 278 184 785 759 200 133 785 759 267 187 785 759 313 231 785 759 445 374 Nansi Lake 1609 1494 287 160 1609 1494 452 277 1609 1494 320 201 1609 1494 532 366 1609 1494 504 346 1609 1494 887 732 Lower Yishusi 905 866 162 84 905 866 245 136 905 866 179 105 905 866 327 216 905 866 271 169 905 866 545 432 Shandong peninsula 862 842 258 149 862 842 429 278 862 842 295 188 862 842 316 208 862 842 489 352 862 842 527 416 Huai Basin 7181 6758 1456 821 7181 6758 2301 1429 7181 6758 1636 1031 7181 6758 2460 1676 7181 6758 2577 1787 7181 6758 4100 3351 Notes: TIR: [a]: RevE-0: Base case: consisty no major intervention except for ongoing government programs. 80 79 28 20 80 79 53 47 [b]: RevE-2: WWTP: treatment intervention of industrial waste. 744 683 250 172 744 683 406 330 [c]: RevE-3: PPP: waste management intervention (Pollution Prevention Program by SOEs and TVEs). 279 258 88 59 279 258 161 134 [d]: RevE-4: WWTP + PPP: interventions both of [b] and [c]. 286 277 114 84 286 277 162 136 [e]: RevE-5: WWTP + Reuse: interventions of [b] and reuse of industrial wastewater. 587 545 184 126 587 545 324 267 [f]: RevE-6: WWTP + PPP + Reuse: interventions of [b], [c] and reuse of industrial wastewater. 330 316 99 62 330 316 199 158 178 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
FIGURE A7.2-B1: COD LOADS OF URBAN FIGURE A7.2-B2: COD LOAD OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE IN P1 &P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN 2000 IN P1 & P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN 2020 UNDER BASE CASE, HUAI BASIN UNDER BASE CASE, HUAI BASIN
TIR TMR TIR TMR COD (1,000 t/a) COD (1,000 t/a) 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Jining Jining
Heze Heze
Yancheng Yancheng
Pingdingshan Pingdingshan
Xuzhou Xuzhou
Liuan Liuan
Zibo Zibo Linyi Linyi
Fuyang Fuyang
Huainan Huainan
Zhengzhou Zhengzhou Zaozhuang Zaozhuang Yangzhou Yangzhou Suzhou Suzhou Taian Taian Lianyungang Lianyungang Kaifeng Kaifeng Taizhou Taizhou Bengbu Bengbu Huaiyin Huaiyin Shangqiu Shangqiu Zhoukou Zhoukou Rizhao Rizhao Zhumadian Zhumadian Suqian Suqian Xuchang Xuchang Nanyang Nanyang Huaibei Huaibei Huaian Huaian Chuzhou Chuzhou Xinyang Xinyang Luohe Luohe
Note: COD load data of each city refers to Table A7.2-B11. Annex 7.2: Title Missing 179
FIGURE A7.2-B3: COD LOAD OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE IN P1 & P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN 2020 UNDER SCENARIO 6, HUAI BASIN
TIR TMR
COD (1,000 t/a) 0 100 200 300 400
Jining
Heze
Yancheng
Pingdingshan
Xuzhou
Liuan
Zibo
Linyi
Fuyang
Huainan
Zhengzhou
Zaozhuang
Yangzhou
Suzhou
Taian
Lianyungang
Kaifeng
Taizhou
Bengbu
Huaiyin
Shangqiu
Zhoukou
Rizhao
Zhumadian
Suqian
Xuchang
Nanyang
Huaibei
Huaian
Chuzhou
Xinyang
Luohe 180 Annex 7.2: Title Missing
FIGURE A7.2-B4: COD LOAD OF URBAN TOXIC INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE IN P1 & P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN HUAI BASIN
COD Load in 2000, Base Case COD Load in 2020, Base Case COD Load in 2020, Senario 6
COD (1,000 t/a)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Jining
Yancheng
Lianyungang
Huainan
Huaiyin
Pingdingshan
Liuan
Kaifeng
Yangzhou
Taizhou
Bengbu
Fuyang
Xuzhou
Suzhou
Zhoukou
Linyi
Zaozhuang
Zhengzhou
Chuzhou
Suqian
Xinyang
Zhumadian
Xuchang
Shangqiu
Zibo
Huaibei
Heze
Taian
Nanyang
Huaian Annex 7.2: Title Missing 181
FIGURE A7.2-B5: COD LOAD OF URBAN PAPER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE IN P1 & P2 PRIORITY CITIES IN HUAI BASIN
COD Load in 2000, Base Case COD Load in 2020, Base Case COD Load in 2020, Senario 6
COD (1,000 t/a)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Jining
Heze
Linyi
Pingdingshan
Xuzhou
Zhengzhou
Huainan
Zhumadian
Liuan
Yangzhou
Taizhou
Zaozhuang
Xuchang
Lianyungang
Huaiyin
Kaifeng
Yancheng
Suzhou
Zhoukou
Xinyang
Taian
Fuyang
Huaibei
Shangqiu
Bengbu
Rizhao
Zibo
Chuzhou 182 Annex 7.3: GIS Maps
ANNEX 7.3: GIS MAPS
MAP A7.3-1: 2020 TOXIC COD POLLUTION LOADS FOR PRIORITY CITIES IN THE HAI BASIN UNDER THE BASE CASE (tons/day)
II-1 Luanhe and East Coas t Heb ei II-2 North Hai II-3 South Hai II-4 T uhaimajia
II-1
16 22 Che ngde Zhangjia kou
II-2 15 Datong 51 Bei jing 2 Qinghuangda o
59 1 Ta ngshan 16 La ngfa ng Shuoz hou
137 II-3 Ti anj in Baodi ng 35
4 Xinzhou 10 Cangzhou 13 6 Shij iazhuang 13 Yangquan 26 Hengshui
3 Dezhou 2 II-4 Bi nzhou
10 Xingtai
10 1 Handan Ji nan 19 Liaocheng 55 Changzhi 49 Anyang 10 Hebi 15 Puyang 0 150 Kilomet ers 49 13 Xinxi ang Ji aozuo Ap proximate Scale
LEGEND N CHINA WAT ER SECTOR ACT ION PROG RAM WORLD BANK-MINISTRY OF W AT ER RESO URCES
T oxi c COD Pollution Load Ri ver Lake & Reservoir 2020 T oxic COD Pol lution Loads(tons/day) FI GUR E No . for Priority Citi esin the Hai Basi n Under the Base case 10 Annex 7.3: GIS Maps 183
MAP A7.3-2: 2020 TOXIC COD POLLUTION LOADS FOR PRIORITY CITIES IN THE HUAI BASIN UNDER THE BASE CASE (tons/day)
III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu III-2 Wang jiabu to Bengbu III-3 Bengb uto Hongze Lake III-4 Lower Huaihe,Ho ngze Lake to b oh ai Sea III-5 Nansi Lake III-6 Lower Yishusi III-7 Sh andong Peninsul a III-7
1 Zibo
0 Taian
Rizhao 27 Jining 1 Heze 5 Linyi
4 Zhengzhou 9 III-5 4 Kaifeng Zaozhuang 20 Lianyungang
2 Shangqiu III-6
6 Xuzhou 4 3 Suqian Xuchang 1 Huaibei 13 Huaiyin 11 Pingdings han III-2 7 5 Suzhou 0 Zhoukou Huaian Luohe 19 Yancheng III-3
4 Zhumadian 6 8 III-4 Fuyang Bengbu 4 Chuzhou
16 8 Huainan Taizhou 9 III-1 Yangzhou 1 Nanyang
4 Xinyang
11 Liuan 0 10 0Kil ometers
A pproxim ate Scale
LE GEND N CHINA W AT ER SE CTO R ACTION PROGRA M W ORLD B ANK -MINISTRY OF W ATER RES OURCES
Toxic COD Polluti on Load FIGURE No. Ri ver 2020 Toxic COD P ollution Loads(tons/ day) for Priori ty Cities Lake & Reservior i n the Huai Basin Under the B ase case(Prg1) 184 Annex 7.3: GIS Maps
MAP A7.3-3: 2020 POLLUTION LOADS FOR LEVEL II BASINS IN THE HAI BASIN UNDER THE BASE CASE (‘000 tons/day)
II-1 L uanhe an d East Coast Hebe i II-2 N orth Hai II-3 So uth Hai II-4 T uhaimajia
II-1
Chengde Zhangj iakou
Datong II-2
Bei jing Qinghuangda o
Shuoz hou Tangshan Langfa ng
Tianjin
II-3 Baodi ng
Xinzhou
Cangzhou Shiji azhuang
Ya ngquan Hengshui
Dezhou II-4 Bi nzhou
Xingtai
Handan Ji nan Li aocheng
Changzhi Anyang
Hebi
Puya ng 0 150 K ilometers
Ji aozuo Xinxiang Ap proxi ma te Scal e
LEGEN D N CHINA WATER SECT OR ACTION PROGRAM WORLD BANK-MIN ISTRY OF WATER RESO UR CES
Ur ban Industry. Ur ban Munic ipal. Ru ral Industry. Li vestock. FIGURE No. Ru ral Muni cipal. 2020 Poll ution Loads(1000 tons/year)for Level II Basins Ri ver i n the Hai Basin Under the Base case La ke & Reservoi r Annex 7.3: GIS Maps 185
MAP A7.3-4: 2020 POLLUTION LOADS FOR LEVEL II BASINS IN THE HUAI BASIN UNDER THE BASE CASE (‘000 tons/day)
Yantai Wei hai III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu III-2 Wang jiabu to Bengbu III-3 Bengb uto Hongze Lake III-4 Lower Huaihe,Ho ngze Lake to b oh ai Sea III-5 Nansi Lake III-6 Lower Yishusi III-7 Sh andong Peninsul a III-7 Wei fang
Zibo Jinan
Taian Qingdao
Rizh ao Jin ing
Heze Qufu Lin yi Ya nzh ou Zou ch en g Zhen gz hou III-5 Ten gzh ou Kaifen g Zaoz hu an g Ying yan g Lian yun ga ng
Xin mi Deng fen g Xinzh eng
Xin yi Chan g ge Xuz ho u III-6 Suq ian Xuc han g Hu aibei Ruzh ou Xiang che ng Huaiyin Ping ding sha n III-2 Bo zh ou Su zho u Zh ouk o u Huai'a n Luo he Yan ch eng
JIesh ou III-3
Fuy an g Ben g bu Ga oy ou Ming gua ng III-4 Tia nc hang
Taizh ou Hu ain an Yan gzh ou Na nyan g III-1
Liu'an 0 10 0Kil ometers
A pproxim ate Scale
LE GEND N CHINA W AT ER SE CTO R ACTION PROGRA M W ORLD B ANK -MINISTRY OF W ATER RES OURCES Urban I ndust ry Urban Municipal Rural Industry Livestock FIGURE No. 2020 COD P olut ion Loads(1000 tons/ year) for Level I I Basi ns Rural Muni cipal in the Huai B asin Under t he Base case River Lake & Reservior 186 Annex 7.3: GIS Maps
MAP A7.3-5: 2020 COD POLLUTION LOADS FOR PRIORITY CITIES IN HAI BASIN UNDER BASE CASE (tons/day)
II-1 L uanhe an d East Coast Hebe i II-2 N orth Hai II-3 So uth Hai II-4 T uhaimajia
II-1
1#11 Chengde 9#1 Zhangjia kou
#77 II-2 Datong 3#96 B eij ing #51 Qinghuangda o
3#70 #42 Tangshan #50 Langfa ng Shuozhou 5#6 4 Tianjin Baodi ng 1#06
2#8 Xinzhou #60 Cangzhou Shij iazhuang 3#05 #49 Ya ngquan #70 Hengshui II-3 2#76 Dezhou 8#7 Bi nz hou #95 Xingtai II-4 1#58 #16 Handan Ji nan 3#10 Li aocheng 1#49 Changzhi 1#9 8 Anyang #39 Hebi 6#4 Puya ng 0 150 K ilometers 1#95 2#59 Xinxiang Jiaozuo Ap proxi ma te Scal e
LEGEN D N CHINA WATER SECT OR ACTION PROGRAM WORLD BANK-MIN ISTRY OF WATER RESO UR CES
Total Industry COD Load Total Municipal C OD Load River 2020 CO D Polluti on Loads(to ns/day FIGURE No. Lak e & Reservoir for Priority Cities in the Hai Basin Under the Base case(Prg1) 3 Annex 7.3: GIS Maps 187
MAP A7.3-6: 2020 COD POLLUTION LOADS FOR PRIORITY CITIES IN HUAI BASIN UNDER BASE CASE (tons/day)
III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu III-2 Wang jiabu to Bengbu III-3 Bengb uto Hongze Lake III-4 Lower Huaihe,Ho ngze Lake to b oh ai Sea III-5 Nansi Lake III-6 Lower Yishusi III-7 Sh andong Peninsul a III-7
203 Zibo
121 Taian
90 Rizhao 386 Jining 254 Heze 127 Linyi
214 Zhengzhou 109 III-5 Kaifeng 202 Zaozhuang 110 Lianyungang
100 Shangqiu III-6
186 Xuzhou 114 63 Suqian 89 Xuchang Huaibei 86 Huaiyin 178 Pingdings han III-2 68 163 97 27 Zhoukou Suzhou Huaian Luohe 214 Yancheng III-3
80 Zhumadian 203 107 III-4 Fuyang Bengbu 62 Chuzhou 198 76 Huainan Taizhou 114 Yangzhou 157 III-1 Nanyang
56 Xinyang
235 Liuan 0 10 0Kil ometers
A pproxim ate Scale
LE GEND N CHINA W AT ER SE CTO R ACTION PROGRA M W ORLD B ANK -MINISTRY OF W ATER RES OURCES
Total I ndustry COD Load Total M unici pal COD Load FIGURE No. Ri ver 2020 COD Pollution Loads(tons/day) for Priority Cities Lake & Reservior in t he Huai Basi n Under t he Base case(P rg1) 188 Annex 7.3: GIS Maps
MAP A7.3-7: 2020 COD POLLUTION LOADS FOR LEVEL II B ASINS IN THE HAI BASIN UNDER THE WWTP+PPP+REUSE (‘000 tons/day)
II-1 L uanhe an d East Coast Hebe i II-2 N orth Hai II-3 So uth Hai II-4 T uhaimajia
II-1
Chengde Zhangj iakou
Datong II-2
Bei jing Qinghuangda o
Shuoz hou Tangshan Langfa ng
Tianjin
II-3 Baodi ng
Xinzhou
Cangzhou Shiji azhuang
Ya ngquan Hengshui
Dezhou II-4 Bi nzhou
Xingtai
Handan Ji nan Li aocheng
Changzhi Anyang
Hebi
Puya ng 0 150 K ilometers
Ji aozuo Xinxiang Ap proxi ma te Scal e
LEGEN D N CHINA WATER SECT OR ACTION PROGRAM WORLD BANK-MIN ISTRY OF WATER RESO UR CES Urban Industry Urban Municipal Rural In dustry Li vestoc k 2020 Po llution Lo ads(1000 tons/year)for Level II Basins Rural Muni ci pal FIGURE No. in the Hai Basin Ri ver Under the W WT P+PPP+ reuse Lake & Reservoir Annex 7.3: GIS Maps 189
MAP A7.3-8: 2020 POLLUTION LOADS FOR LEVEL II B ASINS IN THE HUAI BASIN UNDER THE WWTP+PPP+REUSE (‘000 tons/day)
Yantai Wei hai III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu III-2 Wang jiabu to Bengbu III-3 Bengb uto Hongze Lake III-4 Lower Huaihe,Ho ngze Lake to b oh ai Sea III-5 Nansi Lake III-6 Lower Yishusi III-7 Sh andong Peninsul a III-7 Wei fang Zibo Jinan
Taian Qingdao
Rizh ao Jin ing
Heze Qufu Lin yi Ya nzh ou Zou ch en g Zhen gz hou III-5 Ten gzh ou Kaifen g Zaoz hu an g Ying yan g Lian yun ga ng
Xin mi Deng fen g Xinzh eng
Xin yi Chan g ge Xuz ho u III-6 Suq ian Xuc han g Hu aibei Ruzh ou Xiang che ng Huaiyin Ping ding sha n III-2 Bo zh ou Su zho u Zh ouk o u III-3 Huai'a n Luo he Yan ch eng
JIesh ou
Fuy an g Ben g bu Ga oy ou Ming gua ng III-4 Tia nc hang
Taizh ou Hu ain an Yan gzh ou Na nyan g III-1
Liu'an 0 10 0Kil ometers
A pproxim ate Scale
LE GEND N CHINA W AT ER SE CTO R ACTION PROGRA M W ORLD B ANK -MINISTRY OF W ATER RES OURCES Urban I ndust ry Urban Municipal Rural Industry Livestock FIGURE No. 2020 COD P olut ion Loads(1000 tons/ year) for Level I I Basi ns Rural Muni cipal in t he Huai Basin Under t he WWTP+PP P +reuse River Lake & Reservior 190 Annex 7.3: GIS Maps
MAP A7.3-9: 2020 COD POLLUTION LOADS FOR PRIORITY CITIES IN THE HUAI BASIN UNDER THE WWTP+PPP+REUSE (tons/day)
II-1 L uanhe an d East Coast Hebe i II-2 N orth Hai II-3 So uth Hai II-4 T uhaimajia
II-1
#15 Chengde 2#1 Zhangjia kou
#18 II-2 Datong 1#17 B eij ing #14 Qinghuangda o
#59 #12 Tangshan #14 Langfa ng Shuozhou 1#0 9 Tianjin Baodi ng #26
#7 Xinzhou #13 Cangzhou Shij iazhuang 6#2 #15 Ya ngquan #15 Hengshui II-3 #20 Dezhou 1#3 Bi nz hou #16 Xingtai II-4 2#6 #1 Handan Ji nan #32 Li aocheng #25 Changzhi 2#5 Anyang #8 Hebi 1#5 Puya ng 0 150 K ilometers 1#9 #37 Xinxiang Jiaozuo Ap proxi ma te Scal e
LEGEN D N CHINA WATER SECT OR ACTION PROGRAM WORLD BANK-MIN ISTRY OF WATER RESO UR CES
Total Industry COD Load Total Municipal C OD Load River 2020 CO D Polluti on Loads( tons/day FIGURE No. Lak e & Reservoir for Prio rity Ci ties in the Hai Basin Under the WW TP+PPP+reuse 4 Annex 7.3: GIS Maps 191
MAP A7.3-10: 2020 COD POLLUTION LOADS FOR PRIORITY CITIES IN THE HUAI BASIN UNDER THE WWTP+PPP+REUSE (tons/day)
III-1 Upstream of Wangjiabu III-2 Wang jiabu to Bengbu III-3 Bengb uto Hongze Lake III-4 Lower Huaihe,Ho ngze Lake to b oh ai Sea III-5 Nansi Lake III-6 Lower Yishusi III-7 Sh andong Peninsul a III-7
63 Zibo
36 Taian
27 Rizhao 63 Jining 54 Heze 13 Linyi
54 Zhengzhou 25 III-5 Kaifeng 51 Zaozhuang 23 Lianyungang
20 Shangqiu III-6
38 Xuzhou 32 13 Suqian 22 Xuchang Huaibei 18 Huaiyin 32 Pingdings han III-2 12 43 29 8 Zhoukou Suzhou Huaian Luohe 62 Yancheng III-3
13 Zhumadian 53 24 III-4 Fuyang Bengbu 15 Chuzhou 50 17 Huainan Taizhou 27 Yangzhou 45 III-1 Nanyang
12 Xinyang
62 Liuan 0 10 0Kil ometers
A pproxim ate Scale
LE GEND N CHINA W AT ER SE CTO R ACTION PROGRA M W ORLD B ANK -MINISTRY OF W ATER RES OURCES
Total I ndustry COD Load Total M unici pal COD Load FIGURE No. 2020 COD Polluti on Loads(tons/ day) for Priority Cities Ri ver in the Huai Basi n Under the WWTP +ppp+reuse Lake & Reservior 192 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
ANNEX 7.4: CHINA WATER SECTOR ACTION PROGRAM— PHASE II
WASTEWATER PROFILES FOR MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
Major Pollutants Loads and Concentrations
It is well understood that wastewater pollution cannot be represented by COD only, although it is common practice that in most pollution status surveys, only COD data will be provided in details. The explanation may be that COD is easily determined pollution index and may be related to other organic pollutants. For the purpose of improved understanding of the pollution nature of each major polluting industrial categories, the work hereafter in this chapter try to profile the major WW streams with pollutants in terms of both load and concentration. This annex attempts to profile wastewater streams, pollution loads and waste concentration from major industry classes in order to improve understanding of nature of pollution from industry.
It needs some explanation for the tables.
Terms used here:
· Process wastes load. The load generated in the manufacturing process, it will be the end-of-pipe load too if there had no any pollution control measure. It is the weighted average load of different manufacturing processes, different production scales, different raw materials and different final products of the category surveyed. It reflects actual Chinese current production levels surveyed. Generally , the higher the load data, the smaller the scale and/or the poorer production technology.
· End-of-pipe load. The survey measured actually load discharged by industries, figures reported are the weighted averages. Some of to the environment the wastewater streams from different surveyed industries may not have received pretreatment. The load data reflect the current average level of wastewater pollution prevention in China.
· End-of-pipe load (after treatment). The pollution load which is discharged to the environment after treatment (may be more frequently expressed in term of concentration). These data reflect the current pretreatment levels in China (The data are not weighted, but are only applied to the industries with wastewater—WW—pretreatment processes).
· Discharge standards . There are quite a few different standards applied to WW streams from different industrial categories or trades, and even within the same standards, there may be different standards (up to three) applied to industries depending on their age or depending on the receiving water bodies (normally three classes). Unless specified otherwise, the standards here applied to the existing industries.
POLLUTING CATEGORIES CLASSIFICATION
In order to simplify the analysis, industrial trades are classed into six categories. These are based on the pollutants long-term impact as well as acute impact to the environment and human health. In addition, two categories have been assigned to the smaller urban industries (with WW discharged less Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 193
than 100 m3/d) and TVEs to simplify the structure and pollution level of small industry in roughly similar to the larger state-owned enterprises (SOEs).
POLLUTANTS LOAD PARAMETERS—REFERENCES
1. Handbook of Industrial Pollutants Parameters-Generation and Discharge, SEPA, Environmental Press, 1996 (Main reference). 2. SEPA Yearbooks (1990-1999) 3. SEPA, Environmental Statistics Bulletin 1999 (data for 1999) 4. Handbook of Industrial Environmental Protection, Environmental Press, 1990 5. Treatment Technology of Heavy Metal Wastewater, Metallurgy Industrial Press, 1993 6. Practical Handbook for Machine Industry Environmental Protection, Machine Industrial Press, 1993 7. Environmental Protection for Iron and Steel Industry, Science Press, 1990 8. Wastewater Treatment for Textile Industry, SEPA, Environmental Science Press, 1991 9. Handbook of Electric Plating WW Treatment, Machine Press, 1989 10. High Strength Organic Wastewater Treatment, SEPA, Chemical Industrial Press, 1988 11. Journal of Machine Factory Design, 3/1988, 12. Practical Handbook for Environmental Protection Personnel, Metallurgy Industrial Press, 1984 13. Proceeding of Machine Industrial Water and Wastewater 10th Anniversary, 1985 14. Journals of Water and Wastewater, Chinese Water and Wastewater, Chinese Industrial Water and Wastewater, etc. 15. Integrated wastewater discharge standard (GB8978-1996) and other standards mentioned in this standard.
Remarks: 1. The major data are extracted from the Reference 1, SEPA’s industrial pollutants handbook which is also officially used in China for calculating the pollution loads for statistics purpose. 2. The other references are used for the additional data sources when the data are not available in the SEPA’s handbook, or used for cross-checking. 3. All the data are based on the Chinese current practice rather than the textbooks.
EXISTING PRETREATMENT LEVELS AND PROCESSES
Current Discharge and Pretreatment Levels
Wastewater and new water
See Table A7.4-3 for WW details, and see Figure A7.4-1 for new water status.
Figure A7.4-1 shows that the paper industry here in new water consumption spectrum ranked the highest. Which consumes much more new water than any other categories (see Figure A7.4-1). 194 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
FIGURE A7.4-1: NEW WATER CONSUMPTION INTENSITY OF CHINA IN 1997
New Water Demand of China
Paper 431.6 Chemical 171.2 Nonferrous metal 163.2 Ferrous metal 148.1 Sub total 85.2 Pharmac. 53.9 Food 48.4 Textile 46.7 Oil and coking 45.1 Tanning 20.0 Machine 18.0
- 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 (CM/10kY)
COD According to Table A7.4-1, the COD discharge intensity of paper ranks the highest for all industries and has worsened from 1996 to 1997. It is four times high than that of Tianjin’s data for paper, but the COD discharge intensities of other categories are within comparable range with Tianjin’s (see Table A7.4-1 and Figure A7.4-2).
TABLE A7.4-1: COD DISCHARGE INTENSITY OF EACH MAJOR POLLUTING INDUSTRY
Industry 1997 (t COD/10kY) 1996 (t COD/10kY) Tianjin 1995 (tons COD/Y 10k) Paper 479.3 460.1 112.4 Food 37.4 47.0 98.2 Pharmaceutical 27.4 33.6 15.7 Chemical 21.8 22.3 25.9 Tanning 14.0 15.0 45.3 Textile 10.7 8.0 11.6 Ferrous metal 7.2 6.1 8 Power 6.3 4.4 Nonferrous metal 3.9 2.3 1.7 Oil and coking 2.8 2.5 11.5 Machine 1.3 1.2 7.3 National average 18.1 11.3
See Table A7.4-2 for details of new water demand, and Table A7.4-4 for details of WW discharge. Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 195
FIGURE A7.4-2: COD DISCHARGE INTENSITY SPECTRUM OF CHINA
COD Discharge Intensity
Paper Food Pharmaceutical Chemical National Tanning Textile Ferrous metal Power Nonferrous metal 1996 Oil and coking 1997 Machine
- 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0
kg COD/10kY Sources: Chinese Environmental Yearbooks 1998, 1997.
TABLE A7.4-2: NEW WATER CONSUMPTION LEVELS FOR MAJOR POLLUTING INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES New water Year 1997 Output value consumed New water intensity vs. output value Current (bln 3 3 3 (mln m ) Current Y(m /Y 10k) 90 const.Y (m /Y 10k) Y) Food 484 2,342 48.4 98.8 Textile 299 1,397 46.7 95.4 Tanning 62 124 20.0 40.8 Paper 85 3,669 431.6 880.9 Oil and coking 247 1,115 45.1 92.1 Chemical 360 6,162 171.2 349.3 Pharmaceutical 90 485 53.9 110.0 Ferrous metal 308 4,561 148.1 302.2 Nonferrous metal 117 1,909 163.2 333.0 Machine 902 1,625 18.0 36.8 Power 202 36,866 1,825.0 3,724.6 Subtotal (with power) 3,156 60,255 190.9 389.6 Subtotal (no power) 2,470 21,047 85.2 173.9 Sources: SEPA yearbooks. 196 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
TABLE A7.4-3: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE AND TREATMENTS LEVELS FOR MAJOR POLLUTING INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES Output value Wastewater 1997 Current Discharged Discharge intensity Comply with discharge std. Treated Reused (Y bln) (mln m3/yr) (m3/Y 10k) (mln m3/yr) (%) (mln m3/yr) (%) (mln m3/yr) (%) Food 484 1568 32.4 613 39 951 49 386 41 Textile 299 1028 34.4 666 65 588 54 52 9 Tanning 62 85 13.7 42 49 64 69 8 13 Paper 85 2746 323.1 551 20 2198 62 774 35 Oil and coking 247 600 24.3 512 85 552 78 107 19 Chemical 360 4277 118.8 2542 59 6655 72 4915 74 Pharmaceutical 90 337 37.4 150 45 101 28 18 18 Ferrous metal 308 2779 90.2 2219 80 8281 84 7047 85 Nonferrous metal 117 444 37.9 266 60 511 66 327 64 Machine 902 1177 13.0 894 76 559 40 238 43 Power 202 2218 109.8 1622 73 2132 62 1206 57 Subtotal (with power) 3156 17259 54.7 10077 58 22592 70 15078 67 Subtotal (no power) 2470 13473 54.5 7842 58 19509 72 13486 69 * Treatment Rate = Treat WW/(Reuse WW + Discharge WW) ** Reused rate = Here mean the reuse rate after WW treatment Sources: SEPA yearbooks
196 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 197
TABLE A7.4-4: COD DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT LEVELS Output value COD (‘000 tons) Discharge intensity 1997 Current Discharged Removed (%) tons COD/ tons COD/Y 10k Y (bln) Y 10k (90 const) Paper 85 4,074 1,409 26 479.3 978.2 Food 484 1,812 984 35 37.4 76.4 Pharmaceutical 90 247 101 29 27.4 56.0 Chemical 360 784 746 49 21.8 44.4 Tanning 62 87 108 55 14.0 28.6 Textile 299 321 242 43 10.7 21.9 Ferrous metal 308 223 81 27 7.2 14.8 Power 202 128 64 33 6.3 12.9 Nonferrous metal 117 46 13 22 3.9 8.0 Oil and coking 247 70 179 72 2.8 5.8 Machine 902 116 41 26 1.3 2.6 Subtotal (with power) 3,156 7,908 3,968 33 25.1 51.1 Subtotal (without power) 2,954 7,780 3,904 33 26.3 53.7 National 3,670 6,654 4,165 38 18.1 37.0 Comments: 1. COD removal rates are still very low, with average of only 33 percent of those top polluting industries surveyed which suggests there is room for further improvement. 2. Among COD discharge intensities, paper ranked highest of all, and the rate is more than 10 times than the second categories (integrated food), and 27.6 times than national average (compared with Tianjin’s intensity of 112 kg/Y 10,000 in 1995, 479 kg/Y 10,000 is really very high), it is accepted that paper is one of the most polluting industries, but it may still need further survey for clarification as there may still exist error caused by different methods employed in statistics. Sources: SEPA yearbooks.
Heavy metals and other toxic pollutants
Please refer Table A7.4-5 for details of discharge and treatment.
Table A7.4-5 lists the most dangerous industrial categories that generate and discharge heavy metals and other toxic materials:
Mining: Cadmium (57% removal rate), Lead (74%), Arsenic (79%) Nonferrous metallurgy: Cadmium (64%), Lead (72%) Tanning: Chromium (69%), Chemical: Lead (62%), Arsenic (73%), Phenol (79%) Oil and coking: Phenol (94%),
Current treatment levels
Removal rates for those categories that generate heavy metals or toxic pollutants are around 70- 75 percent, which suggests there is room for up to 25-30 percent further load reduction. Considering the pollutants are on the lists of first class of the discharge standards, the current removal rates are not sufficient and enforcement should be strengthened to increase the removal rates. The current available technology could achieve 95 percent to 99 percent of heavy metal removal rate. 198 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
TABLE A7.4-5: DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT LEVELS OF HEAVY METALS AND OTHER TOXIC POLLUTANTS
1997 Mercury (tons) Cadmium (tons) Chromium (tons) Lead (tons) Arsenic (tons) Phenol Discharged Removed % Discharged Removed % Discharged Removed % Discharged Removed % Discharged Removed % Discharged Removed % Mining 1.52 2.46 62 69.51 71.70 51 5.51 9.60 64 749.66 2,177.00 74 678.64 2,508.50 79 532.60 200.00 27 Food 0.25 0.01 4 0.02 0 0.39 0.23 37 7.22 0 4.81 3.50 42 82.80 18.80 19 Textile 0.07 0 0 0.04 0.08 67 13.55 59.50 81 0.58 0.01 2 8.81 0.30 3 41.80 26.70 39 Tanning 0.86 100 0.08 174.66 384.20 69 0.1 3.50 1.00 22 Paper 0.12 0.80 87 0.01 0 4.80 0.63 12 3.22 0.02 1 6.8 0.50 7 2,681.00 253.70 9 Oil and coking 0.01 0 0.66 0 0.28 0.24 46 9.73 0.01 0 0.77 2,629.00 4,3247.00 94 Chemical 4.21 11.00 72 7.45 18.80 72 22.90 141.70 86 166.58 274.40 62 435.37 1,166.00 73 1,043.40 3,898.00 79 Pharmaceutical 0.24 0.06 20 0.04 1.77 0.07 4 47.10 185.00 80 Ferrous metal 0.06 0 8.56 3.10 27 46.67 190.00 80 255.76 1,177.00 82 18.66 1.10 6 753.10 19,705.00 96 Nonferrous metal 5.65 17.00 75 139.72 251.80 64 11.72 85.00 88 1,327.61 3,424.00 72 218.16 2,390.00 92 94.50 0.58 1 Metal product 0.02 0.01 33 0.58 0.05 8 100.35 454.00 82 4.42 2.54 36 0.18 0.07 28 0.65 3.24 83 Machine 0.11 0.48 81 2.21 5.70 72 45.29 309.00 87 29.95 98.90 77 10.57 3.88 27 80.00 419.80 84 Power, gas & water 0.14 0 1.77 1.90 52 5.43 1.50 22 13.93 32.70 70 88.58 10.70 11 329.50 10,796.50 97 Sources: SEPA yearbooks.
198 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 199
Typical WW Pretreatment and Reuse Process
The process in Figure A7.4-3 could be applied to machine, steel, nonferrous metal chemical and food industries. The reclaimed wastewater could be used as cooling water, product raising or washing, material transportation, etc. depend on the degree of water contamination and the quality required by the manufacturing process. The oil trap and clarifier could be replaced by dissolved air floatation (DAF) either.
FIGURE A7.4-3: A WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE PROCESS Supernatant returning
Wastewater Pump Buffering tank Pump Oil trap
Reuse Reclaimed water tank Filter Pump Clarifying tank Discharge
Disinfectant Coagulant
Sludge disposal Dewatering plant Thickening tank
Legend:
Wastewater treatment route Sludge handling route
Weifang Diesel Engine Works, Shandong within the Hai Basin built a reclamation and reuse treatment plant in 1986 using the same process as above flow diagram (designed by C Z in 1985) which is still in operation. Table A7.4-6 details the water quality of influent and effluent of the treatment plant monitored in 1987.
TABLE A7.4-6: THE WASTEWATER ANALYSIS FOR RECLAMATION TREATMENT OF A MACHINE FACTORY (mg/l) Items COD BOD Color Hardness T-P T-N T-Mass SS Oil Cl- pH In 108 42 64 179 3.9 3.4 630 142 12.2 118 8 Out 27.7 5.8 6.3 179 9.8 614 10 0.8 125 7.4 Removal 74% 86% 90% 0% -188% 3% 93% 93% -6% 8%
It can be seen that the above mentioned treatment process is very effective in removing COD, BOD, color, suspended solids (SS) and oil, but has little effect in removing dissolved mineral. As the industry will lose some portion of water during the process and during the wastewater treatment, so the minerals normally will not accumulate in the reused water, a three months of monitoring of this factory’s 200 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
reused water quality. Weifang is located on the Shandong Peninsular, which suffers severe water shortage problems. The above wastewater reclamation project has made the Weifang Diesel Works’ water reuse rate to 80 percent (in 1987).
It is apparent from the work carried out in this analysis that the severity of water shortages is the driving force for industrial wastewater reuse. While this is a positive sign, industries do not consider effluent treatment for environmental. protection purposes and operate reuse schemes only to satisfy their own water quality requirements.
Similar process now can be found in many other industrial categories, as long as there is no heavy toxic or organic pollution during the production process. By using reused water, the reuse rate of the industries could be between 50 and 90 percent depending on the nature of the industrial production.
Cooling water will only need simple chemical additions and a small portion of recycling water discharge can then maintain the recycling forever so that it should normally not be treated as reuse water though quite a often it is miscalculated as reuse water (for nonpower industries).
REFERENCES
1. Requirement and content of Cleaner Production in IEA, National CP Center, CRAES, 1998 2. Cleaner Production in China, National CP Center, 2000 3. Studies on industrial water usage status, water saving, pollution reduction and cleaner production, Report 5, National CP Center, 1999 4. Studies on industrial water usage status, water saving, pollution reduction and cleaner production, Report 2, Chemical Science Institute and National CP Center, 1999 5. Handbook of industrial environmental protection, Environmental Press, 1990 6. Treatment technology of heavy metal wastewater, Metallurgy Industrial Press, 1993 7. Practical handbook for machine industry environmental protection, Machine industrial Press, 1993 8. Environmental protection for iron and steel industry, Science Press, 1990 9. Wastewater treatment for textile industry, SEPA, Envi. Science Press, 1991 10. Handbook of electric plating WW treatment, Machine Press, 1989 11. High strength organic wastewater treatment, SEPA, Chem. Ind. Press, 1988 12. Journal of Machine factory design, 3/1988, 13. Practical handbook for environmental protection personnel, Metallurgy Ind. Press, 1984 14. Proceeding of Machine industrial water and wastewater 10th anniversary, 1985 15. Journals of Water and wastewater, Chinese Water and wastewater, Chinese industrial water and wastewater, etc
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (CP) AND LOAD REDUCTION
Macro Polluting Status Studies
Water
Figure A7.4-4 shows that the total industrial water consumption is quite stable since 1996 despite an annual increase of about 7 percent in industrial output value.
200 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 201
FIGURE A7.4-4: CHINA’S INDUSTRIAL NEW WATER CONSUMPTION
Nation's Industrial New Water Cosumption
(100 mil CM) 700
600
500
Nation's Nw (100 mil CM) 400 Nation's Ww (100 mil CM)
300
200
100
- 1996 1997 1998 1999
Sources: Chinese Environmental Yearbooks.
Wastewater treatment rate and reuse rate
In China, industrial wastewater treatment is required by the national/local discharge standards if the wastewater does not satisfy the standards without treatment. However, in the sense of reclamation and reuse of the wastewater, it may be the results of joint forces of both pollution control and the pressure of lack of enough water supply as noted above. This will make the treatment systems somewhat different from those designed purely comply with the discharge standards. This situation normally only occurs in north China where droughts are frequent and severe.
As the term of reuse is quite frequently misused in China when calculating the reuse rate, the following definition tries to clarify the term of reclamation and reuse from the recycling in the following ways (Figure A7.4-5):
FIGURE A7.4-5: WW TREATMENT AND REUSE FLOW CHART
Loss WW discharged without treatment
New water Discharged WW Industrial process WWTP
Treated WW
Reused WW 202 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
Treatment rate. The ratio of total wastewater treated to the total wastewater generated (treated+not treated).
Reclamation and reuse rate . Wastewater discharged after industrial manufacturing process may be contaminated and after cannot be simply reused without treatment. Reuse rate is the ratio of reused WW to the total treated WW.
Recycling rate . Some industrial process water can be recycled without the need for treatment other than cooling or settling. This type of water will normally be recycled in a close loop inside or next to the process rather than mixed with other wastewater streams to avoid contamination. Recycling ratio is the recycled water to the total process water (new water+recycled water).
In the Hai basin, the treatment and reuse rates have been increasing to 77 percent and 68 percent respectively, and the compliance rate of discharged WW is 68 percent (see Figure A7.4-6). While in the Huai basin, these have been increased both to 80 percent with discharged WW compliance with 77 percent (see Figure A7.4-7). These are generally higher than the Hai basin.
FIGURE A7.4-6: HAI BASIN WW TREATMENT AND REUSE RATES
Hai Basinl Industrial WW Treatment Reuse Rate
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% % of treatment (calcul'd) % med std. (calcul'd) 20% % of reused/treated (calcul'd)
10%
0% 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
202 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 203
FIGURE A7.4-7: HUAI BASIN WW TREATMENT AND REUSE RATES
Huai Basinl Industrial WW Treatment Reuse Rate
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% % of treatment (calcul'd) % med std. (calcul'd) 20% % of reused/treated (calcul'd) 10%
0% 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
The concept of reuse may change along with progress in manufacturing process due to industrial restructure and cleaner production. For example, the paper making process wastewater used to be discharged as “white wastewater,” and later on, after the Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) process has been introduced, almost all of this part of wastewater in China received treatment and is reused in the paper making process again (also recovered paper fiber). It is normally counted as wastewater being treated and reused, and reduces discharged wastewater and new water consumption. However, if a new paper mill is established with the latest technology, this part of reused water may no longer being counted as reduced wastewater or being counted as reused wastewater as it has become a part of the new production process, the concept of cleaner production.
The rates for WW treatment and reuse in 1998 are shown in Table A7.4-7. It is not possible to know the percentage of reused wastewater shown in the Chinese environmental yearbooks that should actually be recycling water. We assume here that all reused wastewater is reclaimed and reused water.
Standards compliance rate
See Table A7.4-7 for standards compliance rate of discharged WW in term of WW volume. Paper (26 percent compliance rate), food (37 percent) and tanning (38 percent) ranked the top three categories for noncompliance rates of discharge standards. 204 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
TABLE A7.4-7: WASTEWATER DISCHARGE STATUS IN 1998 1998 WW (mil m3/year) (%) Discharged Met std. Treated Reused Met std. Treated* Reused Food 1,737 646 1,018 382 37 48 38 Textile 1,101 655 605 68 59 52 11 Tanning 137 52 60 8 38 41 13 Paper 3,148 815 2,216 784 26 56 35 Oil/coking 633 558 590 101 88 80 17 Chemical 3,835 2,445 7,087 5,379 64 77 76 Pharmaceutical 316 181 105 15 57 32 14 Ferrous metal 2,584 2,119 8,584 7,489 82 85 87 Nonferrous metal 341 233 597 436 68 77 73 Machine 1,093 900 584 261 82 43 45 Power 2,159 1,634 2,347 1,395 76 66 59 Subtotal 17,084 10,238 23,793 16,318 60 71 69 * Treatment Rate=Treat WW/(Reuse WW+Discharge WW), may be different from Yearbooks rates. ** Reuse Rate=Reused WW/Total treated WW. Sources: SEPA Yearbook 1999.
TABLE A7.4-8: COD DISCHARGE STATUS IN 2-H (B ASED ON SEPA’S YEARBOOKS )
Basin 1995 1996 1997 1998 WW (mil m3) 2,024.94 1,982.77 1,915.42 1,911.07 COD discharged (t) 856,339 866,512 814,672 961,301 COD removed (t) 325,109 326,542 356,968 509,594 Hai Total COD generated (t) 907,569 941,962 924,068 1,470,896 Removal rate (%) 36 35 39 35 COD Concentration (mg/l) 423 437 425 503 WW (mil CM) 1,956.68 1,921.02 1,757.41 1,604.54 COD discharged (t) 1,197,379 1,221,874 1,104,643 782,419 COD removed (t) 316,239 427,999 560,314 895,943 Huai Total COD generated (t) 1,141,583 1,294,191 1,307,474 1,678,362 Removal rate (%) 28 33 43 53 COD Concentration (mg/l) 612 636 629 488
It is always difficult to evaluate data from different sources or even from the same sources. However the ratio of WW volume from each data sources seems more in agreement (see A7.4-9). For example wastewater and COD load data from SEPA yearbooks are about half those reported in the SEPA Survey of 1995 and 1997 in the Hai and Huai basins. However, comparing the same data from SEPA’s 1999 bulletin with this survey shows that the COD load is much smaller even when compared with the data from yearbooks of different years, (e.g. 1999 only account for 28 percent of 1997’s load (see Table A7.4-10). The reason for discrepancies are difficult to explain while the present study is mainly based on data collected from the comprehensive detailed survey conducted by SEPA for 2-H in 1995 and 1997, it also makes use of the data from SEPA’s yearbooks. Great care should be exercised when calculating loads based on these different sources because errors may occur due to different data sets.
COD
It has been found that the total COD load generated (the sum of discharged plus removed) are quite constant (around 10,800,000 tons a year) for the last six years rather than increasing (see Figure A7.4-8).
204 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 205
TABLE A7.4-9: COMPARISON OF DATA IN SEPA’S YEARBOOKS WITH SEPA’S SURVEYS Surveyed Data Yearbook Data Yearbook/Survey Hai COD (1995) 1,877.967 Hai COD (1995) 856.339 46% Huai COD (1997) 1,968.468 Huai COD (1997) 1,104.643 56% Hai WW (1995) (Mcm) 2,435.950 Hai WW (1995) (mil CM) 2,024.936 83% Huai WW (1997) (Mcm) 1,416.354 Huai WW (1997) (mil CM) 1,757.414 124%
TABLE A7.4-10: COMPARISON OF DATA IN SEPA’S BULLETIN 1999 WITH SEPA’S SURVEYS WW % of survey COD t % of survey (Mcm) (1995, 1997) (1995, 1997) Hai Basin SEPA (1999)* 1,535.4 63 628,230 33 Huai Basin SEPA (1999)* 1,241.3 88 310,380 16 Hai Basin survey (1995) 2,436.0 100 1,877,967 100 Huai Basin survey (1997) 1,416.4 100 1,968,471 100 * SEPA, Environmental statistics bulletin 1999 (data for 1999).
FIGURE A7.4-8: INDUSTRIAL COD LOAD STATUS OF CHINA
Nation's Total COD Load Status Mil. t
12.00
10.00
8.00 7.68 7.30 7.25 7.22 7.16 7.18 7.15 7.03 6.78 6.81 6.65 6.00 6.22
5.09 4.44 4.00
2.00 Total gnerated Removed Discharged 0.00
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Sources: Chinese Environmental Yearbooks (1990-1999).
Cost Factor Studies
Industrial WW Treatment Costs-Capital and Operation Costs
It is essential to obtain the cost factors in order to conduct the pollution prevention program (PPP) cost-benefit analysis. Such cost factors are not readily available and need to be estimated. However, limited data available on lost factors for treatment of industrial wastewater are usually based the designed 206 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
capacity of the treatment facilities at their ideal conditions. Such costs calculated from the statistics data of SEPA’s yearbooks or bulletins will normally be much lower than that of the actual cost incurred in real life operation. (see Tables A7.4-11 and A7.4-12).
TABLE A7.4-11: MARGINAL UNIT COST FOR COD REMOVAL
Category Reduction rate Small scale Medium scale Large scale (%) (Y/ton) (Y/ton) (Y/ton) Paper * 50 186 86 51 70 314 145 87 90 867 401 240 Food 50 567 244 119 70 958 413 201 90 2,643 1,138 554 Chemical 50 1,140 239 68 70 1,928 404 115 90 5,321 1,114 318 Pharmaceutical 50 1,537 493 170 70 2,600 833 287 90 7,174 2,298 792 Beverage 50 302 91 69 70 511 154 116 90 1,410 424 320 Textile 50 1,851 804 513 70 2,749 1,194 762 90 5,108 2,219 1,416 Ferrous metal 50 371 119 57 70 627 202 96 90 1,729 557 266 National average 50 1,037 306 106 70 1,754 517 179 90 4,840 1,426 494 * The alkali recovery cost are not included Sources: China Industrial pollution economy, Environmental Press, 1999
The industrial WW treatment costs, both capital cost and operation cost are a function of treatment scale as well as the removal rate. Normally, the larger the scale, the lower the cost, the higher the removal rate, the higher the cost will be (see Figure A7.4-9). However, as noted above, ideal costs data in Table A7.4-11 need to be adjusted to reflect actual situation.
Treatment cost based on COD and actual investment will then be the true cost to society since design capacity is not used to calculate the cost. For example, SEPA’s Yearbook reports industrial wastewater treatment capacity, WW pollution control investment spent each year and annual increased industrial WW treatment capacity. Plotting cumulative treatment capacity as shown in Figure A7.4-10 shows that design capacity for treatment is greater than actual discharged loads. By the end of 1998, the cumulative WW treatment capacity (49,042 million m3/year) since 1992 is 177 percent of the total WW actually treated (27,727 m3/1998) (see A7.4.-10).
The current situation is that WW treatment investment is not very efficient: about 44 percent of total treatment capacity is idle or cannot be used due to poor construction of the facilities.
206 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 207
FIGURE A7.4-9: CAPITAL COST FOR FOOD COD REMOVAL
Food COD Removal Capital Cost 3000
2500 Small scale Medium scale 2000 Large scale
1500 Y/t COD
1000
500
0 50% 70% 90% Removal Rate Sources: China Industrial Pollution Economy, Environmental Press, 1999.
FIGURE A7.4-10: INDUSTRIAL WW STATUS
Industrial WW Status in China 60,000
Discharged 50,000 Increased capacity Treated 40,000 Cummulated capacity
30,000
20,000
10,000
- 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Capital costs studies
Several approaches for calculating the industrial WW treatment capital cost in term of both COD removed and WW treatment capacity have been developed during the present study:
· Approach One 208 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
Capital cost for annual COD removal = Y 53.91 billion/6.49 million tons = Y 8,310/ton COD/year (accumulative capital cost 1992-1999/COD removed1999)
· Approach Two According to SEPA yearbook, by the end of 1998, and 1999 respectively: total existing WW treatment capital/(COD removed /year), Capital cost for annual COD removal = 54.3/5.55 =Y 9,790/ton COD/1998 Capital cost for annual COD removal = 6.22/64.9 =Y 9,590/ton COD/1999
· Approach Three By using the average cost factors of major polluting industrial categories listed in Table A7.4-12 and weighting the costs of those categories in proportion to their share of total COD load shares in the Hai and Huai basins, the weighted average costs were derived as shown in Table A7.4-12. The figure Y 9,810/ton COD does not count the COD reduction benefit by the closure of 50 percent of small paper mills).
TABLE A7.4-12: INDUSTRIAL WW TREATMENT CAPITAL COST APPROACH
Trades Y/COD ton/year ton COD/year (Y Weight in 2H (%) Weighted cost million) portion (Y/ton) Hai Key pollution control projects cost 11,000 91 estimation (SEPA) Paper 1 (Paper Association) 3,480 287 Paper 2 (Paper Association) 19,140 52 Paper 3 (Action program) 14,580 0.58 8,398 Paper 4 (Action program) 6690 0.58 3,853 Brewing 4,120 243 0.12 498 Chemical 7,680 130 0.07 528 Pharmaceutical 10,700 93 0.04 384 Urban domestic WWTP (MOC) 21,000 48 Weighted average in 2H 3 9,810 Weighted average in 2H 4 5,260 Remarks: 1. Option 1 for paper-Black liquor treatment cost only 2. Option 2 for paper-Gross cost for the new large mill establishing (including the pulp process cost) 3. Weighted mixture investment for both option 1 and 2-excluding the COD reduction by close 50 percent of small paper mills 4. Weighted mixture investment for both option 1 and 2-including the COD reduction by close 50 percent of small paper mills Sources: 1. MOC, 2. Chinese Paper Association, 3. SEPA report Sept 2000, 4. Consultant’s studies.
Operation cost approach: Total operation cost-total WW treated/total COD removed-operation cost (vs. WW or COD)
· WW volume treated Y 0.45-0.35/m3. · COD removed Y 1,850-1,620/ton COD/year.
Suggested capital costs for 2H: Paper (comprehensive cost including CP) Y 14,500/ton COD/year Other industries (end-of-pipe treat) Y 9,500/ton COD/year.
208 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 209
Domestic-capital and operation costs
Capital cost approach: capital costàtreatment capacity or treated WWàCOD removed from WWàcapital cost/COD removed.
TABLE A7.4-13: DOMESTIC WWTP CAPITAL COST STUDIES
In Removed Removed Removed Cap'l Cap’l Y COD WWTP Out (mg/l) (mg/) COD COD COD Y/m3/d COD Tons/year/ (mg/l) (kg/m3) (tons/year) tons/year mil Y Beijing LGQ 350 60 290 0.29 0.104 2740 26,245 38.1 Beijing XHM 450 120 330 0.33 0.119 2020 17,003 58.8 Huai 52 WWTP 400 90 310 0.31 0.112 1730 15,502 64.5 1999 Whole nation's 0.26 0.093 1203 12,932 77.3 existing 283 WWTP Sources: 1. SEPA Yearbooks 1999, SEPA, Environmental Statistics Bulletin 1999 (data for 1999). 2. SEPA report Sept 2000, 3. Feasibility studies of Beijing Lugouqiao and Xiaohongmen WWTPs, 1999, 2000
It should be noted that costs of WWTPs in China, (in total 283), will be lower than proposed WWTP or those under construction. This may be explained by the changing value of the Renminbi over the years and the fact that new facilities has higher proportion of foreign equipment which increases their costs.
Operation cost approach:
Total operation cost-total WW treated/total COD removed-operation cost (vs. WW or COD)
TABLE A7.4-14: DOMESTIC WWTP OPERATION COST STUDIES Year WW treated (k Removed COD Capital cost Total Operat. cost Operation cost Operation cost m3/year) (kg/m3) (Y/COD tons/yr) (k Y) (Y/ m3) (Y/ton COD/yr) 1998 2,927,450 0.253 12,002 1,074,810 0.37 1,451 1999 3,525,570 0.259 12,891 1,190,080 0.34 1,302
WWTP/PPP Costs and Potential Reduction
Pulp and paper industry
Paper mills with capacity less than 17,000 tons a year will not have economically viable wastewater treatment and PPP concept must be introduced rather than end-of-pipe treatment. By closing 50 percent of small pulp mills (market gap will be met by wood pulp as is the experience for paper industry all over the world), and centralize the remaining 50 percent of small pulp mills into economical scale with CP process, and treat the existing larger paper mills with pollution reduction process and end of pipe treatment facilities, the estimated total cost for the above PPP program for paper industry in 2H is shown in Table A7.4-15. 210 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II
TABLE A7.4-15: OUTCOME OF PAPER INDUSTRY’S PPP ACTION IN 2H B ASINS
% of paper COD in % of Industrial Capital Cost (Y) Unit Capital cost Basin Reduced COD (t) 2H COD in 2H (Y/COD tons/yr) Hai 811,000 74 43 5,298,000,000 6,533 Huai 860,000 77 44 5,881,000,000 6,838 Total of 2H 1,671,000 11,179,000,000 6,690 Remark: Considering the benefit of the reduction of COD load contributed by closing 50 percent of small paper mills.
Other industries
Suggested cost for other industries apart from paper industry. Capital cost (end-of-pipe treat) Y 9,500/ton COD/year.
The scenarios are based on the different levels of compliance to the national discharge classes (see Table A7.4-16).
TABLE A7.4-16: OUTCOME OF NONPAPER INDUSTRY’S WWTP ACTION IN 2H B ASINS Basin Effluent Standard Class A mg/l Class B mg/l Class C mg/l Hai COD Reduction (t) 594,101 100 484,702 158 1,033 357 (no paper) Cap'l (mil Y) 5,644 4,605 1,033 Huai COD Reduction (t) 759,912 100 693,923 175 473,990 425 (no paper) Cap'l (mil Y) 7,219 6,592 4,503
However, if do not count the benefit of the COD reduction by closing 50 percent of small paper mills (assume all the small mills will be either upgraded to larger ones or will install WW treatment facilities), the total capital cost for the PPP will be as Table A7.4-17.
TABLE A7.4-17: OUTCOME OF WWTP+PPP ACTION BY COMPLYING WITH THE STANDARDS Basin Effluent Standard Class A mg/l Class B mg/l Class C mg/l Hai COD Reduction (t) 1,826,833 100 1,333,904 223 657,677 501 Cap'l (mil Y) 20,728 16,918 8,993 Huai COD Reduction (t) 1,826,833 100 1,572,771 279 1,057,293 643 Cap'l (mil Y) 22,690 19,336 12,961 Remarks: Class A discharge standards may only be applied to the wastewater discharged to Class II water bodies, it represent the highest discharge standards currently enforceable by SEPA. Sources: SEPA 1995 (Hai) and 1997 (Huai) survey data.
Considering the COD loads in the yearbook are about the half of the loads in SEPA’s detail surveys in 1995 and 1997 for 2H, and the present study takes the survey data as the basis, the likely capital costs in Table A7.4-18 may need be justified for making them comparable to the costs in Table A7.4-17, or may only served as the reference for cross checking.
210 Annex 7.4: China Water Sector Action Program–Phase II 211
TABLE A7.4.-18: WWTP+PPP ACTION OUTCOME AND COST (COD data based on SEPA’s Yearbooks) COD Reduction (t) 1995 1996 1997 1998 Hai Class A compliance 276,509 292,033 265,032 387,422 Huai Class A compliance 612,990 654,991 583,871 303,287 Hai Class B compliance 105,242 118,731 102,098 195,162 Huai Class B compliance 373,515 410,616 362,943 146,803
WWTP+PPP costs (mil Y) 1995 1996 1997 1998 Hai COD Reduction (Class A met) 3,318 3,504 3,180 4,649 Huai 4,482 4,927 4,355 1,762 Hai COD Reduction (Class B met) 1,263 1,425 1,225 2,342 Huai 7,356 7,860 7,006 3,639 Basic data adopted COD discharge standards Class A Class B Class C Nonpaper 100 150 500 Paper 100 450 1000 Weighted ave. 100 300 750 COD reduction capital (Y/t) Paper WWTP+PPP 14,500 Nonpaper WWTP 9,500 Weighted ave. 12,000 (Assume 50% is paper COD)
References
1. SEPA Yearbooks, (1990-1999). 2. SEPA, Environmental Statistics Bulletin 1999 (data for 1999). 3. China Industrial Pollution Economy, Environmental Press, 1999. 4. Economic Analysis Handbook for Industrial WW and Urban WW Treatment, Tsinghua University Press, 1992. 212 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7
ANNEX 7.5: STATISTICS RELATED TO CHAPTER 7
TABLE A7.5-1: TOXIC POLLUTION CALCULATED FOR CITIES IN THE HUAI BASIN
City Leather Machinery Other Light Steel / Textile Total City ranked Total % of total Cumulative % Rank industry Metallurgy Bengbu 0 69 0 0 2,218 2,287 Yancheng 18,634 24.5 24.5 1 Chuzhou 0 29 0 0 139 168 Suixian 7,088 9.3 33.8 1 Fuyang 1,557 0 0 0 900 2,457 Huaiyin 6,844 9.0 42.8 1 Heze 464 0 0 0 240 704 Zhumadian 4,652 6.1 48.9 1 Huaian 0 135 0 0 8 143 Jining 4,240 5.6 54.5 1 Huaibei 10 0 0 0 630 640 Linyi 3,668 4.8 59.3 1 Huainan 0 0 0 0 394 394 Taizhou 2,965 3.9 63.2 1 Huaiyin 500 62 85 3,376 2,821 6,844 Lianyungang 2,625 3.5 66.7 1 Jining 0 35 44 21 4,140 4,240 Fuyang 2,457 3.2 69.9 1 Kaifeng 699 61 0 0 655 1,415 Xuzhou 2,380 3.1 73.0 0.66 Lianyungang 329 18 0 0 2,278 2,625 Bengbu 2,287 3.0 76.0 0.66 Linyi 2,289 0 43 0 1,336 3,668 Zibo 2,244 3.0 79.0 0.66 Liuan 0 13 190 0 877 1,080 Zhoukou 2,035 2.7 81.7 0.66 Luohe 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yangzhou 1,830 2.4 84.1 0.66 Nanyang 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pingdingshan 1,568 2.1 86.1 0.66 Pingdingshan 257 1,083 0 0 228 1,568 Kaifeng 1,415 1.9 88.0 0.66 Rizhao 0 0 0 0 72 72 Xuchang 1,394 1.8 89.8 0.66 Shangqiu 180 0 0 0 0 180 Zhengzhou 1,360 1.8 91.6 0.33 Suixian 5,170 0 0 0 1,918 7,088 Zaozhuang 1,310 1.7 93.3 0.33 Suqian 0 6 0 0 602 608 Liuan 1,080 1.4 94.8 0.33 Taian 0 0 0 0 10 10 Xinyang 1,070 1.4 96.2 0.33 Taizhou 0 357 2 6 2,600 2,965 Heze 704 0.9 97.1 0.33 Xinyang 487 0 0 0 583 1,070 Huaibei 640 0.8 97.9 0.33 Xuchang 161 191 0 0 1,042 1,394 Suqian 608 0.8 98.7 0.33 Xuzhou 910 50 0 600 820 2,380 Huainan 394 0.5 99.2 0.33 Yancheng 0 68 2,862 0 15,704 18,634 Shangqiu 180 0.2 99.5 0.33 Yangzhou 105 4 37 37 1,647 1,830 Chuzhou 168 0.2 99.7 0.33 Zaozhuang 0 0 0 0 1,310 1,310 Huaian 143 0.2 99.9 0.33 Zhengzhou 0 54 677 0 629 1,360 Rizhao 72 0.1 100.0 0.33 Zhoukou 2,005 0 3 0 27 2,035 Taian 10 0.0 100.0 0.33 Zhumadian 4,419 28 0 0 205 4,652 Luohe 0 0.0 100.0 0.33 Zibo 1,102 0 0 0 1,142 2,244 Nanyang 0 0.0 100.0 0.33 Total 20,644 2,263 3,943 4,040 45,175 2,244 Total 76,065 100.0
212 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7 213
TABLE A7.5-2: TOXIC POLLUTION CALCULATED FOR THE HAI BASIN
City Leather and Machinery Oil Other light Steel / Textile Ranked City Grand Total % Cum % Rank Tanning Industry Metallurgy Anyang 0 391 0 0 5,564 5,862 Tangshan 34,364 27.1 27.1 1 Baoding 373 893 0 293 1,426 7,963 Handan 13,786 10.9 38.0 1 Beijing 376 2,718 69 647 6,116 3,860 Xinzhou 11,817 9.3 47.4 1 Binzhou 0 33 0 0 0 2,057 Chengde 10,948 8.6 56.0 1 Changzhi 0 565 0 386 1,168 147 Jiaozuo 7,532 5.9 62.0 1 Changzhou 0 209 2,897 0 0 3,643 Beijing 7,003 5.5 67.5 1 Chengde 122 50 0 0 438 308 Binzhou 6,749 5.3 72.8 0.66 Datong 183 794 0 0 70 4 Xinxiang 6,537 5.2 78.0 0.66 Dezhou 981 17 106 0 0 1,062 Zhangjiakou 3,855 3.0 81.0 0.66 Handan 257 245 0 424 1,830 1,099 Dezhou 3,323 2.6 83.6 0.66 Hebi 0 55 0 0 0 715 Changzhi 3,051 2.4 86.1 0.66 Hengshui 1,180 112 0 0 0 316 Datong 2,941 2.3 88.4 0.66 Jiaozuo 2,284 3,698 0 284 0 271 Yangquan 2,266 1.8 90.2 0.66 Jinan 0 0 0 424 0 0 Shijiazhuang 2,166 1.7 91.9 0.33 Langfang 0 21 63 272 40 192 Hebi 2,090 1.7 93.5 0.33 Liaocheng 201 365 92 34 0 2,631 Tianjin 1,663 1.3 94.8 0.33 Puyang 0 0 0 0 0 0 Liaocheng 1,608 1.3 96.1 0.33 Qinghuangdao 0 128 0 0 68 122 Anyang 1,051 0.8 96.9 0.33 Shijiazhuang 37 0 380 51 18 2,455 Shuozhou 918 0.7 97.7 0.33 Shuozhou 183 75 0 0 0 366 Hengshui 770 0.6 98.3 0.33 Tangshan 0 484 0 43 6,037 968 Qinghuangdao 624 0.5 98.8 0.33 Tianjin 8,784 2,630 3,750 0 1,495 17,705 Xingtai 588 0.5 99.2 0.33 Xingtai 40 252 37 0 684 650 Baoding 424 0.3 99.6 0.33 Xinxiang 291 136 0 503 82 5,991 Puyang 318 0.3 99.8 0.33 Xinzhou 0 13 0 0 10 9 Jinan 194 0.2 100.0 0.33 Yangquan 0 0 0 0 135 59 Langfang 32 0.0 100.0 0.33 Zhangjiakou 136 654 1 465 1,139 656 Changzhou 0 0.0 100.0 0.33 214 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7
TABLE A7.5-3: PRIORITIES CITIES FOR ACTION PLAN IN THE HAI BASIN
Cities with Highest COD Load Cities with most toxic discharge Cities with biggest water Cities with most unsustainable Cities with highest potential for Cities located up/stream of drinking Cities located upstream of irrigation intakes discharge from LI+SI+M incl shortage groundwater pumping = lowest artificial recharge water supply intakes 10%R+Exist WWTP water table. Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score weight= 7 weight=10 Weight=5 Weight=4 Weight=3 Weight=6 Weigth=4 1.00 Tianjin 7.00 1.00 Tangshan 10.00 0.89 Langfang 4.43 1.00 Anyang 4.00 1 Beijing 3.00 0.83 Chengde 5 1.00 Tangshan 4 1.00 Tangshan 7.00 1.00 Handan 10.00 0.86 Yangquan 4.32 0.90 Tianjin 3.60 1 Shijiazhuang 3.00 0.67 Xinzhou 4 0.83 Xinxiang 3.32 1.00 Beijing 7.00 1.00 Xinzhou 10.00 0.83 Tianjin 4.13 0.90 Hengshui 3.60 0.83 Xingtai 2.49 0.66 Changzhi 4 0.83 Beijing 3.32 1.00 Liaocheng 7.00 1.00 Chengde 10.00 0.79 Hebi 3.97 0.90 Cangzhou 3.60 0.83 Zhangjiakou 2.49 0.66 Zhangjiakou 4 0.83 Handan 3.32 1.00 Dezhou 7.00 1.00 Jiaozuo 10.00 0.71 Beijing 3.57 0.90 Puyang 3.60 0.83 Tangshan 2.49 0.50 Baoding 3 0.67 Liaocheng 2.68 1.00 Shijiazhuang 7.00 1.00 Beijing 10.00 0.71 Qinhuangdao 3.53 0.64 Tangshang 2.56 0.83 Datong 2.49 0.50 Datong 3 0.67 Shijiazhuang 2.68 1.00 Xinxiang 7.00 0.66 Binzhou 6.60 0.69 Cangzhou 3.45 0.64 Shijiazhuang 2.56 0.66 Anyang 1.98 0.33 Shuozhou 2 0.67 Anyang 2.68 1.00 Jiaozuo 7.00 0.66 Xinxiang 6.60 0.65 Xinxiang 3.25 0.64 Xingtai 2.56 0.66 Tianjin 1.98 0.66 Binzhou 2.64 1.00 Anyang 7.00 0.66 Zhangjiakou 6.60 0.57 Jiaozuo 2.83 0.64 Zhangjiakou 2.56 0.66 Puyang 1.98 0.66 Xinzhou 2.64 0.66 Changzhi 4.62 0.66 Dezhou 6.60 0.55 Puyang 2.73 0.64 Changzhi 2.56 0.66 Changzi 1.98 0.50 Xingtai 2 0.66 Handan 4.62 0.66 Changzhi 6.60 0.53 Changzhi 2.67 0.60 Qinhuangdao 2.40 0.66 Shuozhou 1.98 0.50 Hengshui 2 0.66 Chengde 4.62 0.66 Datong 6.60 0.53 Shijiazhuang 2.63 0.60 Datong 2.40 0.5 Qinhuangdao 1.50 0.33 Hebi 1.32 0.66 Baoding 4.62 0.66 Yangquan 6.60 0.52 Anyang 2.60 0.60 Baoding 2.40 0.5 Baoding 1.50 0.66 Xingtai 4.62 0.33 Shijiazhuang 3.30 0.44 Zhangjiakou 2.18 0.48 Beijing 1.92 0.5 Xinzhou 1.50 0.66 Zhangjiakou 4.62 0.33 Hebi 3.30 0.35 Jinan 1.73 0.36 Xinzhou 1.44 0.5 Chengde 1.50 0.66 Binzhou 4.62 0.33 Tianjin 3.30 0.24 Shuozhou 1.21 0.30 Shuozhou 1.20 0.32 Cangzhou 0.96 0.33 Datong 2.31 0.33 Liaocheng 3.30 0.30 Chengde 1.20 0.16 Hengshui 0.48 0.33 Hengshui 2.31 0.33 Anyang 3.30 0.33 Puyang 2.31 0.33 Shuozhou 3.30 0.33 Shuozhou 2.31 0.33 Hengshui 3.30 0.33 Qinghuangdao 2.31 0.33 Qinghuangdao 3.30 0.33 Hebi 2.31 0.33 Xingtai 3.30 0.33 Yangquan 2.31 0.33 Baoding 3.30 0.33 Langfang 2.31 0.33 Puyang 3.30 0.33 Xinzhou 2.31 0.33 Jinan 3.30 0.33 Jinan 2.31 0.33 Langfang 3.30 0.33 Cangzhou 2.31 0.33 Cangzhou 3.30 LI= Large Industry, 100m3/day +; SEPA Survey 1995, projected to 2000 using model developed as part of this study. SI= Small Industry, estimated from the difference between IWHR total WW @ 200 mg/L and LI above M= Municipal / domestic sources estimated from population X generation rate of 0.04 kg COD/day/person R= 10% reuse post treatment assumed as current practice in the Basins
214 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7 215
TABLE A7.5-4: PRIORITY CITIES FOR ACTION PLAN IN THE HUAI BASIN
Cities with Highest COD Cities with most toxic Cities with biggest water shortage Cities with most unsustainable Cities with highest potential for Cities located up/stream of drinking Cities located upstream of irrigation Load discharge. discharge. groundwater pumping = lowest artificial recharge water supply intakes intakes water table. W=7 W=10 W=5 W=4 W=3 W=6 W=4 Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score Rank City Score 1 Linyi 7.00 1 Yancheng 10.00 0.620 Taian 3.10 0.9 Shangqiu 3.6 1 Linyi 3.00 1 Linyi 6.00 1 Linyi 4.00 1 Jining 7.00 1 Suixian 10.00 0.617 Zhengzhou 3.09 0.64 Zibo 2.56 0.86 Qingdao 2.58 1 Jining 6.00 1 Jining 4.00 1 Xuzhou 7.00 1 Huaiyin 10.00 0.597 Kaifeng 2.99 0.64 Zhumadian 2.56 0.71 Zhengzhou 2.13 1 Zhumadian 6.00 1 Zhumadian 4.00 1 Zhumadian 7.00 1 Zhumadian 10.00 0.523 Huainan 2.62 0.64 Zhengzhou 2.56 0.57 Zibo 1.71 1 Suzhou 6.00 1 Suzhou 4.00 1 Heze 7.00 1 Jining 10.00 0.414 Bengbu 2.07 0.6 Xuzhou 2.4 0.57 Jining 1.71 0.83 Xuzhou 4.98 0.83 Zhoukou 3.32 1 Zhoukou 7.00 1 Linyi 10.00 0.366 Xuchang 1.83 0.6 Suxian 2.4 0.43 Shangqiu 1.29 0.67 Heze 4.02 0.83 Yancheng 3.32 1 Suixian 7.00 1 Taizhou 10.00 0.361 Jining 1.81 0.6 Heze 2.4 0.43 Zhumadian 1.29 0.67 Shangqiu 4.02 0.83 Fuyang 3.32 1 Luohe 7.00 1 Lianyungang 10.00 0.263 Zaozhuang 1.32 0.6 Qingdao 2.4 0.43 Heze 1.29 0.66 Pingdingshan 3.96 0.83 Lianyungang 3.32 0.66 Shangqiu 4.62 1 Fuyang 10.00 0.094 Pingdingshan 0.47 0.36 Linyi 1.44 0.43 Suxian 1.29 0.66 Bengbu 3.96 0.67 Heze 2.68 0.66 Pingdingshan 4.62 0.66 Xuzhou 6.60 0.36 Jining 1.44 0.29 Xuzhou 0.87 0.5 Zaozhuang 3.00 0.66 Pingdingshan 2.64 0.66 Kaifeng 4.62 0.66 Bengbu 6.60 0.33 Haibai 1.98 0.66 Kaifeng 2.64 0.66 Zaozhuang 4.62 0.66 Zibo 6.60 0.33 Suqian 1.98 0.66 Bengbu 2.64 0.66 Huaiyin 4.62 0.66 Zhoukou 6.60 0.5 Zaozhuang 2.00 0.66 Liuan 4.62 0.66 Yangzhou 6.60 0.5 Liu’an 2.00 0.66 Bengbu 4.62 0.66 Pingdingshan 6.60 0.5 Zhengzhou 2.00 0.66 Yancheng 4.62 0.66 Kaifeng 6.60 0.5 Xinyang 2.00 0.66 Fuyang 4.62 0.66 Xuchang 6.60 0.5 Zibo 2.00 0.66 Lianyungang 4.62 0.33 Zhengzhou 3.30 0.5 Yangzhou 2.00 0.33 Zhengzhou 2.31 0.33 Zaozhuang 3.30 0.33 Huaiyin 1.32 0.33 Xinyang 2.31 0.33 Liuan 3.30 0.33 Huainan 1.32 0.33 Huainan 2.31 0.33 Xinyang 3.30 0.33 Rizhao 1.32 0.33 Taizhou 2.31 0.33 Heze 3.30 0.33 Zibo 2.31 0.33 Huaibei 3.30 0.33 Yangzhou 2.31 0.33 Suqian 3.30 0.33 Xuchang 2.31 0.33 Huainan 3.30 0.33 Taian 2.31 0.33 Shangqiu 3.30 0.33 Huaibei 2.31 0.33 Chuzhou 3.30 0.33 Suqian 2.31 0.33 Huaian 3.30 0.33 Rizhao 2.31 0.33 Rizhao 3.30 0.33 Chuzhou 2.31 0.33 Taian 3.30 0.33 Huaian 2.31 0.33 Luohe 3.30 0.33 Nanyang 2.31 0.33 Nanyang 3.30 216 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7
TABLE A7.5-5: HAI BASIN STRUCTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL INVESTMENT (2000-2020)
Action Plan Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Measure Municipal Treatment Sewerage PPP Pre-treatment Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total Proportion of total Industry Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 Year 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Luanhe & East Coast Luanhe & East coast Hebei 283,148 32,277 315,425 1,017,531 255,583 283,148 5,254 Hebei 438,473 657,710 548,091 548,091 2,192,366 North Haihe 41,774 65,718 107,491 160,827 584,424 41,774 10,698 North Haihe 202,541 303,812 253,177 253,177 1,012,706 South Haihe 776,941 592,216 1,369,157 2,710,565 1,908,245 776,941 96,407 South Haihe 1,646,095 2,469,142 2,057,618 2,057,618 8,230,473 Tuhaimajia 562,592 57,186 619,778 1,734,652 184,609 562,592 9,309 Tuhaimajia 746,143 1,119,215 932,679 932,679 3,730,717 Hai Basin 1,664,454 747,397 2,411,851 5,623,575 2,932,861 1,664,454 121,669 Hai Basin 3,033,252 4,549,879 3,791,565 3,791,565 15,166,262 Government Program Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Measure Municipal Treatment Sewerage PPP Pre-treatment Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total
Urban Industry Proportion of total Industry Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 Year 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Luanhe & East Coast Luanhe & East coast Hebei 215,733 121,458 337,191 1,141,574 286,740 215,733 19,772 Hebei 467,640 701,460 584,550 584,550 2,338,201 North Haihe 34,098 277,784 311,882 180,433 655,798 34,098 45,221 North Haihe 307,863 461,794 384,829 384,829 1,539,314 South Haihe 587,279 1,018,868 1,606,146 3,107,643 2,405,361 587,279 165,862 South Haihe 1,895,687 2,843,531 2,369,609 2,369,609 9,478,437 Tuhaimajia 367,775 100,300 468,074 1,946,116 236,790 367,775 16,328 Tuhaimajia 700,631 1,050,947 875,789 875,789 3,503,157 Hai Basin 1,204,884 1,518,410 2,723,294 6,375,766 3,584,688 1,204,884 247,183 Hai Basin 3,371,822 5,057,733 4,214,777 4,214,777 16,859,109 Total Investment for Urban Industry ('000s RMB) 32,025,370 Government Program and Action Plan combined Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Measure Treatment Sewerage Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 Year 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Luanhe & East Coast Luanhe & East Hebei 1,825,211 1,825,211 Coast Hebei 730,084 1,095,127 912,606 912,606 3,650,422 North Haihe 7,011,252 7,011,252 North Haihe 2,804,501 4,206,751 3,505,626 3,505,626 14,022,503
Urban Municipal South Haihe 13,243,576 13,243,576 South Haihe 5,297,430 7,946,145 6,621,788 6,621,788 26,487,151 Tuhaimajia 653,710 653,710 Tuhaimajia 261,484 392,226 326,855 326,855 1,307,420 Hai Basin 22,733,749 22,733,749 Hai Basin 9,093,499 13,640,249 11,366,874 11,366,874 45,467,497 Total Investment for Urban Municipal ('000s RMB) 45,467,497
216 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7 217
Table A7.5-5 (cont’d)
Action Plan Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Pollution Control Measure Treatment Sewerage PPP Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total
Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 Year 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 222,926 111,463 396,671 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 146,212 219,318 182,765 182,765 731,060 North Haihe 398,902 199,451 714,119 North Haihe 262,494 393,742 328,118 328,118 1,312,472 South Haihe 1,803,126 901,563 3,234,698 South Haihe 1,187,877 1,781,816 1,484,847 1,484,847 5,939,387 Tuhaimajia 224,916 112,458 402,987 Tuhaimajia 148,072 222,108 185,090 185,090 740,361 Hai Basin 2,649,869 1,324,934 4,748,476 Hai Basin 1,744,656 2,616,984 2,180,820 2,180,820 8,723,279 Government Program Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Pollution Control Measure PPP Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total
Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 Year 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 768,249 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 153,650 230,475 192,062 192,062 768,249 North Haihe 1,577,614 North Haihe 315,523 473,284 394,404 394,404 1,577,614 South Haihe 7,863,738 South Haihe 1,572,748 2,359,121 1,965,935 1,965,935 7,863,738 Tuhaimajia 699,878 Tuhaimajia 139,976 209,963 174,969 174,969 699,878 Hai Basin 10,909,480 Hai Basin 2,181,896 3,272,844 2,727,370 2,727,370 10,909,480 Total Investment for Rural Industry ('000s RMB) 19,632,759 Government Program and Action Plan combined Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Pollution Control Measure Treatment Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total
Proportion of total cost 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 1 Year 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 1,572,120 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 471,636 471,636 314,424 314,424 1,572,120 North Haihe 2,596,000 North Haihe 778,800 778,800 519,200 519,200 2,596,000 South Haihe 10,572,540 South Haihe 3,171,762 3,171,762 2,114,508 2,114,508 10,572,540 Tuhaimajia 2,402,620 Tuhaimajia 720,786 720,786 480,524 480,524 2,402,620 Hai Basin 17,143,280 Hai Basin 5,142,984 5,142,984 3,428,656 3,428,656 17,143,280 Total Investment for Rural Municipal ('000s RMB) 17,143,280 Government Program and Action Plan combined Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Pollution Control Measure Treatment Sewerage Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total
Proportion of total cost 0.15 0.3 0.27 0.28 1 Year 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 357,342 178,671 Luanhe & East Coast Hebei 80,402 160,804 144,724 150,084 536,013 North Haihe 625,476 312,738 North Haihe 140,732 281,464 253,318 262,700 938,213 South Haihe 1,589,788 794,894 South Haihe 357,702 715,405 643,864 667,711 2,384,682 Tuhaimajia 631,021 315,511 Tuhaimajia 141,980 283,960 255,564 265,029 946,532 Hai Basin 3,203,627 1,601,814 Hai Basin 720,816 1,441,632 1,297,469 1,345,523 4,805,441 Total Investment for Rural Livestock Industry ('000s RMB) 4,805,441 Total Investment for Hai Basin ('000 RMB) 17,861,152 35,722,304 32,150,074 33,340,817 119,074,347 218 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7
TABLE A7.5-6: HUAI BASIN STRUCTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL INVESTMENT (2000-2020)
Action Plan Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Pollution Control Measure Municipal Treatment Sewerage PPP Pre-treatment Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total Industry Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 Year 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020
Upstream of Wangjiaba 67,769 19,849 87,617 216,324 115,338 60,097 4,357 Upstream of Wangjiaba 114,270 171,405 142,838 142,838 571,351 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 299,536 202,012 501,548 956,149 1,088,270 265,626 44,344 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 671,497 1,007,246 839,372 839,372 3,357,486
Bengbu to Hongze lake 124,239 120,828 245,067 396,584 435,914 110,175 26,523 Bengbu to Hongze lake 291,866 437,799 364,833 364,833 1,459,331
Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake to Huang Sea 84,540 67,066 151,606 269,860 512,907 74,969 14,722 lake to Huang Sea 235,134 352,701 293,918 293,918 1,175,670 Nansi Lake 279,171 188,320 467,491 891,142 822,838 247,567 41,338 Nansi Lake 587,573 881,360 734,467 734,467 2,937,867 Lower Yishusi 173,997 140,943 314,939 555,415 471,424 154,299 30,939 Lower Yishusi 368,391 552,587 460,489 460,489 1,841,955 Shandong peninsula 18,670 37,427 56,097 59,598 690,686 16,557 8,216 Shandong peninsula 177,450 266,175 221,813 221,813 887,251 Huai Basin 1,047,922 776,444 1,824,366 3,345,072 4,137,377 929,290 170,439 Huai Basin 2,446,182 3,669,273 3,057,728 3,057,728 12,230,911 Government Program Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Pollution Control Measure Municipal Treatment Sewerage PPP Pre-treatment Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total Industry Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 Year 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020
Upstream of Wangjiaba 56,445 27,957 84,402 281,778 69,221 50055 6137 Upstream of Wangjiaba 115,199 172,799 143,999 143,999 575,995 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 450,072 611,883 1,061,955 2,246,795 1,515,010 399121 134316 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 1,283,830 1,925,745 1,604,788 1,604,788 6,419,151
Bengbu to Hongze lake 155,102 216,366 371,468 774,282 535,718 137543 47495 Bengbu to Hongze lake 447,595 671,392 559,494 559,494 2,237,975
Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake to Huang Sea 125,316 259,490 384,806 625,588 642,492 111129 56961 lake to Huang Sea 441,157 661,735 551,446 551,446 2,205,784 Nansi Lake 397,786 421,849 819,635 1,985,777 1,044,489 352753 92601 Nansi Lake 1,022,978 1,534,467 1,278,722 1,278,722 5,114,889 Lower Yishusi 202,665 238,976 441,641 1,011,718 591,700 179722 52458 Lower Yishusi 543,776 815,664 679,720 679,720 2,718,879 Shandong peninsula 36,681 381,612 418,293 183,113 944,864 32528 83769 Shandong peninsula 416,172 624,258 520,215 520,215 2,080,860 Huai Basin 1,424,067 2,158,133 3,582,201 7,109,050 5,343,494 1262852 473737 Huai Basin 4,270,707 6,406,060 5,338,384 5,338,384 21,353,534 Total Investment for Urban Industry ('000s RMB) 33,584,445 Government Program and Action Plan combined Timing for Investment (000's RMB) Pollution Control Measure Treatment Sewerage Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total
Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 Year 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020
Upstream of Wangjiaba 1,390,820 1,390,820 Upstream of Wangjiaba 556,328 834,492 695,410 695,410 2,781,640 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 9,706,529 9,706,529 Wangjiaba to Bengbu 3,882,611 5,823,917 4,853,264 4,853,264 19,413,057
Bengbu to Hongze lake 2,291,173 2,291,173 Bengbu to Hongze lake 916,469 1,374,704 1,145,586 1,145,586 4,582,346
Lower Huaihe, Hongze Lower Huaihe, Hongze lake to Huang Sea 1,515,681 1,515,681 lake to Huang Sea 606,272 909,409 757,840 757,840 3,031,362 Nansi Lake 2,881,335 2,881,335 Nansi Lake 1,152,534 1,728,801 1,440,667 1,440,667 5,762,669 Lower Yishusi 1,861,277 1,861,277 Lower Yishusi 744,511 1,116,766 930,638 930,638 3,722,553 Shandong peninsula 2,722,260 2,722,260 Shandong peninsula 1,088,904 1,633,356 1,361,130 1,361,130 5,444,520 Huai Basin 22,369,074 22,369,074 Huai Basin 8,947,630 13,421,444 11,184,537 11,184,537 44,738,148 Total Investment for Urban Municipal ('000s RMB) 44,738,148
218 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7 219
TABLE A7.5-7: HAI BASIN COST OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL (P1 & P2 CITIES ) FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION PROGRAM (2001-2020)
Pretreatment* Municipal treatment Sewerage PPP Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total paper non-paper Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 P1 Cities 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Anyang 127,563 4,556 127,563 27,986 155,549 342,857 127,345 Anyang 182,684 274,025 228,354 228,354 913,418 Baoding 6,513 906 6,513 5,568 12,081 62,902 103,592 Baoding 39,615 59,423 49,519 49,519 198,076 Beijing 18,138 4,736 18,138 29,090 47,228 72,865 311,656 Beijing 100,370 150,555 125,463 125,463 501,851 Changzhi 69,148 2,611 69,148 16,039 85,187 224,887 106,004 Changzhi 114,605 171,907 143,256 143,256 573,024 Chengde City 68,264 1,222 68,264 7,509 75,772 242,068 48,180 Chengde City 102,256 153,384 127,820 127,820 511,279 Datong 15 2,087 15 12,821 12,836 626 68,437 Datong 19,367 29,051 24,209 24,209 96,837 Handan city 74,340 662 74,340 4,068 78,408 260,764 53,118 Handan city 109,140 163,710 136,425 136,425 545,700 Jiaozuo 116,722 11,343 116,722 69,680 186,403 380,824 93,004 Jiaozuo 194,940 292,410 243,675 243,675 974,699 Shijiazhuang city 36,340 14,245 36,340 87,508 123,848 182,253 325,407 Shijiazhuang city 161,188 241,782 201,485 201,485 805,942 Tangshan 207,251 3,724 207,251 22,874 230,125 738,965 172,467 Tangshan 316,531 474,797 395,664 395,664 1,582,656 Tianjin city 56,958 46,039 56,958 282,811 339,768 211,729 546,229 Tianjin city 308,098 462,147 385,123 385,123 1,540,491 Xingtai city 48,686 567 48,686 3,481 52,167 192,521 33,695 Xingtai city 75,960 113,941 94,951 94,951 379,802 Xinxiang 186,295 2,282 186,295 14,018 200,313 662,729 60,794 Xinxiang 262,545 393,818 328,182 328,182 1,312,726 Xinzhou 827 163 827 999 1,826 6,494 18,582 Xinzhou 5,943 8,915 7,429 7,429 29,717 Zhangjiakou City 22,953 1,282 22,953 7,875 30,828 82,337 72,567 Zhangjiakou City 48,159 72,238 60,199 60,199 240,794 Sum of P1 1,040,011 96,425 1,040,011 592,327 1,632,337 3,664,822 2,141,079 Sum of P1 2,041,402 3,062,103 2,551,753 2,551,753 10,207,011 Binzhou 51,202 1,553 51,202 9,542 60,743 159,695 26,801 Binzhou 72,148 108,221 90,185 90,185 360,738 Cangzhou 12,517 1,913 12,517 11,754 24,272 47,432 38,570 Cangzhou 29,795 44,693 37,244 37,244 148,976 Dezhou 261,788 2,658 261,788 16,328 278,116 806,557 39,551 Dezhou 333,357 500,035 416,696 416,696 1,666,785 Hebi 6,918 2,619 6,918 16,089 23,007 16,984 27,483 Hebi 20,004 30,006 25,005 25,005 100,019 Hengshui 11,405 3,373 11,405 20,719 32,125 40,923 63,472 Hengshui 36,685 55,027 45,856 45,856 183,423 Jinan 14,539 265 14,539 1,630 16,169 49,139 3,402 Jinan 19,937 29,905 24,921 24,921 99,684 Langfang 3 1,056 3 6,485 6,488 114 24,586 Langfang 7,747 11,620 9,684 9,684 38,734 Liaocheng 249,602 4,775 249,602 29,333 278,935 768,400 81,358 Liaocheng 332,401 498,602 415,501 415,501 1,662,005 Puyang 8,169 2,530 8,169 15,540 23,709 28,126 44,350 Puyang 26,119 39,178 32,648 32,648 130,594 Qinghuangdao city 7,634 184 7,634 1,130 8,763 36,497 20,707 Qinghuangdao city 16,510 24,764 20,637 20,637 82,548 Shuozhou 666 1,005 666 6,177 6,842 4,886 46,355 Shuozhou 13,319 19,979 16,649 16,649 66,597 Yangquan - 359 - 2,207 2,207 - 37,714 Yangquan 8,497 12,746 10,622 10,622 42,486 Sum of P2 624,444 22,291 624,444 136,933 761,377 1,958,753 454,348 Sum of P2 916,518 1,374,777 1,145,648 1,145,648 4,582,590 Total for P1 and P2 2,957,920 4,436,880 3,697,400 3,697,400 14,789,601 Note: P1 and P2 priority cities were defined in Chapter 7 using important criteria including location, water scarcity, level of pollution both COD and Toxic COD etc. *: 50% and 14% of COD reduction need to be respectively done by Paper and "Food + Brewery" category SOEs in order to meet the current engineering standard of sewers as explained in the text of Chapter 7. 220 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7
TABLE A7.5-8: HAI BASIN COST OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL (P1 & P2 CITIES ) FOR THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM (2001-2020)
Pretreatment Municipal treatment Sewerage PPP Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total paper non-paper Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 P1 Cities 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Anyang 84,209 9,852 84,209 60,517 144,725 445,599 142,869 Anyang 194,396 291,594 242,995 242,995 971,979 Baoding 13,336 8,014 13,336 49,229 62,565 70,570 116,221 Baoding 66,654 99,982 83,318 83,318 333,272 Beijing 15,449 24,110 15,449 148,105 163,554 81,748 349,649 Beijing 159,613 239,419 199,516 199,516 798,063 Changzhi 47,680 9,914 47,680 60,899 108,579 252,303 143,772 Changzhi 134,165 201,248 167,706 167,706 670,826 Chengde City 51,322 3,727 51,322 22,896 74,219 271,578 54,054 Chengde City 105,824 158,736 132,280 132,280 529,119 Datong 133 5,301 133 32,563 32,696 702 76,876 Datong 29,681 44,521 37,101 37,101 148,403 Handan city 55,286 4,109 55,286 25,243 80,529 292,553 59,593 Handan city 114,520 171,780 143,150 143,150 572,600 Jiaozuo 80,741 11,636 80,741 71,481 152,221 427,248 168,753 Jiaozuo 198,564 297,846 248,205 248,205 992,821 Shijiazhuang city 38,641 25,174 38,641 154,640 193,280 204,471 365,076 Shijiazhuang city 203,985 305,977 254,981 254,981 1,019,923 Tangshan 156,673 13,342 156,673 81,960 238,632 829,050 193,492 Tangshan 333,964 500,946 417,455 417,455 1,669,821 Tianjin city 44,890 52,247 44,890 320,948 365,838 237,540 757,699 Tianjin city 364,810 547,216 456,013 456,013 1,824,052 Xingtai city 40,818 2,607 40,818 16,013 56,830 215,991 37,803 Xingtai city 82,176 123,264 102,720 102,720 410,879 Xinxiang 140,509 4,780 140,509 29,362 169,871 743,520 69,318 Xinxiang 259,574 389,361 324,468 324,468 1,297,870 Xinzhou 1,377 1,437 1,377 8,830 10,207 7,286 20,847 Xinzhou 10,272 15,408 12,840 12,840 51,361 Zhangjiakou City 17,457 5,614 17,457 34,485 51,942 92,374 81,413 Zhangjiakou City 60,148 90,223 75,185 75,185 300,742 Sum of P1 788,520 181,865 788,520 1,117,170 1,905,690 4,172,531 2,637,434 Sum of P1 2,318,346 3,477,519 2,897,932 2,897,932 11,591,729 Binzhou 33,858 2,508 33,858 15,409 49,267 179,163 36,377 Binzhou 70,088 105,132 87,610 87,610 350,439 Cangzhou 10,056 3,478 10,056 21,363 31,419 53,215 50,434 Cangzhou 36,004 54,007 45,005 45,005 180,022 Dezhou 171,003 3,060 171,003 18,795 189,799 904,881 44,372 Dezhou 300,583 450,874 375,728 375,728 1,502,913 Hebi 4,678 3,444 4,678 21,156 25,833 24,753 49,945 Hebi 26,897 40,346 33,621 33,621 134,486 Hengshui 8,676 4,910 8,676 30,163 38,840 45,912 71,210 Hengshui 41,677 62,516 52,097 52,097 208,387 Jinan 10,418 318 10,418 1,954 12,372 55,129 4,613 Jinan 19,045 28,567 23,806 23,806 95,223 Langfang 24 1,904 24 11,698 11,722 128 27,616 Langfang 10,623 15,935 13,279 13,279 53,116 Liaocheng 162,913 7,905 162,913 48,561 211,474 862,072 114,643 Liaocheng 314,097 471,145 392,621 392,621 1,570,483 Puyang 5,963 3,484 5,963 21,402 27,366 31,555 50,527 Puyang 29,252 43,878 36,565 36,565 146,261 Qinghuangdao city 7,738 1,602 7,738 9,840 17,578 40,946 23,231 Qinghuangdao city 21,735 32,602 27,168 27,168 108,674 Shuozhou 1,036 3,586 1,036 22,029 23,065 5,482 52,006 Shuozhou 21,648 32,472 27,060 27,060 108,240 Yangquan - 3,014 - 18,515 18,515 - 43,710 Yangquan 16,751 25,126 20,938 20,938 83,753 Sum of P2 416,365 39,214 416,365 240,885 657,249 2,203,235 568,685 Sum of P2 908,399 1,362,599 1,135,499 1,135,499 4,541,996 Total for P1 and P2 3,226,745 4,840,118 4,033,431 4,033,431 16,133,726 Note: P1 and P2 priority cities were defined in Chapter 7 using important criteria including location, water scarcity, level of pollution both COD and Toxic COD etc. *: 50% and 14% of COD reduction need to be respectively done by Paper and "Food + Brewery" category SOEs in order to meet the current engineering standard of sewers as explained in the text of Chapter 7.
220 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7 221
TABLE A7.5-9: HAI BASIN COST OF URBAN MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AND ACTION PLAN COMBINED (2001-2020)
Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total Treatment Sewerage Sub-total Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 P1 Cities 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Anyang 228,801 228,801 457,602 Anyang 91,520 137,281 114,401 114,401 457,602 Baoding 417,184 417,184 834,368 Baoding 166,874 250,310 208,592 208,592 834,368 Beijing 4,179,609 4,179,609 8,359,218 Beijing 1,671,844 2,507,765 2,089,805 2,089,805 8,359,218 Changzhi 166,287 166,287 332,574 Changzhi 66,515 99,772 83,143 83,143 332,574 Chengde City 224,358 224,358 448,716 Chengde City 89,743 134,615 112,179 112,179 448,716 Datong 374,000 374,000 748,000 Datong 149,600 224,400 187,000 187,000 748,000 Handan city 758,152 758,152 1,516,304 Handan city 303,261 454,891 379,076 379,076 1,516,304 Jiaozuo 231,313 231,313 462,625 Jiaozuo 92,525 138,788 115,656 115,656 462,625 Shijiazhuang city 922,619 922,619 1,845,237 Shijiazhuang city 369,047 553,571 461,309 461,309 1,845,237 Tangshan 893,630 893,630 1,787,260 Tangshan 357,452 536,178 446,815 446,815 1,787,260 Tianjin city 2,345,658 2,345,658 4,691,315 Tianjin city 938,263 1,407,395 1,172,829 1,172,829 4,691,315 Xingtai city 290,491 290,491 580,982 Xingtai city 116,196 174,295 145,246 145,246 580,982 Xinxiang 253,065 253,065 506,129 Xinxiang 101,226 151,839 126,532 126,532 506,129 Xinzhou 135,857 135,857 271,713 Xinzhou 54,343 81,514 67,928 67,928 271,713 Zhangjiakou City 421,648 421,648 843,297 Zhangjiakou City 168,659 252,989 210,824 210,824 843,297 sum of P1 11,842,670 11,842,670 23,685,341 sum of P1 4,737,068 7,105,602 5,921,335 5,921,335 23,685,341 Binzhou 79,096 79,096 158,192 Binzhou 31,638 47,458 39,548 39,548 158,192 Cangzhou 259,923 259,923 519,845 Cangzhou 103,969 155,954 129,961 129,961 519,845 Dezhou 65,979 65,979 131,958 Dezhou 26,392 39,588 32,990 32,990 131,958 Hebi 141,342 141,342 282,684 Hebi 56,537 84,805 70,671 70,671 282,684 Hengshui 249,222 249,222 498,444 Hengshui 99,689 149,533 124,611 124,611 498,444 Langfang 351,758 351,758 703,515 Langfang 140,703 211,055 175,879 175,879 703,515 Liaocheng 124,364 124,364 248,729 Liaocheng 49,746 74,619 62,182 62,182 248,729 Puyang 332,164 332,164 664,329 Puyang 132,866 199,299 166,082 166,082 664,329 Qinghuangdao city 367,145 367,145 734,289 Qinghuangdao city 146,858 220,287 183,572 183,572 734,289 Shuozhou 167,850 167,850 335,700 Shuozhou 67,140 100,710 83,925 83,925 335,700 Yangquan 181,440 181,440 362,880 Yangquan 72,576 108,864 90,720 90,720 362,880 Sum of P2 2,320,283 2,320,283 4,640,566 Sum of P2 928,113 1,392,170 1,160,141 1,160,141 4,640,566 Total Investment for P1 & P2 1,096,772 1,645,159 1,370,966 1,370,966 28,325,906
Note: P1 and P2 priority cities were defined in Chapter 7 using important criteria including location, water scarcity, level of pollution both COD and Toxic COD etc. 222 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7
TABLE A7.5-10: HAI BASIN COST OF URBAN MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL TREATMENT (GOVERNMENT PROGRAM + ACTION PLAN) (2001-2020)
Urban Municipal Urban Inductrial Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total Treatment Sewerage Sub-total Action Prog. Government Prog. Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 P1 Cities 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Anyang 228,801 228,801 457,602 913,418 971,979 Bengbu 468,600 702,900 585,750 585,750 2,342,999 Baoding 417,184 417,184 834,368 198,076 333,272 Fuyang 273,143 409,715 341,429 341,429 1,365,716 Beijing 4,179,609 4,179,609 8,359,218 501,851 798,063 Heze 1,931,826 2,897,739 2,414,783 2,414,783 9,659,132 Changzhi 166,287 166,287 332,574 573,024 670,826 Huaiyin 315,285 472,927 394,106 394,106 1,576,423 Chengde City 224,358 224,358 448,716 511,279 529,119 Jining 297,823 446,734 372,278 372,278 1,489,114 Datong 374,000 374,000 748,000 96,837 148,403 Kaifeng 198,648 297,972 248,310 248,310 993,240 Handan city 758,152 758,152 1,516,304 545,700 572,600 Lianyungang 526,921 790,381 658,651 658,651 2,634,603 Jiaozuo 231,313 231,313 462,625 974,699 992,821 Linyi 486,029 729,043 607,536 607,536 2,430,145 Shijiazhuang city 922,619 922,619 1,845,237 805,942 1,019,923 Pingdingshan 734,220 1,101,330 917,775 917,775 3,671,101 Tangshan 893,630 893,630 1,787,260 1,582,656 1,669,821 Shangqiu 1,007,947 1,511,921 1,259,934 1,259,934 5,039,736 Tianjin city 2,345,658 2,345,658 4,691,315 1,540,491 1,824,052 Suzhou 1,611,172 2,416,758 2,013,965 2,013,965 8,055,859 Xingtai city 290,491 290,491 580,982 379,802 410,879 Xuzhou 274,333 411,499 342,916 342,916 1,371,663 Xinxiang 253,065 253,065 506,129 1,312,726 1,297,870 Yancheng 623,345 935,018 779,181 779,181 3,116,726 Xinzhou 135,857 135,857 271,713 29,717 51,361 Zhengzhou 70,558 105,837 88,198 88,198 352,791 Zhangjiakou City 421,648 421,648 843,297 240,794 300,742 Zhumadian 276,967 415,450 346,208 346,208 1,384,833 Sum of P1 11,842,670 11,842,670 23,685,341 10,207,011 11,591,729 Sum of P1 9,096,816 13,645,224 11,371,020 11,371,020 45,484,081 Binzhou 79,096 79,096 158,192 360,738 350,439 Chuzhou 173,874 260,811 217,342 217,342 869,369 Cangzhou 259,923 259,923 519,845 148,976 180,022 Huaian 169,769 254,653 212,211 212,211 848,843 Dezhou 65,979 65,979 131,958 1,666,785 1,502,913 Huaibei 660,331 990,497 825,414 825,414 3,301,657 Hebi 141,342 141,342 282,684 100,019 134,486 Huainan 103,438 155,157 129,297 129,297 517,189 Hengshui 249,222 249,222 498,444 183,423 208,387 Liuan 178,051 267,076 222,564 222,564 890,254 Jinan 99,684 95,223 Luohe 38,981 58,472 48,727 48,727 194,907 Langfang 351,758 351,758 703,515 38,734 53,116 Nanyang 159,073 238,609 198,841 198,841 795,365 Liaocheng 124,364 124,364 248,729 1,662,005 1,570,483 Rizhao 696,243 1,044,365 870,304 870,304 3,481,217 Puyang 332,164 332,164 664,329 130,594 146,261 Suqian 188,237 282,355 235,296 235,296 941,184 Qinghuangdao city 367,145 367,145 734,289 82,548 108,674 Taian 185,102 277,653 231,378 231,378 925,511 Shuozhou 167,850 167,850 335,700 66,597 108,240 Taizhou 102,107 153,161 127,634 127,634 510,537 Yangquan 181,440 181,440 362,880 42,486 83,753 Xinyang 97,824 146,736 122,280 122,280 489,119 Sum of P2 2,320,283 2,320,283 4,640,566 4,582,590 4,541,996 Sum of P2 2,753,031 4,129,546 3,441,288 3,441,288 13,765,153 Total Investment for P1 & P2 11,849,847 17,774,770 14,812,308 14,812,308 59,249,234
Note: P1 and P2 priority cities were defined in Chapter 7 using important criteria including location, water scarcity, level of pollution both COD and Toxic COD etc.
222 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7 223
TABLE A7.5-11: HUAI BASIN COST OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL (P1 & P2 CITIES ) FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION PROGRAM (2001-2020)
Pretreatment* Municipal treatment Sewerage PPP Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total paper non-paper Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 P1 Cities 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Bengbu 7,158 8,839 8,072 40,267 48,339 25,767 103,508 Bengbu 48,390 72,586 60,488 60,488 241,952 Fuyang 10,697 7,486 12,063 34,104 46,167 38,506 133,890 Fuyang 56,583 84,874 70,728 70,728 282,913 Heze 104,047 5,905 117,329 26,900 144,229 374,527 164,700 Heze 187,527 281,291 234,409 234,409 937,636 Huaiyin 19,018 5,505 21,446 25,077 46,523 68,458 73,145 Huaiyin 51,834 77,752 64,793 64,793 259,172 Jining 143,520 32,174 161,842 146,571 308,413 516,615 342,069 Jining 330,241 495,361 412,801 412,801 1,651,203 Kaifeng 16,936 5,886 19,098 26,812 45,910 60,962 86,260 Kaifeng 52,373 78,559 65,466 65,466 261,863 Lianyungang 19,701 8,406 22,216 38,295 60,511 70,917 105,325 Lianyungang 65,074 97,612 81,343 81,343 325,372 Linyi 90,110 7,730 101,613 35,213 136,826 324,359 58,254 Linyi 150,821 226,232 188,526 188,526 754,105 Pingdingshan 79,961 6,302 90,168 28,709 118,878 287,827 87,999 Pingdingshan 139,969 209,953 174,961 174,961 699,844 Shangqiu 9,869 7,437 11,129 33,877 45,006 35,525 64,913 Shangqiu 41,551 62,327 51,939 51,939 207,757 Suzhou 18,918 3,230 21,333 14,716 36,049 68,098 100,108 Suzhou 52,491 78,736 65,613 65,613 262,454 Xuzhou 80,528 3,127 90,809 14,246 105,054 289,870 92,859 Xuzhou 135,299 202,948 169,123 169,123 676,493 Yancheng 15,693 7,119 17,696 32,431 50,127 56,488 226,191 Yancheng 81,149 121,724 101,436 101,436 405,746 Zhengzhou 40,880 3,734 46,098 17,010 63,108 147,151 110,694 Zhengzhou 85,735 128,602 107,169 107,169 428,675 Zhumadian 45,085 1,653 50,840 7,531 58,372 162,288 25,341 Zhumadian 70,222 105,333 87,778 87,778 351,110 Sum of P1 702,122 114,533 791,754 521,759 1,313,514 2,527,358 1,775,256 Sum of P1 1,549,259 2,323,889 1,936,574 1,936,574 7,746,295 Chuzhou 1,696 3,851 1,912 17,542 19,454 6,104 51,594 Chuzhou 20,431 30,646 25,538 25,538 102,153 Huaian - 554 - 2,522 2,522 - 50,953 Huaian 11,310 16,966 14,138 14,138 56,552 Huaibei 10,923 2,518 12,317 11,471 23,789 39,318 50,152 Huaibei 30,098 45,146 37,622 37,622 150,488 Huainan 34,924 2,435 39,382 11,093 50,475 125,712 91,430 Huainan 71,090 106,636 88,863 88,863 355,452 Liuan 32,940 2,263 37,146 10,311 47,456 118,572 104,871 Liuan 70,712 106,068 88,390 88,390 353,560 Luohe - 136 - 618 618 - 13,149 Luohe 2,904 4,356 3,630 3,630 14,520 Nanyang - 588 - 2,677 2,677 - 50,595 Nanyang 11,307 16,961 14,134 14,134 56,536 Rizhao 3,708 1,293 4,181 5,892 10,073 13,346 73,696 Rizhao 22,438 33,657 28,047 28,047 112,189 Suqian - 3,359 - 15,302 15,302 - 74,151 Suqian 21,623 32,434 27,028 27,028 108,113 Taian 9,290 1,058 10,476 4,820 15,296 33,442 93,612 Taian 33,599 50,398 41,999 41,999 167,995 Taizhou 26,968 2,344 30,411 10,676 41,087 97,075 55,441 Taizhou 52,800 79,200 66,000 66,000 264,001 Xinyang 15,012 2,012 16,928 9,165 26,093 54,037 29,267 Xinyang 30,503 45,754 38,128 38,128 152,513 Xuchang 18,269 3,048 20,601 13,886 34,487 65,760 37,798 Xuchang 38,770 58,154 48,462 48,462 193,848 Yangzhou 32,308 3,794 36,433 17,284 53,717 116,296 91,923 Yangzhou 70,351 105,527 87,939 87,939 351,755 Zaozhuang 25,470 5,536 28,721 25,219 53,940 91,680 121,443 Zaozhuang 70,402 105,602 88,002 88,002 352,008 Zhoukou 12,102 7,182 13,646 32,716 46,363 43,561 65,844 Zhoukou 44,283 66,424 55,353 55,353 221,413 Zibo 3,559 2,200 4,013 10,020 14,033 12,810 168,010 Zibo 42,929 64,393 53,661 53,661 214,645 Sum of P2 227,168 44,169 256,168 201,213 457,382 817,714 1,223,930 Sum of P2 645,549 968,323 806,936 806,936 3,227,743 Total for P1 and P2 2,194,808 3,292,212 2,743,510 2,743,510 10,974,039 *: 47% and 18% of COD reduction need to be respectively done by Paper and "Food + Brewery" category SOEs in order to meet the current engineering standard of sewers as explained in the text of Chapter 7.
Note: P1 and P2 priority cities were defined in Chapter 7 using important criteria including location, water scarcity, level of pollution both COD and Toxic COD etc. 224 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7
TABLE A7.5-12: HUAI BASIN COST OF URBAN INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL (P1 & P2 CITIES ) FOR THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM (2001-2020)
Pretreatment* Municipal treatment Sewerage PPP Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total paper non-paper Paper Non-Paper Paper Non-Paper Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 P1 Cities 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Bengbu 8,937 14,028 10,077 63,907 73,984 50,307 158,233 Bengbu 75,895 113,842 94,868 94,868 379,473 Fuyang 16,623 18,760 18,745 85,460 104,205 93,575 211,598 Fuyang 109,793 164,689 137,241 137,241 548,964 Heze 148,254 16,133 167,181 73,496 240,677 834,578 181,975 Heze 332,459 498,688 415,573 415,573 1,662,294 Huaiyin 22,152 9,594 24,980 43,706 68,685 124,700 108,215 Huaiyin 80,406 120,609 100,508 100,508 402,032 Jining 204,499 54,666 230,605 249,035 479,640 1,151,199 616,606 Jining 597,250 895,875 746,563 746,563 2,986,251 Kaifeng 26,317 14,161 29,676 64,510 94,187 148,147 159,726 Kaifeng 107,345 161,017 134,181 134,181 536,723 Lianyungang 22,947 14,313 25,877 65,206 91,083 129,179 161,448 Lianyungang 102,011 153,016 127,513 127,513 510,054 Linyi 104,956 9,408 118,355 42,857 161,212 590,838 106,112 Linyi 226,748 340,121 283,435 283,435 1,133,738 Pingdingshan 124,252 14,232 140,114 64,835 204,950 699,461 160,531 Pingdingshan 281,675 422,513 352,094 352,094 1,408,375 Shangqiu 12,321 9,690 13,894 44,141 58,035 69,358 109,293 Shangqiu 63,346 95,020 79,183 79,183 316,732 Suzhou 15,757 7,416 17,769 33,785 51,553 88,703 83,650 Suzhou 59,727 89,590 74,658 74,658 298,633 Xuzhou 100,533 8,220 113,367 37,447 150,814 565,935 92,719 Xuzhou 213,807 320,710 267,259 267,259 1,069,035 Yancheng 23,262 27,263 26,232 124,200 150,432 130,951 307,517 Yancheng 157,972 236,957 197,465 197,465 789,858 Zhengzhou 63,524 12,263 71,633 55,867 127,499 357,597 138,324 Zhengzhou 165,341 248,012 206,677 206,677 826,707 Zhumadian 37,552 2,092 42,345 9,531 51,876 211,391 23,597 Zhumadian 75,677 113,515 94,596 94,596 378,384 Sum of P1 931,885 232,240 1,050,850 1,057,983 2,108,833 5,245,920 2,619,544 Sum of P1 2,649,451 3,974,176 3,311,814 3,311,814 13,247,254 Chuzhou 2,117 6,507 2,387 29,641 32,029 11,918 73,391 Chuzhou 31,598 47,397 39,498 39,498 157,990 Huaian - 2,669 - 12,157 12,157 - 30,101 Huaian 11,417 17,125 14,271 14,271 57,083 Huaibei 13,636 4,778 15,377 21,765 37,142 76,763 53,889 Huaibei 44,670 67,005 55,838 55,838 223,350 Huainan 54,269 11,882 61,197 54,128 115,325 305,499 134,020 Huainan 147,264 220,896 184,080 184,080 736,320 Liuan 51,187 12,462 57,721 56,770 114,491 288,148 140,562 Liuan 144,268 216,402 180,335 180,335 721,341 Luohe - 1,109 - 5,054 5,054 - 12,513 Luohe 4,746 7,119 5,932 5,932 23,730 Nanyang - 1,284 - 5,848 5,848 - 14,479 Nanyang 5,491 8,237 6,864 6,864 27,457 Rizhao 7,284 9,366 8,214 42,668 50,882 41,006 105,645 Rizhao 53,013 79,520 66,266 66,266 265,065 Suqian - 6,634 - 30,223 30,223 - 74,830 Suqian 28,382 42,573 35,477 35,477 141,910 Taian 18,252 11,356 20,582 51,734 72,316 102,749 128,092 Taian 81,016 121,525 101,271 101,271 405,082 Taizhou 39,976 7,747 45,079 35,294 80,373 225,039 87,387 Taizhou 104,179 156,269 130,224 130,224 520,896 Xinyang 12,504 2,522 14,100 11,489 25,589 70,387 28,447 Xinyang 33,007 49,511 41,259 41,259 165,037 Xuchang 28,388 6,182 32,012 28,161 60,173 159,806 69,725 Xuchang 76,889 115,334 96,111 96,111 384,445 Yangzhou 47,891 12,357 54,005 56,294 110,299 269,598 139,383 Yangzhou 137,965 206,948 172,457 172,457 689,827 Zaozhuang 29,666 10,492 33,453 47,798 81,251 167,001 118,347 Zaozhuang 97,602 146,402 122,002 122,002 488,008 Zhoukou 18,805 12,356 21,205 56,289 77,494 105,859 139,371 Zhoukou 86,276 129,414 107,845 107,845 431,379 Zibo 6,992 20,765 7,884 94,595 102,480 39,358 234,216 Zibo 101,258 151,887 126,573 126,573 506,290 Sum of P2 330,967 140,467 373,218 639,907 1,013,125 1,863,131 1,584,397 Sum of P2 1,189,042 1,783,563 1,486,303 1,486,303 5,945,211 Total for P1 and P2 3,838,493 5,757,740 4,798,116 4,798,116 19,192,466 *: 47% and 18% of COD reduction need to be respectively done by Paper and "Food + Brewery" category SOEs in order to meet the current engineering standard of sewers as explained in the text of Chapter 7. Note: P1 and P2 priority cities were defined in Chapter 7 using important criteria including location, water scarcity, level of pollution both COD and Toxic COD etc.
224 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7 225
TABLE A7.5-13: HUAI BASIN COST OF URBAN MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AND ACTION PLAN COMBINED (2001-2020)
Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total Treatment Sewerage Sub-total Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 P1 Cities 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Bengbu 311,270 311,270 622,539 Bengbu 124,508 186,762 155,635 155,635 622,539 Fuyang 937,952 937,952 1,875,905 Fuyang 375,181 562,771 468,976 468,976 1,875,905 Heze 551,772 551,772 1,103,545 Heze 220,709 331,063 275,886 275,886 1,103,545 Huaiyin 177,072 177,072 354,143 Huaiyin 70,829 106,243 88,536 88,536 354,143 Jining 434,414 434,414 868,828 Jining 173,766 260,648 217,207 217,207 868,828 Kaifeng 428,842 428,842 857,684 Kaifeng 171,537 257,305 214,421 214,421 857,684 Lianyungang 215,407 215,407 430,814 Lianyungang 86,163 129,244 107,703 107,703 430,814 Pingdingshan 457,721 457,721 915,442 Pingdingshan 183,088 274,633 228,861 228,861 915,442 Shangqiu 410,135 410,135 820,269 Shangqiu 164,054 246,081 205,067 205,067 820,269 Suzhou 667,531 667,531 1,335,061 Suzhou 267,012 400,518 333,765 333,765 1,335,061 Xuzhou 379,432 379,432 758,865 Xuzhou 151,773 227,659 189,716 189,716 758,865 Yancheng 498,712 498,712 997,423 Yancheng 199,485 299,227 249,356 249,356 997,423 Zhengzhou 1,122,452 1,122,452 2,244,904 Zhengzhou 448,981 673,471 561,226 561,226 2,244,904 Zhumadian 155,986 155,986 311,973 Zhumadian 62,395 93,592 77,993 77,993 311,973 Sum of P1 6,748,697 6,748,697 13,497,395 Sum of P1 2,699,479 4,049,218 3,374,349 3,374,349 13,497,395 Chuzhou 200,190 200,190 400,379 Chuzhou 80,076 120,114 100,095 100,095 400,379 Huaian 426,917 426,917 853,833 Huaian 170,767 256,150 213,458 213,458 853,833 Huaibei 322,616 322,616 645,232 Huaibei 129,046 193,570 161,308 161,308 645,232 Huainan 750,554 750,554 1,501,107 Huainan 300,221 450,332 375,277 375,277 1,501,107 Liuan 972,738 972,738 1,945,476 Liuan 389,095 583,643 486,369 486,369 1,945,476 Luohe 172,064 172,064 344,127 Luohe 68,825 103,238 86,032 86,032 344,127 Nanyang 880,336 880,336 1,760,672 Nanyang 352,134 528,202 440,168 440,168 1,760,672 Rizhao 271,701 271,701 543,402 Rizhao 108,680 163,021 135,850 135,850 543,402 Suqian 440,526 440,526 881,053 Suqian 176,211 264,316 220,263 220,263 881,053 Taian 359,175 359,175 718,351 Taian 143,670 215,505 179,588 179,588 718,351 Taizhou 97,608 97,608 195,216 Taizhou 39,043 58,565 48,804 48,804 195,216 Xinyang 165,273 165,273 330,546 Xinyang 66,109 99,164 82,637 82,637 330,546 Xuchang 196,342 196,342 392,685 Xuchang 78,537 117,805 98,171 98,171 392,685 Yangzhou 175,160 175,160 350,320 Yangzhou 70,064 105,096 87,580 87,580 350,320 Zaozhuang 655,040 655,040 1,310,080 Zaozhuang 262,016 393,024 327,520 327,520 1,310,080 Zhoukou 177,108 177,108 354,216 Zhoukou 70,843 106,265 88,554 88,554 354,216 Zibo 634,474 634,474 1,268,947 Zibo 253,789 380,684 317,237 317,237 1,268,947 Sum of P2 6,897,821 6,897,821 13,795,642 Sum of P2 2,759,128 4,138,693 3,448,911 3,448,911 13,795,642 27,293,037 Total Investment for P1 & P2 5,458,607 8,187,911 6,823,259 6,823,259 27,293,037
Note: P1 and P2 priority cities were defined in Chapter 7 using important criteria including location, water scarcity, level of pollution both COD and Toxic COD etc. 226 Annex 7.5: Statistics Related to Chapter 7
TABLE A7.5-14: HUAI BASIN COST OF URBAN MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL TREATMENT (GOVERNMENT PROGRAM + ACTION PLAN) (2001-2020)
Urban Municipal Urban Inductrial Five Year Plan 10th 11th 12th 13th Total Treatment Sewerage Sub-total Action Prog. Government Prog. Proportion of total cost 0.2 0.3 0.25 0.25 1 P1 Cities 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 Year 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2001-2020 Bengbu 311,270 311,270 622,539 241,952 379,473 Bengbu 248,793 373,189 310,991 310,991 1,243,964 Fuyang 937,952 937,952 1,875,905 282,913 548,964 Fuyang 541,556 812,335 676,946 676,946 2,707,782 Heze 551,772 551,772 1,103,545 937,636 1,662,294 Heze 740,695 1,111,042 925,869 925,869 3,703,475 Huaiyin 177,072 177,072 354,143 259,172 402,032 Huaiyin 203,069 304,604 253,837 253,837 1,015,347 Jining 434,414 434,414 868,828 1,651,203 2,986,251 Jining 1,101,256 1,651,885 1,376,571 1,376,571 5,506,282 Kaifeng 428,842 428,842 857,684 261,863 536,723 Kaifeng 331,254 496,881 414,068 414,068 1,656,271 Lianyungang 215,407 215,407 430,814 325,372 510,054 Lianyungang 253,248 379,872 316,560 316,560 1,266,240 Linyi - 754,105 1,133,738 Linyi 377,569 566,353 471,961 471,961 1,887,843 Pingdingshan 457,721 457,721 915,442 699,844 1,408,375 Pingdingshan 604,732 907,098 755,915 755,915 3,023,661 Shangqiu 410,135 410,135 820,269 207,757 316,732 Shangqiu 268,952 403,427 336,190 336,190 1,344,758 Suzhou 667,531 667,531 1,335,061 262,454 298,633 Suzhou 379,230 568,844 474,037 474,037 1,896,148 Xuzhou 379,432 379,432 758,865 676,493 1,069,035 Xuzhou 500,878 751,318 626,098 626,098 2,504,392 Yancheng 498,712 498,712 997,423 405,746 789,858 Yancheng 438,606 657,908 548,257 548,257 2,193,028 Zhengzhou 1,122,452 1,122,452 2,244,904 428,675 826,707 Zhengzhou 700,057 1,050,086 875,071 875,071 3,500,286 Zhumadian 155,986 155,986 311,973 351,110 378,384 Zhumadian 208,293 312,440 260,367 260,367 1,041,467 Sum of P1 6,748,697 6,748,697 13,497,395 7,746,295 13,247,254 Sum of P1 6,898,189 10,347,283 8,622,736 8,622,736 34,490,945 Chuzhou 200,190 200,190 400,379 102,153 157,990 Chuzhou 132,105 198,157 165,131 165,131 660,523 Huaian 426,917 426,917 853,833 56,552 57,083 Huaian 193,494 290,240 241,867 241,867 967,468 Huaibei 322,616 322,616 645,232 150,488 223,350 Huaibei 203,814 305,721 254,768 254,768 1,019,071 Huainan 750,554 750,554 1,501,107 355,452 736,320 Huainan 518,576 777,864 648,220 648,220 2,592,879 Liuan 972,738 972,738 1,945,476 353,560 721,341 Liuan 604,075 906,113 755,094 755,094 3,020,376 Luohe 172,064 172,064 344,127 14,520 23,730 Luohe 76,475 114,713 95,594 95,594 382,377 Nanyang 880,336 880,336 1,760,672 56,536 27,457 Nanyang 368,933 553,400 461,166 461,166 1,844,666 Rizhao 271,701 271,701 543,402 112,189 265,065 Rizhao 184,131 276,197 230,164 230,164 920,656 Suqian 440,526 440,526 881,053 108,113 141,910 Suqian 226,215 339,323 282,769 282,769 1,131,076 Taian 359,175 359,175 718,351 167,995 405,082 Taian 258,286 387,428 322,857 322,857 1,291,428 Taizhou 97,608 97,608 195,216 264,001 520,896 Taizhou 196,023 294,034 245,028 245,028 980,113 Xinyang 165,273 165,273 330,546 152,513 165,037 Xinyang 129,619 194,429 162,024 162,024 648,096 Xuchang 196,342 196,342 392,685 193,848 384,445 Xuchang 194,196 291,293 242,745 242,745 970,978 Yangzhou 175,160 175,160 350,320 351,755 689,827 Yangzhou 278,381 417,571 347,976 347,976 1,391,903 Zaozhuang 655,040 655,040 1,310,080 352,008 488,008 Zaozhuang 430,019 645,029 537,524 537,524 2,150,097 Zhoukou 177,108 177,108 354,216 221,413 431,379 Zhoukou 201,402 302,103 251,752 251,752 1,007,009 Zibo 634,474 634,474 1,268,947 214,645 506,290 Zibo 397,976 596,965 497,470 497,470 1,989,882 Sum of P2 6,897,821 6,897,821 13,795,642 3,227,743 5,945,211 Sum of P2 4,593,719 6,890,579 5,742,149 5,742,149 22,968,597 27,293,037 Total Investment for P1 & P2 11,491,908 17,237,863 14,364,886 14,364,886 57,459,542 Note: P1 and P2 priority cities were defined in Chapter 7 using important criteria including location, water scarcity, level of pollution both COD and Toxic COD etc.
226 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 227
ANNEX 8.1: PRETREATMENT FOR MAJOR INDUSTRIES IN THE 3-H BASINS
A. INTRODUCTION
Annex 8.1 summarizes information relevant to pretreatment for the major polluting industries in the 3-H basins compiled from the working paper on water pollution written by Ludwig, Stappleton, and Foerster. The polluting industries covered in this section include (a) pulp and paper, (b) brewing and food, (c) chemical and chemical fertilizer, (d) pharmaceutical industry, (e) textile, (f) dying and printing. Pretreatment, as discussed in Chapter 8, is needed prior to discharging wastewater from polluting industries into the municipal WWTP to ensure proper functioning of the process train. As discussed in Chapter 7, on water pollution, pretreatment technology will not be economic or affordable to the smaller industries and their amalgamation into larger producers will be necessary before substantial benefits in economies of scale for pollution abatement is possible.
B. PULP MAKING AND POLLUTION CONTROL
The major raw material for pulp making in both the Hai and Huai river basins is wheat straw (Table A8.1-1). Most mills are small in size and the final production of the straw pulp is mainly for the low to medium grade paper market only: school notebook/book paper, sanitary paper, cardboard etc. It is not suitable for news print.
TABLE A8.1-1: M ATERIAL PARAMETERS FOR STRAW PULP/PAPER MAKING IN CHINA Materials Unit quantity/t pulp New water consumed 350 m3/t pulp+paper Wheat straw consumed 2.2 tons/year pulp NaOH consumed 300 kg Black liquor generated 10 tons (10 °Be’) (including) CODcr 1.2-1.3 tons BOD5 0.35-0.4 tons Cellulose 1.5 tons Chemicals 0.4 tons Source: Taoyun, Z., (1999).
Wood pulp alkali recovery technology in both international and domestic paper industries is very successful. The wood pulp alkali recovery accounts for 80 percent of total alkali load in wood black liquor in China, with very satisfactory efficiency of Y 1000 profit/ton recovered alkali. The alkali recovery for other non wood pulp such as reed, bagasse and bamboo is also quite successful with Y 500 profit/ton recovered alkali.
The difficulty is with the straw pulp alkali recovery, there have been only 20 such processes in China (sized with pulp capacity of 25-100 tons/year), with lessons of both success and failure to learn, of the 20 processes, 9 were in operation in 1996. Anqiu Paper Mill in Shandong is a successful example. Its pulp capacity of 17,000 tons/year, its alkali recovery process had operated for seven years by 1995 and had even a profit of Y 500,000 that year. An additional 19 wheat straw pulp alkali recovery processes (sized with pulp capacity of 75-100 tons/year) have been approved by the State Planning Commission (SPC) in 1996, and 11 were then put under construction. (Yiji, 1998). 228 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
Because of the nature of straw pulp black liquor (high silica and high semifiber content, high viscidity, low calorific value for combustion, low cellulose content, low swelling volume ratio, etc.), the process has much lower recovery rate (30-40 percent for small scale processes and 50-60 percent as average with 70 percent for a very few large processes) with much higher recovery cost (Y 1,050/ton and Y 1,137/ton alkali for two large mills, and Y 2,200/ton for seven small ones), when compared with wood alkali recovery (94 percent and Y 400/ton alkali respectively). It is forecast that, together with the improvement of silica reduction process and some other modification, the alkali recovery ratio could be expected to reach 70-75 percent. Taking a typical straw pulp mill with capacity of 17,000 tons of pulp/year as an example, a total of 4,100-4,200 tons of alkali could be expected to be recovered, and a total of 15,000-16,000 tons/year of COD and 5,000-6,000 tons/year of BOD loads could be expected to be reduced from the current COD and BOD loads of 21,000 tons/year and 8000-9000 tons/year respectively. (Shuzhe, 1997).
TABLE A8.1-2: B LACK LIQUOR ALKALI RECOVERY PRACTICE IN CHINA BY END OF 1996 Items Quantity Total number of alkali recovery processes 89 Total alkali recovery capacity 655,000 tons alkali/year Actually recovered alkali 420,000 tons alkali/year Including: -Wood pulp alkali recovery processes 40 Alkali recovery capacity in total 500,000 tons alkali/year -Straw pulp alkali recovery processes 20 Alkali recovery capacity in total 60,000 tons alkali/year (pulp capacity from 100-25 tons/day) Source : Shuzhe, Z., (1997).
TABLE A8.1-3: LEVELS OF CURRENT BLACK LIQUOR ALKALI RECOVERY PRACTICE Pulp Black liquor extraction Alkali recovery Pollution reduction Wood >93% >90% 80-90% Reed, bagasse, bamboo >85% 70-80% 50-70% Straw >80% 50-60% 50-60% Source: State Department of Light Industry, (1997).
The common process for making straw pulp in China is the caustic soda process, as illustrated in Figure A8.1-1.
The most polluted wastewater is known as “black liquor” from the pulp making process. The next most polluted wastewater is from pulp washing, where its quality heavily relies on the black liquor extraction rate. The contents of black liquor are shown in Table A8.1-4.
TABLE A8.1-4: B LACK LIQUOR CONTENTS Item Concentration Dried mass 10-20%, including 35% mineral (mainly NaOH) 65% organic material (cellulose, lignin) COD 100,000 mg/l BOD 35,000 mg/l pH 11-13 Caloric value 3380 kcal/kg Source: Tsinghua Univ. Press (1992). Technical-Economical Handbook of Industrial and Urban Wastewater Treatment.
228 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 229
FIGURE A8.1-1: CHEMICAL STRAW PULP MAKING
Straw
Cooking Black liquor extraction Washing+bleaching
caustic soda black liquor water wastewater
Screening/Drying finished pulp
Source: Present study.
Typical black liquor treatment process, known as alkali recovery process, is shown as Figure A8.1-2.
FIGURE A8.1-2: B LACK LIQUOR TREATMENT PROCESS Black liquor Alkaline
3 Multi- 2 Spray Causticizing evaporation incinerator
Water lime Cl2 sludge (white sludge)
Source: Present study.
The burned ash from black liquor is dissolved in lime water, where the Na2CO3 in the ash then is conversed to NaOH (known as causticizing process).
Na2CO3+CaO+2H2OÞ2NaOH+H 2O +CaCO3¯
The settled CaCO3 is known as white sludge and proper disposal for the white sludge is also needed to prevent secondary pollution. White sludge can be used to produce many products such as cement, paper additive and detergent powder. In the above black liquor treatment process, for each ton of alkaline recovered by burning the black liquor, the environmental benefit gained will be:
· 2t organic matter destroyed,
· 4t CODcr, 1t BOD5 destroyed.
The COD reduction in the alkaline recovery process accounts for about 50-60 percent of total COD load of paper mill (Shuzhe, 1997). The remaining 40-50 percent of the COD load will be generated in pulp washing and paper making processes, hence a biological treatment process is needed for those streams of wastewater in the mill. 230 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
The other processes for black liquor treatment involves the comprehensive use of the liquor, such as the recovery of the cellulose and lignin from the black liquor for making the cement or concrete additives. However, as solely pollution control measures, none of these processes are technically practical or economically viable at this stage.
As both the capital cost and operation/maintenance costs for black liquor treatment process are very high, the unit cost will increase significantly when the pulp production capacity decreases. It will not be feasible for the small industries to establish a black liquor alkali recovery process. It has been estimated that the marginal capacity for the alkali recovery process to be viable should not be less than 17,000 tons/year of pulp output (with only 12 and 23 percent of paper outputs respectively coming from the Hai and Huai basins). A scale of 30,000-50,000 tons/year for a straw pulp mill will be reasonable for new straw pulp mill establishment.
The capital investment needed for an alkali recovery process has been estimated: · Y 235,200 /t pulp/d in 1983 (Taoyun, 1999) , and · Y 680,000 /t pulp/d in 1999 (Hou, 1998).
It will be found that the figures are quite similar if 1983 costs are converted to 1998 prices. The unit cost of Y 680,000/t pulp/d will be used in this report for the purpose of cost estimation for pulp black liquor pollution control.
C. PAPER MAKING AND POLLUTION CONTROL
Paper making is less polluting in comparison with its upstream process of pulp making, though there is still a lot of work needed to do to reduce the water consumption and pollution load. In most Chinese large and medium size paper mills, the major wastewater stream, known as whitewater, has been treated in the reclamation process by major means of dissolved air floatation (DAF) and/or filtration, the residual paper fiber in the water has been recovered and the water returned back to the paper process.
In order to comply with the discharge standards, just black liquor control process will not be enough and a biological process will be needed as the end-of-pipe treatment measure before the wastewater is discharged to the environment.
It should be noted that, in addition to organic pollution represented by COD load, the pulp/paper industry may generate some toxic or carcinogenic compounds such as dioxins in the chloride bleaching process. This wastewater must be very carefully handled even though its COD concentration may comply with the discharge standard. The lesson should be learned that in Belgium, dioxin contamination almost destroyed the animal husbandry industry. The half-life of dioxin without treatment is one year which means that special measures must be used to destroy this chemical.
D. OPTIONS FOR PULP/PAPER INDUSTRIES
With further development of the Chinese paper industry, the ratio of wood pulp will gradually increase with straw pulp decreasing. It should also be noted that straw pulp will remain for quite a long period of time before it is finally withdrawn from the market, since no other supply is yet capable to meet the huge demand immediately.
230 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 231
The fact that straw pulp and paper making is one of the local government’s major financial income sources in some poor regions, it is easy to understand the difficulties in should the required closure margin raise from current 5,000 to 10,000 tons/year for paper mills.
The Scale of Pulp Making a. Options:
· The Centralization of the straw pulp milling. Access to capital could bring immediate benefit. This could be achieved by centralization of pulp making, thereby undertaken at a reasonable scale yet still allow ing separate paper making plants to exist. Newly established centralized pulp mills should be of capacity not less than 34,000 tons/year.
· The cultivation of pulp wood forestry to support the Chinese paper industry shifting strategy from straw to wood pulp making. This will be the final solution, which should commence now to cultivate fast (3-5 years) growing forestry.
The concerns for the centralization of straw pulp making including:
· Extremely high capital cost. To establish a new centralized pulp mill (25,000 tons/year or 75 tons/day) fitted with black liquor recovery process, the estimated capital cost will be Y 300,000,000/75 tons/day, or Y 4,000,000/ton/day (Hou, 1998). It is far beyond local government or industry capabilities to raise this capital. As most of those areas dotted with small pulp mills are poor regions, poverty alleviation is still a far to realized goal.
· High market risk. Huge capital investment for centralized pulp mills will create the high risk to the loan repayment if the market does not develop as forecast. b. Pollution control problems The following parameters have been adopted for pollution control measures:
· Unit cost for black liquor alkali recovery: Y 680,000/tons of pulp/day · COD reduction 55 percent of total paper mill load: Y 300,000,000/25,000 tons/year or Y 12,000/tons/year.
The largest paper mills in the Hai and Huai basins with the pulp capacity exceeding the limit of 17,000 tons of pulp/year are presented below in Table A8.1-5.
TABLE A8.1-5: TOP PAPER MILLS IN HAI AND HUAI BASINS Basin Capacity Number COD (tons/year) % of Paper COD load % of industrial COD Hai >17000 9 259,021 23.7 13.8 Huai >17000 6 144,551 12.9 7.3 Source: Cheng, Z., (1999). Annex I and II.
If all these paper industries establish black liquor treatment process, i.e. the black liquor alkali recovery process, based on the above parameters, 232 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
Total capital cost: Y 470 million (for 9 paper mills in the Hai basin), or Y 263 million (for 6 paper mills in the Huai basin) Total COD reduced: 42,450 tons/year (for 9 paper mills in the Hai basin), or, 79,500 tons/year (for 6 paper mills in the Huai basin). Accounts for: 7.6 percent of total industrial COD load in the Hai basin, or. 4.0 percent of total industrial COD load in the Huai basin. Benefit/cost factor: 302.5t COD reduction/million Y
Therefore, for an equal investment of capital budget, the COD load removed by pulp black liquor control projects would be 5 times higher than that by municipal WWTP.
Obviously, to obtain the largest environmental benefit, first priority should be given to those top paper mills to help them secure the necessary pollution control fund, since the issue should not be purely the industries’ problems, but one of the most important components in the Hai and Huai Basin’s pollution control strategy.
In addition to the above mentioned large paper mills, the solution needs to be found for the numerous small paper mills whose fate is still uncertain. The following possibilities exist:
· Closure because none of the small mills will be able to meet the discharge standard by the end of 2000, · Centralization if funds are available, to allow larger centralized pulp mills to be established to replace the current small mills for better production and pollution control including use of cleaner production technology, · Restructuring so that some of the current mills may cease pulp making and shift to purely paper making (depends on the availability of pulp and markets), · Remaining in operation for some period of time, this may be more likely for the mills with relatively larger capacities (>10,000 tons/year).
Assuming that half of the current straw pulp capacity (<17,000 tons/year) will be eliminated by market selection or pollution control measures, and another half will be centralized, the likely capital cost for the new centralized pulp mills in Hai and Huai will be:
Hai basin: 836,000 tons/year x 0.5 x Y 12,000/ton = Y 5.0 billion Huai basin: 976,000 tons/year x 0.5 x Y 12,000/ton = Y 5.86 billion
This is a huge investment, but considering the annual capital investment of the Chinese paper industry is about Y 10 billion, the option may be affordable, particular if society is fully aware of the paper pollution problem to stimulate fund raising.
If market conditions remain as they are today, it is estimated that the change may take about 10 years or longer for implementation.
E. BREWING AND FOOD
The industries discussed here are food related, where fermentation may be the major process being employed, such as alcohol and wine, beer, MSG and citric acid. The wastewater of this category can be characterized as extremely high strength organic wastewater.
232 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 233
As is illustrated in Table A8.1-6, the brewing industry is heavily developed in both basins, but as the Huai Basin is a traditional region for brewing, its pollution load is 4.7 times that of the Hai Basin. Alcohol and liquor are one of the most important industries in the region. It is ranked with the paper industry as the most polluting industrial categories in the Huai Basin.
TABLE A8.1-6: M AJOR BREWING AND FOOD INDUSTRIES IN HAI AND HUAI BASINS Hai River Basin Industry Wastewater WW account for COD load COD account for Number of Categories (million m3/year) total Ind. (%) (tons/year) total Ind. (%) industries Alcohol 25,340 1.04 45,230 2.41 60 Beer 27,110 1.11 42,779 2.28 49 Starch 4,760 0.20 7,594 0.40 17 MSG 3,730 0.15 2,872 0.15 3 Citric 1,500 0.06 2,294 0.12 4 Total 62,440 2.56 100,769 5.37 133
Huai River Basin Industry Wastewater WW account for COD load COD account for Number of categories (million m3/year) total Ind. (%) (tons/year) total Ind. (%) industries Alcohol 68,351 4.83 310,460 15.77 126 MSG 15,869 1.12 112,785 5.73 5 Beer 23,920 1.69 24,778 1.26 32 Citric 7,047 0.50 15,783 0.80 8 Starch 6,228 0.44 12,252 0.62 35 Total 121,415 8.57 476,058 24.18 206 Source: Cheng, Z., (1999). Annex I and II.
F. ALCOHOL DISTILLATION
The alcohol industry in China (excluding spirit or liquor) currently outputs of 3,100,000 tons/year (Shuzhe, pers. comm. 1999). Another reference indicates the total alcohol output was 4 million tons in 1996 (2,002,800 tons commodity alcohol plus 2,000,000 tons alcohol for liquor making), which made China the third largest alcohol producer in the world. The total production value reached Y 6.0 billion and provided a taxation contribution of Y 1.8 billion (Ning X., 1998). It is also, however, one of the largest polluting industries in the nation. In 1996, the total discharged high strength organic wastewater volume was 50,000 m3/year, BOD5 was 1,800,000 tons/year and COD 3,600,000 tons/year, comprising 12 percent of total industrial COD load in the nation (Ning X., 1998).
TABLE A8.1-7: DEVELOPMENT OF CHINESE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY Development Stage Period Number of industries Annual Output (tons/year)* Start 1949 10 10,000 Stable 1960 30 100,000 Fast 1988 450 1,000,000 High speed 1993 1000 3,000,000 Adjust 1995 1000 2,000,000 * Commodity alcohol only. Source: Hou, J., (1998). The same source suggested that the alcohol capacity in China has reached 5 million tons a year. 234 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
Despite of the fast growth of the Chinese alcohol industry (see Table A8.1-7), it plants are small in size, yet numerous (see Table A8.1-8), generally with a low level of technology.
TABLE A8.1-8: CAPACITY STRUCTURE OF CHINESE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY Capacity >50,000 tons/year 10,000-50,000 tons/year 3,000-5,000 tons/year Number of industry 2 70 950 Percentage 0.2% 7% 92% Source: Hou, J., (1998).
The major raw materials used for alcohol production in the Hai and Huai river basins are corn and dried sweet potato or cassava. The “new water” consumption is about 50-210 m3/ton alcohol (average 80-120 m3/ton) (Hou, 1998).
Wastewater quality varies somewhat between grain alcohol distillation and sweet potato alcohol distillation. The pollution loads generated during alcohol distillation are indicated in Tables A8.1-9 and A8.1-10. The loads are mainly affected by the industries’ capacity, process level and management. The heavier pollution load refers to the smaller plant capacity with lower production process level. Note that the waste load generated is different from the waste load discharged if there are pollution control measures implemented before discharge.
TABLE A8.1-9: POLLUTION LOAD OF CORN ALCOHOL DISTILLATION Distillery residue load Items End-of-pipe load Per ton alcohol Per ton alcohol Wastewater 14-15 m3 50-140 m3 930-960 kg, or COD 900-980 kg 300-600 kg * 460-510 kg BOD 500-520 kg 70-350 kg * SS 460-500 kg 470-520 kg pH 4-5 6 Source: SEPA, (1996). Manjun, W. (1998).
TABLE A8.1-10: POLLUTION LOAD OF POTATO ALCOHOL DISTILLATION
Items Distillery residue load End-of-pipe load Per ton alcohol Per ton alcohol Wastewater 12-14 m3 50-140 m3 COD 810-910 kg, or 400 kg* 820-890 kg BOD 390-820 kg, or 150-700 kg* 395-480 kg SS 310-400 kg 360-400 kg pH 4-5 6 Source: SEPA, (1996).
It is indicated that the pollution load from an alcohol mill of 80,000 tons/year capacity is equivalent to that of a city with 1,400,000 population.
The character of potato (sweet potato or cassava) alcohol distillation residue is similar to that of corn distillation residue, the main difference being the viscosity from potatoes is much higher, making mechanical separation difficult, and hence some auxiliary additive may be needed before separation.
234 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 235
The conventional treatment of the high strength wastewater (see Table A8.1-11) is very expensive or even beyond the industry’s capability. It is estimated that the capital cost of a conventional wastewater treatment process for a 5,000 tons/year alcohol distillery will be about Y 40 million to Y 50 million (or 1 ton/ year/Y 10,000) (Li Z, 1998).
TABLE A8.1-11: ALCOHOL WASTEWATER QUALITY Items Distillery residue Concentration End-of-pipe Concentration COD 35,000-45,000 mg/l 2,500 mg/l BOD 28,000-35,000 mg/l 1,850 mg/l SS 560 mg/l pH 4-5 6 Source: Hou, (1998).
After many years investigation and trial, it has been found that a conventional wastewater treatment process is generally not suitable to the extremely strong distillation residue, as it is targeted to compliance with discharge standard rather than resources recovery, a very costly and wasteful approach. In recent years, the technology of using alcohol distillation residue to produce side products has been developed. In these processes, solid/liquid separation is the key technique in treating the alcohol distillation residue. The most frequently used separation techniques include:
· Centrifuge separator, low investment, energy saving, high efficiency but needs wastewater treatment process for the effluent, · Frame pressure filter, vacuum filter etc; less investment but less efficiency, also needs wastewater treatment process for the effluent, · Multiple effect evaporation, a process which tends to consume a lot of energy but with no wastewater, the so called ‘nil-discharge’.
G. PRODUCTION OF DDGS
Among the various comprehensive utilization methods of the residue, there it is a common recognition that concentration of the high organic wastewater to produce DDGS (Dried Distillated Grain Solid) is the preferable process. This is based on the following beliefs:
· It complies with the principle of comprehensive use of resources, · Almost nil wastewater discharge, · Possible to be self financing viable, · High protein content in DDGS (for corn DDGS: 27-32 percent, for potato DDGS: >17 percent).
Processes
A typical distillery residue-DDGS process is shown in Figure A8.1-3.
FIGURE A8.1-3: DDGS PROCESS Residue DDGS
Centrifuge separating Evaporation Drying
Source: Present study. 236 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
Currently there are more than ten alcohol distilleries which have imported the DDGS technology, as well as machinery from overseas including from France, Holland and Sweden. The cost of the imported plants is rather high (about three times domestic ones), which has offset the profit of the DDGS production. The imported plants are only suitable for the corn process, not for the potato process. The development of domestic made plants is urgently required.
For the treatment of other wastewater streams in the alcohol industry, anaerobic/aerobic processes will be suitable to meet the discharge standards.
Policies and Discharge Standards
In Nov 1989 the State Planning Commission issued a document “Regulation for the comprehensive utilization of the resources project attached to the new or expanded projects”. It clearly required that “All newly established corn alcohol distillery with corn handling capacity of 10,000 tons/year or above must equipped with DDGS workshop”, and there is a more strict requirement that “All the urban alcohol distillery of whatever what capacity must be equipped with DDGS workshop.” (Haichao, 1998).
Market Projection
Alcohol. It is projected that the Chinese alcohol demand will keep increasing but the rate will slow down to a relative stable level.
DDGS. During 1979-1994, the whole nation’s grain yield increased 2.7 percent per year, while the meal, egg and milk yields increased 10.5 percent, 12.2 percent and 12.5 percent per year respectively. Based on the “National development program for feed industry 1984-2000,” by the year 2000 the total mixed feed processing capacity will reach 100 million tons/year with actual feed manufactured being 70 to 75 million tons/year. However, the current corn yield is about 100 million tons/year and unless the corn yield increases significantly, it is unlikely that half of the corn yield will be consumed by the feed industry. The report of Chinese Feed Industry Office forecast feed industry demand as presented below in Table A8.1-12.
TABLE A8.1-12: PROJECTION OF PROTEIN FEED DEMAND AND SUPPLY CAPACITY OF CHINA Year 2000 2010 2020 Feed demand Million tons/year 45 60 72 Supply capacity Million tons/year 21 22 24 Shortage Million tons/year 24 28 48 Source: Daoming, S., (1999).
The current feed protein additive mainly comes from fish meal (100,000 tons/year domestically and 600,000 tons/year from overseas) and cooking oil cake (1,500,000 tons/year from domestic). The above forecast suggests the Chinese DDGS market is bright. Currently DDGS will not bring profit to alcohol industries in any real sense now, as DDGS in China is believed to be underpriced, with the market price of DDGS Y 1,200-1,300/ton compared to the corn price of Y 1,300-1,700/ton. It is suggested that in the international market, the price of DDGS is about 1.3 times the corn price. There is good reason to expect that DDGS will bring a reasonable market price along with the feed market development and an understanding of the advantage of DDGS by animal husbandry industry (Haichao, 1998).
236 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 237
Pollution Control Options
· Speed up the industrial restructure. No new small alcohol distilleries should be approved in both basins, and all the small distilleries should be closed if the wastewater discharged does not meet the discharge standards. · Control the most polluted wastewater stream of the distillation residue. Employing DDGS process or any other process to effectively recover the resource in the residue should be required for the current distilleries. · Treat the wastewater before being discharged. An end-of-pipe treatment will be needed for the complying with the discharge standards.
Beer Brewery
The beer brewery industry is one of the fastest growing industries in China (see Table A8.1-13). It now has become the second largest beer industry in the world. However, considering the low average consumption of 13 liters per year per person, and the small scale per brewery capacity of 32,400 tons of beer/year, it can be forecast the beer brewery industry will maintain its fast development pace into the next decade.
TABLE A8.1-13: DEVELOPMENT OF BEER INDUSTRY IN CHINA Period Output (million tons/year) 1949 10 1953-1978 400 1978-1981 910 1982-current (Fast growing period) 1993 12,250 1994 14,150 1995 15,400 (ranked the second in the world) 1996 16,300 2000 projection 20,000 2010 projection 32,000 Sources: Hou, (1998).
TABLE A8.1-14: B EER PRODUCTION IN EIGHT PROVINCES OF HAI AND HUAI BASINS (1996)
Province Number of Percentage of Beer capacity Ave. capacity (mln Percentage of breweries Nation's total (%) (mln tons/year) tons/year/brewery) Nation's total (%) Beijing 6 1.2 930.3 155.1 5.7 Tianjin 3 0.6 48.5 16.2 0.3 Hebei 25 5.0 958.8 38.4 5.9 Shanxi 7 1.4 92.3 13.2 0.6 Jiangsu 31 6.2 674.0 21.7 4.1 Anhui 23 4.6 555.1 24.1 3.4 Shandong 41 8.2 2,229.6 54.4 13.7 Henan 27 5.4 597.7 22.1 3.7 Subtotal 163 32.6 6,086.3 37.3 37.4 National Total 503* 100.0 16,317.6 32.4 100.0 Note: Data for whole province, regardless of where the breweries are located, in or out the two basins. * The number of breweries varies from source to source, the total breweries was 640 according to Shuzhe (1999, pers. Comm.) Source: Anon., (1998). “Brewery wastewater pollution and control technique”, Journal of Environmental Protection in Light Ind., 1998 Vol. 20 (1,2). 238 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
The total number of the breweries counted in Hai was 49 and in Huai was 32 in SEPA’s point sources surveys.
TABLE A8.1-15: STRUCTURE COMPOSITION OF CHINA’S BEER INDUSTRY Scale of the brewery Number of Accounted for total Accounted for total beer breweries brewery (%) capacity (%) >100,000 tons/year 36 7.2 35.8 50,000-100,000 tons/year 150 29.8 50.0 <50,000 tons/year 317 63.0 14.2 Source: Anon., (1998). “Brewery wastewater pollution and control technique”, Journal of Environmental Protection in Light Ind., 1998 Vol. 20 (1,2).
TABLE A8.1-16: SOME GENERAL DATA ON CHINA’S BEER INDUSTRY Items Quantity Total wheat consumed 2,600,000 ton (1996) Average beer consumption per capita 13 kg /capita (average of the world level) >100 kg /capita Annual wastewater discharged 340 million m3 Unit product new water consumption 8.24-50 m3/t beer (21.3 m3/t as 1996’s national average) Unit value new water consumption 11.6 m3/Y 1000
Source: Anon., (1998). “Brewery wastewater pollution and control technique”, Journal of Environmental Protection in Light Ind., 1998 Vol. 20 (1,2).
The pollution load and wastewater strength are heavily affected by the process and management level, the value from a poor one could be expected to be double those shown in Table A8.1-17.
TABLE A8.1-17: POLLUTION LOAD AND WASTEWATER QUALITY OF BEER BREWERY
Items End-of-pipe load End-of-pipe Concentration Per ton beer * Wastewater 13-15 m3 ** SEPA *** Major brewery COD 15-20 kg 2000-3000 mg/l 1000-2500 mg/l BOD 8-12 kg 1500-2000 mg/l 800-1500 mg/l SS 2.5 kg 500-700 mg/l 200-400 mg/l PH 6 5.5-6.5 5-9 Sources: The Information center of Chinese light industry, 1998. SEPA, 1988.
Pollution Control Approaches Water conservation. New water consumption and wastewater volume could be expected to be reduced. If 50 percent of the breweries’ water consumption level (21 m3/ton) reached the current level of the better managed breweries (10 m3/ton), the total water consumption in Hai and Huai basins could be expected to reduce by 14,000,000 m3/year. The related benefits obtained by the reduction of wastewater volume includes the saving of capital for wastewater treatment plants of the breweries.
Yeast recovery. Like the pollution control for the residue of alcohol distillation, the residual brewery yeast should also be recovered as feedstuff. In that way, the most polluted stream of wastewater will be controlled which may account more than 80 percent of total pollution load.
238 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 239
End-of-pipe treatment. A well-designed conventional secondary anaerobic/aerobic treatment will be suitable for brewery wastewater treatment before discharge to the environment.
H. MONOSODIUM GLUTAMATE (MSG)
China is the largest MSG manufacturing country in the world. The total MSG output in 1996 reached 550,000t, accounting for about a half of the total MSG output in the world (Xueming et al., 1998).
TABLE A8.1-18: DEVELOPMENT OF MSG INDUSTRY IN CHINA Period Output (million tons/year) 1923-1939 0.5 1939-1970 4.0 1980-1990 340 1995 455 2010 projection 700 Sources: Hou (1998).
The total number of MSG industries in China is 64, their composition based on the MSG capacity is shown in Table A8.1-19.
TABLE A8.1-19: SCALE OF MSG MANUFACTURERS IN CHINA MSG Capacity (tons/year) Number of industries Percentage of total number >10,000 12 18.7 6,000-10,000 19 29.7 <6,000 33 51.6 Sources: Hou (1998).
The largest MSG manufacture in China, Henan Souko Lotus MSG Co. is ranked as the highest polluter in the Huai river basin in term of COD load.
TABLE A8.1-20: AVERAGE UNIT MATERIALS CONSUMPTION Materials Quantity New water 306 m3 Rice 4 t or Starch 3 t Carbamide 0.61-0.75 t Sulfuric acid 140-150 kg Source: Xueming L., et al. (1998).
A test conducted on an MSG process for materials conversion efficiency found that during the process of MSG production, only about 21.7 percent of carbon and 18.2 percent of nitrogen of total raw materials input had been converted to final product. This suggested all the balance had been discharged in the form of wastewater (Xueming et al., 1998). The average pollution load of MSG is about 1.4-1.5 tons COD and 20 m3 wastewater per ton of MSG.
Discharged wastewater can be sorted in two streams: · The major wastewater stream from glutamate extraction process known as isoelectric point process, and · The other medium strength wastewater from all the other processes. 240 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
In the isoelectric point process, the pH value of the effluent from the fermentation process is brought down to 3.0-3.2 by either sulfuric acid or hydrochloride acid and the temperature is reduced to nearly freezing. Under these conditions, glutamate becomes insoluble and is separated from the liquid in centrifugal separators. Wastewater discharged from the separator is the strongest wastewater in the industry and its characteristics are shown in Table A8.1-21.
TABLE A8.1-21: WASTEWATER QUANTITIES FROM MSG ISOELECTRIC PROCESS Item Quantity* Quantity** CODcr 70,000 mg/l 50,000-80,000 mg/l BOD5 40,000 mg/l 25,000-40,000 mg/l SO4= 20,000 mg/l 8,000-9,000 mg/l (or Cl-if chloride is used) 10,000 mg/l mg/l NH3-N 8,0000 mg/l 4,000-6,000 mg/l pH 3.0-3.2 3.0-3.2 Glutamate 1.4-1.8 % 1.2-1.5 % Residual sugar 0.8-1.0 % % Phosphorus 0.012-0.021 % % Nitrogen 1.0 % % Potassium 0.07-0.1 % % Total sugar 0.7-1.3 % Sources: Xueming L., et al. (1998). MSG wastewater is characterized as high strength organic wastewater. Therefore comprehensive utilization is one of the most common approach in MSG wastewater pollution control. The more frequently used processes include:
· Yeast fermentation to produce single cell protein (SCP). A quite successful process in pollution reduction, SCP can reduce about 50-60 percent of total generated COD load and produce high quality protein feed. The process itself is able to maintain a self-finance viable status or even produce a slight profit. Currently about a half of Chinese MSG plants have employed this technology. The major problem for this process is, however, it cannot effectively eliminate most of its pollution load and hence a still strong organic wastewater, with COD strength of about 30,000 mg/l, has been discharged to the environment. One remedy provision is to setup a biological effluent treatment process of yeast fermentation by employing anaerobic-aerobic process. However, it is unlikely that industries will be able to afford to maintain two different processes for their MSG wastewater treatment.
· Evaporation concentration, followed by granulation to produce livestock feed additive or compound fertilizer. This practice has been conducted in both China and Japan. The difficulty is to remove the mineral content from the wastewater for producing feed additive. The Japanese reported employ concentration or membrane processes for demineralization. The LD50 (median lethal dose) of the manufactured feed additive is 36g/kg weight, the digestible raw protein and nutrition are about 16.8 percent and 30.4 percent respectively. Tests shows that the additive can promote livestock’s food intake, daily weight gain as well as the converting ratio of the feed. One of the major barriers for the application is to identify the reliable and affordable process for demineralization. Instead of manufacturing feed additive, another alternative option is to produce a compound fertilizer, as there will be no such restriction on mineral content. However, as the market price of fertilizer is much lower (about Y 900/t) than that of feed additive (about Y 1400/t), it may produce a fertilizer too expensive for the market and so need the subsidization from MSG factory. The cost of the wastewater treatment should be a part of the MSG manufacturing cost and, the project should be an
240 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 241
environmental one rather than the one of the comprehensive utilization of waste for MSG manufacturers.
· Anaerobic-aerobic process. This was the initial approach when dealing with the MSG wastewater in 1980s, and quite a few major MSG industries in China had adopted this process. It has been proved unsatisfactory with the following findings: · Waste of valuable resource in the wastewater · High cost of treatment · Long detention time in anaerobic process, hence large land area required - = · Toxic content in the wastewater to biological process from the presence of Cl /SO4 · Hard to make use of methane generated (quantity limited, and sulfate must be removed before using)
Pollution Control Approaches
Of all the currently employed MSG wastewater pollution control projects in China, it appears that not a single one yet has proved to be effective or practical enough in sustainable operation. It is the cause of many wastewater treatment facilities being unable to be normally operated. Either the operation costs are too high for the MSG industry’s ability to pay, or the effluent from the treatment facility will not meet the discharge standards. One potential promising technology is the concentration (by means of evaporation or some other separating means) to produce feed or compound fertilizer. It is claimed as being successful in some industrial scale practices, however, further trials may still be needed before widespread application of the process.
I. CITRIC ACID
The citric acid manufacturing process is quite similar to that of MSG but, however with a weaker organic wastewater generated (see Table A8.1-22). It is quite common for a citric process to be attached to a MSG industry.
TABLE A8.1-22: WASTEWATER QUANTITIES FROM CITRIC ACID PROCESS Item Quantity CODcr 20,000-36,000 Mg/l BOD5 12,000-20,000 Mg/l NH3-N 37 Mg/l pH 3.8-4.8 Source: “High strength organic wastewater”, Chem. Ind. Press, 1988.
The UASB (Upflow Aerobic Sludge Blanket) process combined with an activated sludge process has been used for the treatment of this stream of wastewater. The effluent can satisfy discharge standards. The main barrier to the application is the operation cost.
J. STARCH
Starch is the major raw materials for food, pharmaceutical and textile industries. The total production capacity of the nation has been continuously increasing, but the development of effective pollution control technology lags behind the development of the starch industry. 242 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
Table A8.1-23 shows the efficiencies of a typical corn starch mill with 30,000 tons/year capacity. The quality of wastewater is mainly dominated by the starch extraction rate; the higher the starch gained from the raw materials, the lower the organic content in the wastewater.
TABLE A8.1-23: RAW MATERIAL EFFICIENCY OF STARCH MILL Items Quantity Starch gain 60% Byproduct 30% Loss in the wastewater 6% Among the loss Total sugar 0.3-0.4% Gross protein 2.1% Coarse fiber 2-3% Grease 0.1-0.3% Solid matter 5-10% Source: Zhang X, (1998).
The total product gain ratio of starch and byproducts together is 94 percent, and its wastewater quality is shown in Table A8.1-24.
TABLE A8.1-24: WASTEWATER QUANTITY OF A 30,000-TON/YEAR STARCH MILL
Item Wastewater Quantity Discharge standards CODcr 10,160 mg/l 150 mg/l
BOD5 6,000 mg/l 60 mg/l SS 13,470 mg/l pH 4.5-6 Source: Zhang X,. (1998)
Pollution Control Approaches
The difficulty for the treatment of starch wastewater is its high strength and large quantity, which means high treatment cost. Methods of pollution control include:
· Increase the material gain ratio. This is the more important measure in starch pollution control.
· Reduce the water consumption and wastewater discharge volume. The capital required for the treatment facility is strongly related to the wastewater volume capacity. The reduction of the volume will save the mills significant capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
· Use cleaner production technology to reduce pollution production.
· End-of-pipe treatment. Properly designed treatment plants for starch wastewater will be important. Consideration must be given to both its relatively high strength and its large volume. A three stage anaerobic process followed by a contact oxidation process and DAF-filtration process are employed for the treatment of the wastewater from a starch mill in Shandong, the Huai river basin. The final effluent from the process can meet the discharge standards.
242 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 243
K. CHEMICAL AND CHEMICAL FERTILIZER
Chemical industries are one of the major polluting categories in the Hai and Huai basins. It is ranked second in the Hai basin and fourth in the Huai basin in terms of COD load (Table A8.1-25).
TABLE A8.1-25: CHEMICAL INDUSTRY POLLUTION STATUS IN HAI AND HUAI BASINS
Basin Pollution load WW (million % of Total COD % of Total Count of Rank m3/year) WW (tons/year) COD Industry Hai 2 344,490 14.1 186,919 10.0 232 Huai 4 196,062 13.8 77,715 3.9 147 Source: Zeng, C., (1999).
It is a series of industrial processes to produce chemical as final products or the middle products for some other industries to use as raw materials. The industry can be further subdivided into inorganic chemical and organic chemical industries.
A physicochemical process is most frequently employed for the inorganic chemical industry, as the means of its end-of-pipe wastewater treatment. The common processes include sedimentation and neutralization process. Increasing the rate of the final product and cleaner production are two more effective and efficient approaches when dealing with the pollution control issue for them. as it will not only cut-off the pollution load but also increase production efficiency.
Pollution control for organic chemical wastewater is more difficult than that of inorganic chemical wastewater, as the composition and strength are complicated. The treatment mainly relies on biochemical treatment process which depend on the quality and quantity of the wastewater. A combination of anaerobic-aerobic or purely aerobic processes will be selected for the treatment. The major concern is the tolerable concentration of the toxic materials in the wastewater treatment process.
L. PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
There are two groups of pharmaceutical industries in China, the conventional chemical or biological medicine making and the traditional Chinese herb medicine making. The major pollution problems in Hai and Huai basins are mainly from the conventional chemical or biological medicine making.
TABLE A8.1-26: PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY POLLUTION STATUS IN HAI AND HUAI BASINS
Basin Pollution load WW (million % of total COD % of total Count of Rank m3/year) (tons/year) industries Hai 3 52,450 2.2 88,348 4.7 72 Huai 5 43,434 3.1 49,533 2.5 49 Source: Zeng, C., (1999). Annex I and II.
Table A8.1-26 indicates the pharmaceutical industry is a quite polluting one in both basins being ranked third and fifth pollution categories in the Hai and Huai respectively. The pharmaceutical production and wastewater could be characterized as:
· Small scale for each production batch, · High strength organic wastewater · Frequently changed production, 244 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins
· Many different types of wastewater streams in one factory, · Small wastewater volume for each type of medicine produced, · Toxic or hazardous pollution compounds in wastewater.
TABLE A8.1-27: SOME PHARMACEUTICAL WASTEWATER STRENGTHS Wastewater Vitamin C Vitamin C Antibiotics Berberine Chloramphenicol chhoromyctin CODcr(mg/l) 40,000-60,000 500,000 7000-10000 1000-15000 25000-30000 BOD5 (mg/l) 3000-6000 13000-16000 = SO4 (mg/l) 350 SS (mg/l) 1500-2000 pH 4-6 1-10 6.5-7 6-8 3-4 Source: “High strength organic wastewater”, Chem. Ind. Press, 1988
Pollution control approaches
The treatment of wastewater could be classified by three approaches:
· Promoting cleaner production for a higher retention ratio and low discharging load. Improving the production technology and management level for a lesser wastewater volume generated and discharged will be the most efficient provision for the industry.
· Separating the strong wastewater stream from the less polluted wastewater. As the treatment methods may be totally different from the strong wastewater to other wastewater, it will be in the industries’ interests to separately collect and treat them.
· Proper treatment processes. · Incinerating. Probably the most cost-effective method for the strong wastewater, or more accurately, strong liquor. The caloric value of the liquor may high enough to support self- burning in the incinerator without additional fuel being injected. A properly designed two-stage incinerator could be expected to destroy all the hazardous chemical compounds in the liquor. · Anaerobic-aerobic processes such as UASB are the most frequently used technique for pharmaceutical wastewater. The effluent could be expected to meet the discharge standards.
M. TEXTILE
Compared to the paper, brewing and chemical industries, textiles are generally less polluting. There are a series of pollution control techniques available and well known for the textile industry.
Wool Textile
For the wool textile industry, the wastewater mainly comes from the wool washing. The wool and grease recovery is the major measure for the treatment. DAF is the common process for wool recovery, and high speed centrifuge separation may be the most effective means for high quality wool grease recovery.
244 Annex 8.1: Pretreatment for Major Industries in the 3-H Basins 245
Cotton Textile
For the cotton textile industry, starch in the spinning process is the major pollution source. Conventional aerobic processes will be suitable for this wastewater.
Dyeing and Printing
Dyeing and printing may be located in separate mills or within the wool or cotton textile mills. Decoloring is the major target for the dyeing wastewater treatment, as the conventional biological treatment will have little effect on the removal of color. Some special coagulants have been developed with quite satisfying results. 246 Annex 8.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 8
ANNEX 8.2: STATISTICS RELATED TO CHAPTER 8
TABLE A8-1: SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF ORDINANCES FOR THE REGULATION OF SANITARY AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGED INTO MUNICIPAL SEWERAGE SYSTEMS IN CHINA
Types of ordinances Principle aspects of ordinance Comments system Ordinance for control of use of Definitions Definitions of terms used in the ordinances should be clear and concise municipal sewers. in order to eliminate ambiguities which may cause differences in The purpose is to more effec- interpretation and result in unnecessary disputes tively protect the ability of its Regulations relating to the use of Use of public sewers should be made mandatory to all owners of sewerage system, pumping sewers properties that are accessible to lateral sewers laid out by the sewerage stations, sewage disposal and enterprise for public interest. Exceptions are made if the sewerage treatment plants to satisfactorily authority prohibits this. The ordinance therefore shall contain provisions perform the functions for which to make the use of the sewerage system mandatory except for certain the system was designed by industries and other waste dischargers producing wastes that would be controlling and regulating the harmful to the public sewerage system. quality, volume and manner of Areas not served by sewerage Regulations on areas not provided with lateral sewers should be included discharge into the system, and for systems in the sewer ordinance, which should be formulated with the guidance of the purpose of maintaining its the local health department. The suggested regulations should require the stable operation and for the construction of private sewage disposal system where public sanitary or protection of the waters within combined sewer is not available. the Special Territory of the City. Yard piping and sewer service In order to protect the public sewers, regulations have to be formulated connection regarding the installation of yard piping such as its connection to the public sewer to ensure that it is properly done. Limitations on discharges into It is generally felt that of all public utilities, sewerage systems may be public sewers among the most abused because of the public’s mistaken belief that the sewers can carry away anything that can be put into it. There is a need to set limitations on what is admissible to the sewers in order to achieve a safer and more efficient sewerage service and to operate it more economically. A list of these substances is presented in Annex 8-4. Damage to public property This component aims to protect facilities of the enterprise and facilitates filing of a court case for any damage caused. Inspection authority Officials and duly authorized representatives of the sewerage enterprise must be empowered to enter private property for the purpose of making inspections and tests, obtaining samples, and other checks to ensure that all provisions of the Sewer Ordinance is complied with. Sewer rental fees and other charges An article pertaining to the establishment of sewer rental fees and other charges shall form part of the Ordinance. The various schemes of payment of fees and charges shall be stated in the sections of the article. Penalties To enable the sewerage enterprise to enforce the sewer ordinance effectively, violations of its provisions must be dealt with drastically. Fines and imprisonment for violations sewer ordinance are therefore necessary and should be specified. Permit application forms Application forms are necessary for sewer connection for residences and commercial buildings as well as for industries. Ordinance regulating industrial Authority and general purpose discharges to municipal sewers. Definitions Definitions are necessary to avoid ambiguous statements The purpose of the ordinance is Notices To be given in writing by the chief engineer and served in person or by to provide for the maximum pos- registered or certified mail sible beneficial public use of the Time limitations Time limits in ordinances to be extended by written directive of the chief sewerage enterprise’s facilities engineer through adequate regulation of Permits for industrial discharges Industrial wastewater to be discharged by permit only, separate permit industrial wastewater discharges, needed for each industrial wastewater connection to a public sewer to provide for equitable distribu- discharging directly or indirectly to the wastewater enterprise’s sewerage tion of the sewerage enterprises’ system. costs, and to provide procedures Procedure for obtaining permits Issuance of permit granted upon approval by enterprise following review for complying with the require- of application form. Additional information may be required beyond ments placed upon the sewerage requirements of the application forms. enterprise by other regulatory Changes in permit restrictions Enterprise can change permit restrictions as required and must allow agencies reasonable time to industries to comply with the changes.
246 Annex 8.2: Statistics Related to Chapter 8 247
Types of ordinances Principle aspects of ordinance Comments system Suspension of permit Chief Engineer authorized to suspend a permit for industrial wastewater in order to stop a discharge which presents an imminent hazard to the public health, safety or welfare, to the local environment or to the enterprise’s sewerage system. Revocation of permits Enterprise must have the capacity to revoke a permit when necessary (unpaid fee or dangerous discharges as above) Prohibited waste discharges Discharge that have adverse effects on sewers, personnel, treatment plants effluent quality, public or private property etc. shall not be permitted to enter the public sewer which connects to the enterprise’s sewerage system. A list of these substances are presented in Annex 8-5 Availability of public sewerage If sewerage capacity is not available, the enterprise can require facilities wastewater dischargers to restrict his drainage until sufficient capacity can be made available. Charges and fees If waste is such that it imposes unusual operation and maintenance or capital costs upon the enterprise which are unrelated or partially related to flow volume, COD, SS or peak flow rate, then a surcharge related to “treatability” should apply. Pretreatment requirements Pre-treatment may be required for certain waste constituents or to equalize peak discharge of industrial wastewater. Pre-treatment should be at the discharger’s expense and the enterprise’s representative should be able to inspect the pre treatment process to ensure it conforms with the requirements of the permit. Separation of domestic and Domestic wastewater from the rest rooms, showers, drinking fountains, industrial wastewater etc. should be kept separate from the industrial wastewater until the latter have passed through the required pre-treatment system or device. Industrial wastewater monitoring Periodic measurements of flow rates, flow volumes, COD and SS for use in determining the annual industrial treatment surcharge shall be made by all industrial wastewater dischargers. Analysis to be performed by a specified government laboratory. Reference to the latest Standard Methods edition should be made to determine acceptable analytical methods. See Chapter 7 for discussion on this issue. Industrial classifications Damages caused by prohibited discharges
TABLE A8-2: TYPE AND SOURCE OF SAMPLES FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER LABORATORY ANALYSIS Type of sample Source of samples Water and wastewater WWTP Solids and semisolids WWTP raw & digested sludges, vacuum filter cake, stream sediments and deposits of material found to be obstructing flow in sewers Gas & vapors Sewers, pump stations, emissions stacks, Biological & bacteriological Activated sludge 248 Annex 9: Statistics Related to Chapter 9
ANNEX 9: STATISTICS RELATED TO CHAPTER 9
TABLE A9-1: TYPES OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A GROUNDWATER DATABASE Technical data a. Well construction details, including dates, location, depth, b. Geological and stratographic logs, c. Geophysical logs, d. Pumping test results, e. Drillers’ logs, f. Well alteration and decommissioning data, g. Chemical analysis data. Monitoring data a. Groundwater level / pressure data, b. Water quality data, c. Maintenance records, d. Usage data, including metering data. Licensing data a. Track of licensing process, including well construction license and groundwater allocation license, b. Drillers’ licensing data, c. Details of allocation license – including date, area, volumes allocated, purpose, d. Owner’s name and address, e. Well number, f. GMA linkages, g. Pump type, method, and depth. Billing data a. Invoicing, b. Bills paid, c. Outstanding debts, d. Accounting information. Source: Table 9.9 in Chapter 9.
248 Annex 9: Statistics Related to Chapter 9 249
TABLE A9-2: DETAILS OF DETENTION BASINS IN YELLOW RIVER Frequency of GW Comment on recharge No Location Area Volume Population Cultivated inundation Duration of Surface Amount of depth potential area (years) inundation geology GW usage Natural Artificial (km2) (mln m3) (km2) Shallow Deep 1 Beijindi 2,316 1,927 1,523,000 1,510 ~ 100 Weeks Gravel and sand H (S) 2-8 m M H M 2 Dongping Lake 623 3,042 283,400 308 10 ~ 20 Weeks Sandy clay M (B) 2-8 m M M M 3 Qibei 100 390 42,000 59 50 ~ 100 Weeks Sandy clay M (B) 2-6 m M M M 4 Kenlinan 123 200 49,000 68 50 ~ 100 Weeks Sandy clay M (B) 2-5 m M M M Total 3,162 5,559 1,897,400 1,945 H – High M – Medium L – Low U – Unknown OE – Overexploited S – Shallow D – Deep B - Both Source: Table 9a-2-1 in Annex 2 of Chapter 9.
TABLE A9-3: DETAILS OF DETENTION BASINS IN HUAI RIVER Comment on recharge No Location Area Volume Population Cultivated Frequency of Duration of Surface Amount of GW potential area inundation inundation geology GW usage depth Natural Artificial km2 mln m3 (km2) (years) Shallow Deep 1 Nihe 103 236 90,400 82 1 ~ 2 Days Clay H (B) 2-5 m Low L L 2 Laowangpo 121 171 44,000 81 5? Days Clay M (S) 2-5 m Low L L 3 Wenhing Lake 38 158 29,900 33 ? Days Clay M (S) 2-5 m Low L L 4 Mongwa 180 750 120,000 120 5 ~ 10 Days to Clay M (S) 2-5 m Low L L weeks 5 Chengxi 550 2,950 188,400 400 10 Days to Clay M (S) 2-5 m Low L L weeks 6 Chengdong 378 1,580 18,600 153 5 ~ 10 Days to Clay M (S) 2-5 m Low L L weeks 7 Wabu 386 1,290 173,000 173 5 ~ 10 Days to Clay M (S) 2-5 m Low L L weeks 8 Hongze Lake 2,414 13,500 500,000 867 ? Days to Clay M (S) 2-5 m Low L L weeks Total 4,170 20,635 1,164,300 1909 H – High M – Medium L – Low U – Unknown OE – Overexploited S – Shallow D – Deep B - Both Source: Table 9a-2-1 in Annex 2 of Chapter 9. 250 Annex 9: Statistics Related to Chapter 9
TABLE A9-4: DETAILS OF DETENTION BASINS IN HAI RIVER Comment on recharge No Location Area Volume Popula- Cultivated Frequency of Duration of Surface Amount of GW potential tion area inundation inundation geology GW usage depth Natural Artificial (km2) mln m3 (km2) (years) Shallow Deep 1 Liuweipo 148 202 73,122 117 3 Days Silty sand M (B) 3-5 m M M U 2 Changghongpu 3 Days Silty sand M (B) 3-5 m M M U 3 Liangxiangpu 75 92 38,777 46 3 Days Silty sand M (B) 3-5 m M M U 4 Gongquxi 60 58 22,909 27 3 Days Silty sand M (B) 3-5 m M M U 5 Baisipo 101 178 49,225 77 3 Days Silty sand M (B) 3-5 m M M U 6 Xiaotanpo 160 191 99,365 114 3 Days Silty sand M (B) 3-5 m M M U 7 Guangrunpo 133 256 100,339 105 ? Days Silty sand M (B) 3-5 m M M U 8 Daming 309 210 217,628 236 30 Weeks Silty sand H (D) 1-3 m M M H 9 Enxian 325 700 145,539 233 50 Weeks Clay H (D) 2-5 m L L M 10 Yongnian 16 54 13,900 12 5 ~ 10 Days Silty sand H (D) 3-5 m M M H 11 Daluze 1,556 2,923 967,600 1171 5 ~ 10 Days to Silty sand OE (D) 1-5m M M H 12 Ningjinpo weeks Silty sand OE.(D) 2-5 m M M H 13 Xian County 255 500 135,600 203 5 Weeks Silty sand OE.(D) 2-5 m M M H 14 Baiyangdian 989 1,917 416,500 313 1 Weeks Clay L (S) 3-5 m M L M 15 Wenanwa 1,498 3,387 650,000 842 20 Days Clay M (S) 2-5 m L L M 16 Jakowa 773 1,405 324,300 520 20 Days Clay M (B) 2-5 m L L M 17 Langouwa 228 323 201,200 207 10 ~ 20 Days Clay M (D) 2-5 m L L M 18 Dongdian 377 1,025 124,800 246 5 ~ 10 Days Clay H (D) 2-5 m L L H 19 Yongding Floodplain 523 400 213,222 266 3 ~ 15 Days Silty sand OE (B) 3-10m H H H 20 Dahuangpu 273 322 48,870 77 10 ~ 20 Days to Silty sand H (D) 2-5 m M M H weeks 21 Huangzhuangwa 354 464 83,346 183 10 Days to Clay OE.(D) 2-3 m L L M weeks 22 Qingdianwa 150 245 67,500 66 10 Days to Clay OE (D) 1-3 m L L M weeks 23 Shengzhuangwa 13 26 8,522 13 10 ~ 20 Days to Clay OE (D) 2-9 m L L M weeks Total 8,316 14,878 402,264 5074 H – High M – Medium L – Low U – Unknown OE – Overexploited S – Shallow D – Deep B - Both
250 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform 251
ANNEX 10.1: IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT REFORM
INTRODUCTION
Since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949 the development of irrigated agriculture has progressed to the extent that now 70 to 80 percent of the country’s agricultural output comes from irrigated land and more than 25 percent of the irrigation is located in the 248 large-scale irrigation districts greater than 20,000 ha in area.
Funding for irrigation works over the years has been derived from the central and provincial governments and labor from the beneficiary population. A large number of works were constructed between the 1950s to 1970s and many are currently in some state of disrepair and in need of maintenance or replacement. In addition to infrastructure problems, lack of effective institutional arrangements at the basin level has resulted in less than efficient management and water allocation.
The price of water sold to irrigators continues to be so low that revenues derived from water charges are not sufficient to cover operation and maintenance, and barely covers salaries of employees at different levels of government. Self-financing requirements of government bureaus at province and county levels forces them to levy all sorts of charges on the farming communities which prevents the water managers from charging higher prices for water. A major factor affecting irrigation as a whole, which is outside the control of managers, is that available water supply is decreasing due to increasing demand from urban and industrial uses that have priority. The familiar drought and flood cycle in northern China is also affecting water supplies and many irrigation districts are almost permanently short of water, especially at the sublateral level.
Although it is understood water resources planning calls for moderate increases in allocated supplies of water for irrigation over the next decade, this will be very difficult to achieve. It is suggested that a more probable outcome is a continuation of recent trends with modest reduction in irrigation water allocations because most dry season surface water is already consumed, and groundwater is heavily overabstracted.
In addition, the high cost of new investments in water resource development, coupled with increasing economy-wide demands for limited financial resources, will likely constrain rapid development of new water resources. Although water can continue to be administratively allocated, it is more efficient and will lead to higher growth, if water is appropriately priced and market forces allocate the water to uses with higher economic value. As the economy becomes more market-orientated, the long-run sustainability of irrigation and drainage will depend increasingly on self-financing entities that are based on hydraulic boundaries (not administrative), with maximum management responsibility and control with the farmer users.
From a macroeconomic view, the vastly higher economic values of water generated by the urban and industrial sectors should not be sacrificed for increased agricultural production. The ability of China’s industrial sector to generate trade surpluses easily offsets foreseeable reductions in agricultural output that may arise from irrigation water shortages. However, the dilemma is that three-fourths of China’s population is rural and depend on agriculture for two-thirds of their incomes9. Protecting and increasing
9 A. Nyberg and S. Rozelle (1999) Accelerating China’s Rural Transformation, World Bank, Washington. 252 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform
these incomes and maintaining growth in agricultural production is a national concern, and politically, one that depends in part on more and better irrigation.
Rehabilitating and completing surface irrigation and drainage systems, including the installation of control structures and water measuring devices to improve efficiency, can yield local benefits. Rehabilitation should be undertaken where economic benefits justify the investment, particularly if it provides a more reliable and equitable supply of irrigation water to farmers and increases deliveries to water-deficient areas within the scheme, typically located in the lowest level laterals and sublateral levels. Investments in improving and extending existing systems would likely provide better returns than new construction. (Between 1989 and 1995, the marginal cost of irrigation expansion was about Y 10,000/ha (1990 terms), representing very efficient investments. However, future investments will prove more expensive.)
It is suggested the key issues related to irrigation reform and sustainability are:
· the necessity to pay for irrigation and drainage improvements and, operation and maintenance;
· to achieve more efficient management of the irrigation systems;
· to increase local participation and “ownership” of irrigation; and
· to design, implement, operate and maintain irrigation systems to the highest technical, institutional and financial standards.
However, although the focus here is on institutional aspects, complementary reforms such as measurement of water use, and water charges based on volume and not area (mu) to encourage greater water use efficiency are essential.
THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
Among the key outcomes of the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 were the recommendations that:
· water should be treated as an economic good (with a “right” attached to it); · water management should be decentralized; and · farmers (and other stakeholders) should play a more important role in the management of natural resources, including water.
Increasingly, local management solutions are being sought for global problems (such as food and resources), and the situation is no different in the irrigation sector.
For the past two decades an ever-increasing number of countries around the world have been transferring the management authority for irrigation systems from government agencies to farmers or other local, nongovernmental organizations. This phenomenon is generally referred to as management transfer or devolution and has become a widespread strategy. In more than 25 countries governments are reducing their roles in irrigation management while farmer groups or private organizations are taking them over. Most often, governments pursue management transfer programs to reduce their expenditure on irrigation, improve productivity, and stabilize deteriorating irrigation systems.
252 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform 253
However, despite the widespread adoption of irrigation management transfer programs internationally, little information is available about its impacts on the financial viability of irrigation systems, the quality of irrigation operations and maintenance, the physical sustainability of irrigation infrastructure, agricultural and economic productivity, and the environment. Brief comments on each of these indicators follow.
The literature10 shows a mixture of positive and negative results, while on balance most sources report positive results, especially in operations and finance, although the cost of irrigation to farmers often rises. Worldwide, it remains to be seen whether irrigation management transfer can simultaneously save money for the government, bring about more cost-efficient management for the farmers, and achieve financial and infrastructural sustainability. Most reports about impacts are qualitative and hard to validate. Over a hundred papers were prepared for the International Conference on Irrigation Management Transfer, held in Wuhan in September 1994, but only 25 contained data on performance outcomes of management transfer.
However, in less-developed countries, most post transfer organizations tend to be water user associations that take over operations and maintenance responsibility directly, at relatively small scales, generally less than 1,000 ha of service area.
Financial Performance
The aspects of financial performance of irrigation that are most related to management transfer are the cost of irrigation to the government, the cost of irrigation to farmers, levels of management staff (often the largest component of operation and maintenance costs), levels of water charges and collection rates, budget solvency, and revenue sources.
Cost to Government One of the main reasons governments promote transfer programs is to save money by reducing the cost burden of irrigation management. Therefore it is curious that there is little information in the literature on the impacts on government. Only four of the papers mentioned above reported the effects of transfers on costs of irrigation to the government. Three reported a decline in government expenditures, and one reported no change. Potentially, transfers could reduce government expenditures for operation and maintenance and allow reallocation of central revenues to construction or other costs within the irrigation or agriculture sector. Or, transfers could lead to a reduction in the total budget for the sector. Much depends on size of budgets, financial policy, and political will.
Cost to farmers
The literature suggests that where significant subsidies that existed before transfers are dropped, the cost of irrigation to farmers may rise substantially. Where there is little or no change in subsidies, transfers may lead to a decrease in irrigation costs to farmers. High-cost systems, such as pump irrigation, are especially likely to significantly increase the cost of water to farmers. Lift irrigation systems seem to be the most financially vulnerable after transfer. Reforms in the 1980s leading to local financial and managerial self-reliance in the Bayi and Nanyao irrigation districts in Hebei Province resulted in increases in annual surface water costs.
10 Vermillion, D.L. 1997 Impacts of Irrigation Management Transfer: A Review of Evidence. Research Report 11. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute. 254 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform
Management staff
In countries where transfers are intended to reduce government expenditure, reports generally indicate that irrigation agency staff size diminished following transfer, either at system or administrative levels. However, this decline is often gradual as governments wait for staff to retire. Generally, farmer- sponsored organizations are unwilling to hire or retain “excess” staff members which governments in developing countries often do.
Fee collection rates Evidence on the impacts of transfers on fee collection rates is generally based on post transfer data or simple before-and-after comparisons. For example, in China total fee collection throughout the country increased from US$51 million in 1984, when reforms were just starting, to $415 million in 1992 (in 1994 dollars), partly because collection rates increased from 30 percent in 1984 to 70 percent in 1991.
In summary, the various studies reported significant increases in water fee collection rates and none reported decreases. Increases were generally substantial, from the 10 to 30 percent range to the 80 to 100 percent range. Increases in collection rates were reported to have been facilitated because farmers were more satisfied with the irrigation service and because the post-transfer farmer organization was better able to collect fees from farmers, often with the intervention of village authorities.
Budget solvency
Financial solvency after transfer depends on the level of subsidy that is removed as well as on the capacity of the post-transfer managing organization to cut costs and raise additional revenue. Six of the studies reported a shift from deficit to surplus budget balances for irrigation systems after management transfer, and none reported a trend toward more deficits which is partly because post-transfer management entities lack sufficient reserve funds to operate at a deficit in any year.
The most typical financial impacts of management transfer are lower overall costs of irrigation (including decreased government spending for irrigation operation and maintenance), an increase in the cost of irrigation to farmers (especially in lift schemes), and higher rates of collection of charges from farmers. Not surprisingly, the financial viability of post-transfer organizations is more apparent in areas where agricultural and economic productivity of irrigated agriculture is high, such as in the United States, Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Australia. The most problematic financial situations appear to be where the cost of irrigation to farmers is already high and where either the government is dropping a subsidy or where the profitability of agriculture is not high.
Unfortunately the literature provides almost no data with a time log frame long enough to assess the financial sustainability of management after transfer which is a major issue, particularly since few post-transfer management organizations raise a capital replacement fund, and policies about who will be responsible for future rehabilitation and modernization are normally unclear.
Diversity of revenue sources
There is a tendency to diversify revenue sources after management transfer. Usually this occurs where the post-transfer organization has full responsibility for financing the costs of irrigation and where farmers exert pressure to keep water fees as low as possible as has been the case in China. In these cases
254 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform 255
diversified revenue collection is a strategy to cross-subsidize irrigation costs after government subsidies have been discontinued.
The 1980s reforms in China promoted the formation of sideline enterprises to cross-subsidize local government budgets after the demise of line agency funding from central government sources. Today, sideline enterprises are a common source of financing for irrigation districts. For example, the Bayi district in Hebei Province developed nine sideline enterprises between 1984 and 1992 after it became financially autonomous. The enterprises produced approximately US$60,000 in profits during this period, of which 65 percent was allocated to the district for water management costs, and the rest went to salaries and bonuses of enterprise workers, many of whom were family members of irrigation management staff employed by the district to work in the “diversified management division.” By 1994, 30 percent of the Bayi district revenue was from its sideline enterprises.
Quality of Operations and Maintenance
Much of the literature supporting management transfers asserts that it improves the quality of the operation and management of irrigation schemes. The most common kind of evidence employed is qualitative statements by project officers, farmers, researchers, and rapid appraisal visitors, often based on chance encounters or group interviews with farmers. However, assessments of farmer perceptions through participatory appraisal and group interview methods may not be reliable for making generalizations, but their value is more in eliciting farmer performance criteria and examining local dynamics.
Operations
Comparisons of performance between systems with-irrigation management transfer versus without-irrigation management transfer are rare in the literature. Most present either post-transfer or before-and-after data. Before-and-after comparisons are more reliable than post-transfer data because they help rule out the possibility of trends having begun before irrigation management transfer and continuing into the post-transfer period. These tend to be simple, short-term comparisons. They lack a time line long enough to confirm the existence of an interrupted pattern at the time of transfer.
Long-term time series data on irrigation efficiencies before and after irrigation management transfer are available from case studies in the medium-scale Nanyao and Bayi districts. In Nanyao the rise in annual cost of irrigation water from US$4.68/ha in 1972 to $31.84/ha in 1993 (in 1991 dollars) helped bring about a decline in water duty from 11,000m3/ha in 1973 to only 4,500m3/ha in 1993. This trend was part of a larger policy to reduce water consumption per hectare and cannot be attributed only to the reforms, which occurred in the mid-1980s. However, it is likely that the more active involvement of farmers and village governments in irrigation management helped facilitate the decline in water consumption per hectare.
The annual diversions into the Nanyao system increased from 28 million m3 in 1972 to about 60 million m3 in 1982 (when the commune system collapsed) and then steadily declined to 20 million m3 in 1993. The same peak and decline trend occurred in the Bayi system, where total annual diversions from surface and groundwater rose from 6 million m3 in 1972 to 34 million m3 in 1980, then fell to 17 million m3 in 1993. The average annual number of surface irrigations in Nanyao decreased from three in 1973 to two in 1992 and in Bayi from six in 1973 to four in 1992, after peaking in 1982 in both systems. The introduction of the pay-for-service system at main canal, village, and farmer levels undoubtedly influenced the decline in water diverted and delivered per hectare after the mid-1980s’ reforms. 256 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform
Maintenance
In short, five of the cited studies reported that after transfer of management the irrigation structures deteriorated and one study reported that their condition remained the same. Again, favorable maintenance conditions are reported in locations where the economic value of irrigated agriculture is relatively high.
Most evidence on the impacts on the performance of irrigation operation and management is based on either qualitative reports or post-transfer data for only three to five years. The limited data that exist mostly indicate either positive or no effects on operation and maintenance performance, though there is some evidence that a temporary downturn in performance sometimes occurs immediately after irrigation management transfer. Post-transfer reductions in the amount of water delivered per hectare are almost entirely seen either in lift schemes or where water is charged volumetrically.
There is another problem embedded in several attempts to attribute improvements in operational performance to management transfer. In many countries transfer programs include physical rehabilitation or repair of irrigation infrastructure. In such cases improvements in operational performance may be more the result of physical improvements than of management reform.
Agricultural and Economic Productivity
The relationship between management transfer and agricultural and economic productivity is less direct than the relationship between transfer and operation and maintenance performance or financial viability. Of the 25 papers presented at the Wuhan conference that contained data on performance, only 14 reported increases in cropping intensity and 10 reported increases in crop yields. Most reported improvements in both performance measures, although the studies provide no control comparisons to enable exclusion of other causes of the observed improvements. The most common agricultural productivity measures mentioned in the literature on management transfer are area cultivated, cropping intensity, and yield. The most common economic measures mentioned are gross value of output, net farm income per hectare, and economic returns to irrigation. Less data are available on economic productivity than on agricultural productivity although improvements in gross value of output or net farm income after transfer were reported in some locations in China.
Annual grain yield (wheat and maize) per unit of water in the Bayi and Nanyao systems in the north China plain increased steadily between 1973 and 1992 and the rate of increase accelerated after the reforms in the mid-1980s. Annual grain yield per unit of water in Nanyao was 66 kg/100m3 in 1973, 70 kg/100 m3 in 1982, and 135 kg/100 m3 in 1992. Similarly, in Bayi, yields increased from 28 kg/100 m3 in 1973 to 65 kg/100 m3 in 1992 and to 150 kg/100 m3 in 1992. Data on irrigation management transfer impacts over such a long period are rare and suggest that the transfers had a positive effect on yield returns, given the parallel upturn in trend in both systems at the time of transfer.
Environmental Sustainability Only a few studies refer to the impacts of management transfers on the environment and these are mostly qualitative. However, this may well be because irrigation management transfer is a relatively recent phenomenon and environmental impacts normally take several years to become apparent and measurable.
256 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform 257
There are numerous ways in which the management of irrigation and drainage could be modified to achieve emerging environmental objectives such as reduction in rates of soil erosion, salinity, waterlogging, pollution, and extraction of the resource base. These changes may require regulation of management practices at the farm, scheme, and water basin levels. Given the rising competition for water and the degradation of water and land resources, there is a need for impact studies to include environmental measures, especially where regulatory arrangements for resource management are weak.
In the future networks of farmer-managed irrigation systems will likely need to take responsibility for local regulation of water basins and, where needed, transfer programs should develop institutional frameworks and prepare post-transfer organizations to take up such responsibilities.
Conclusions The impacts of transfers reported in the literature are mostly positive although this may be partly a result of a bias in sites selected or possibly that many authors are promoters of the reforms. The most often reported positive impacts of transfer programs are reduction in the cost of irrigation to farmers and to the government, enhanced financial self-reliance of irrigation schemes, expansion of service areas, reduction in the amount of water delivered per hectare, and increases in cropping intensity and yields. The most frequently reported negative results of transfer programs are increased costs to farmers, failing financial viability of lift (pump) schemes, and deteriorating infrastructure.
Irrigation management transfer programs are probably more often adopted because of government funding constraints than because of validated expectations about enhanced performance. However, because of the potential far-reaching effects of this reform on the livelihood of farmers and the sustainable productivity of irrigation systems, it is vital that much more rigorous and compelling research methods to assess its real impacts be adopted and that the results be assessed comparatively.
THE AUSTRALIAN EXPERIENCE
River Basin Management
The constitutional structure of Australia, whereby each state has retained sovereign rights over water and land resources and issues, has meant that since the first day of Federation coordination of effort and approach has been an important factor in avoiding disputes over access to and use of its natural resources, and particularly in the 1.06 million km2 Murray-Darling Basin, the most important agricultural region in the nation.
In fact, protecting states rights, particularly those of South Australia, the most downstream state (which is directly analogous to the situation in Tianjin, Shandong and Jiangsu Provinces in the Haihe, Huaihe and Huanghe Basins respectively), was the momentum behind the creation of the original River Murray Commission in 1917 and the formal agreement that set out specific water sharing rules.
This coordination was focused mainly on water issues and it was not until the mid-1980s that all the states realized that integration of effort across all aspects of natural resource management was badly needed to overcome the degradation that was occurring across the basin.
This led to a number of separate but complementary initiatives. The peak body for water resources coordination at the time, the Australian Water Resources Council (AWRC) comprising ministers from each state and commonwealth governments, decided to merge with similar councils 258 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform
covering agriculture, soils, lands etc to form the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ). Then the River Murray Commission broadened its charter to become the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC), and in 1994 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) was formed to drive a whole range of microeconomic reform initiatives, including a water reform agenda that was to be implemented by the state organizations and the MDBC in its area of business.
In the context of the 3-H Basins, the institutional arrangements for river basin management have yet to reach the AWRC stage—a phase that was considered outmoded in Australia a decade ago.
The COAG Water Reform Arrangements
The Australian water industry is one of the nation’s most important industries in terms of its contribution to the national economy. It represents an investment of A$90 billion and has annual revenues of A$5 billion. Its activities, and the ends to which water is put, have a major impact on the nation’s natural resource base, particularly with respect to the quality and health of the nation’s river systems together with the long-term sustainability of the land to which water is applied.
The water industry issues identified as requiring national attention include institutional impediments to efficient water use and management, deficiencies in the approaches to water management and its links to the wider natural resource base, and the lack of any provision for major asset refurbishment in rural areas.
In view of the economic and ecological dimensions of the water industry there has been an increasing focus on its performance, culminating in the adoption by COAG in 1994 of a strategic and comprehensive water industry reform framework which is to be fully implemented by the year 2001. Its major elements include water pricing based on consumption pricing and full-cost recovery, and the reduction or elimination of cross-subsidies; clarification of property rights; allocation of water for the environment; adoption of trading arrangements for water; institutional reform; and public consultation and participation.
The COAG agenda was formulated on the basis that all aspects would be based on good information and the best available science, that monitoring the impact of the reform process would occur to ensure no unintended consequences, and that the community would be involved to an appropriate and acceptable degree. It was based on an acceptance that action needs to be taken to arrest widespread natural resource degradation in all water sectors, caused, in part, by water use, and that “a package of measures is needed to address the economic, environmental and social implications of future water reform”.
More specifically, the package of reforms involves:
· Pricing based on the principles of full-cost recovery and transparency (which requires cross-subsidies which exist to be removed or declared); · Future investment in new schemes, or extensions to existing schemes, to be undertaken only after appraisal indicates it is economically viable and ecologically sustainable; · Comprehensive systems of water allocations or entitlements, backed by separation of water rights from land title and clear specification of entitlements in terms of ownership, volume, reliability, transferability and, if appropriate, quality;
258 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform 259
· Formal determination of water allocations or entitlements, including allocations for the environment as a legitimate user of water; · Trading, including cross-state border sales of water allocations or entitlements within the social, physical and ecological constraints of catchments; · Administration and decision-making to provide an integrated catchment management approach to water resource management; · The separation of the resource management, standard setting and regulatory roles of government from the roles of providing water services; · A greater degree of responsibility for local management of water use; · Support for appropriate water-related research and use of efficient technologies; and · Public education about water use and consultation in implementing the water reforms.
Milestones have been set toward achieving this reform process and there are financial penalties for noncompliance.
Below this national level of reform, each state, and the MDBC, has continued the process, separating out the resource management function from that of the operator or service provider. The government irrigation areas and districts have also been handed over to farmers for to operate and manage using a variety of corporatization and privatization models, and communities have become heavily involved in setting strategic resource management agendas for the major river valleys and in implementing works on the ground.
The World Bank has independently reviewed the Australian agenda and has endorsed it as constituting “world best practice.” It clearly constitutes, and certainly has the attributes of, good integrated water resources management and has a number of elements that would be beneficial if implemented in the 3-H Basins.
Irrigation Scheme Transfers In New South Wales, and indeed elsewhere in the major eastern irrigation states, the management responsibility for all the former government owned, operated and managed irrigation areas and districts were transferred during the 1990s and are now privatized, i.e., wholly “owned,” operated and managed by irrigator/farmer management boards on behalf of their constituent irrigators.
The initiative for the transfers of management authority essentially arose because the governments wanted to relieve themselves of the responsibility and, most importantly, also because the farmers believed they had the necessary management skills and expertise to provide at least an equivalent level of service to the government but, at a lower cost.
However, although the transition period during which negotiations between the state departments of water resources and irrigator representatives sought agreement on the specific transfer conditions took many years, it proved very useful for both the government and irrigators to adjust to many of the challenges confronting the irrigation industry. The governments recognized that to achieve their reform objectives for effective, efficient and sustainable irrigation necessitated having an enhanced consultation process with the farming community. It was also widely recognized that there must be local control, i.e., local authority and responsibility in decision-making to ensure community accountability.
The new entities developed business plans and identified their legal and financial responsibilities. In the major schemes, such as the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Areas and Districts for example (area 260 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform
irrigated: 180,000 ha; length of supply channels and drains: approximately 4,000 km; replacement cost of infrastructure A$320 million; and annual value of production approximately A$500 million), 50 year plans were prepared to indicate the financial sustainability of the businesses and, a commitment from irrigators and the state government. Also, a key result from the negotiations on many schemes was the provision by government of a capital guarantee to rehabilitate and refurbish water supply and drainage infrastructure in poor condition. In addition, in many schemes most of the key administrative, operational, and maintenance staff transferred to the new companies of their own volition to assist in ongoing success.
With respect to the impact of the transfers, because they were effected only a few years ago, only qualitative reports on the performance indicators outlined previously are available to confirm or otherwise the success of the reform. However, the respective management boards are very confident of the future. Their optimism is considered well founded, particularly because the management skills and expertise of their staff, and the value of production from the areas and districts, is high.
THE CHINESE EXPERIENCE
Although the Chinese government’s primary objective is to establish self-financing, independent, legal, irrigation entities, it is well aware of the potential negative results from management transfers and is trialing reform both at the district, and at the small, farmland and lateral canal level. As a result, it has taken a lead in implementing management reform and over the past decade or so has instituted innovative programs allowing greater decentralization of decision-making in large-scale irrigation projects in several provinces.
Briefly, the responsibility for water resources management nationally rests with the MWR and at the provincial level with the water resources bureau. Bureau offices are also established in each prefecture and county, and water management stations at the township level.
Each provincial headquarters is responsible for planning, design, construction, procurement, management of major works, research and training. At “level 2”, generally the prefectural level, the bureau responsibilities are similar, but restricted to planning and design of reservoirs below 50 million m3 irrigation schemes with areas of less than 66,667 ha, or costing less than Y 2 million (US$241,000), and hydropower schemes with installed capacity of below 25 megawatts. At the county level, the bureau is responsible for system management for main canals (except where these are common to more than one county), canal lining activities, and supervision of the township water resources management stations. The latter are responsible for maintenance and management of canals and gates and through staff in the villages for water scheduling and collection of water charges.
MWR employs a total staff of around 1.5 million, of which 93 percent operate under the provincial bureaus. Overall staffing of the bureaus at all levels is between 6 and 9 officers/1,000 ha. Although previously the lack of adequately trained staff was seen as an important constraint, the problem appears to be less severe now.
At the provincial level local governments have supported management reform as they realize greater participation of farmers in the management of irrigation systems is needed if they are to strengthen financial efficiency and overall sustainability of irrigation the investments. For example, in the Guanzhong Irrigation Improvement Project in Shaanxi Province, about 1,000 laterals have already been reformed under six different models.
260 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform 261
The management reform models being used are still evolving in China and have slightly different characteristics but, in general, they are as follows.
Contracts
Management contracts transfer management responsibility to the contractors with the irrigation districts retaining property rights for the infrastructure. For a fixed time period (10 to 30 years) the contractor is given the right to operate and maintain the system; can establish irrigation service fees within an agreed range checked by the irrigation district, can decide the management principle and is responsible for profits or losses of the contract. In most cases the contractor is required to invest a specified amount of funds to improve, for example through lining, the laterals and sublaterals as well as contract to deliver a fixed volume of water (or pay a penalty for the difference if he does not meet the stated volume). The contractor hires staff as required and collects a “local” water fee on top of the irrigation district water fee. He must also collect the irrigation district water fees and pass them on to the irrigation management station. Irrigation districts operating under this kind of arrangement include Fen River in Shanxi; Luohuiqu, Jinghuiqu and Jiaokouchuoqei in Shaanxi; and Qunan in Jiangsu Province.
Lease
A lease is a slight modification from the contract system with the main difference being that the leased lateral irrigation system infrastructure is usually in much better shape at the time of leasing. Therefore, management stations can lease out the right to operate and maintain the system without requiring significant investment. Since the investment required is not as large and the expected repayment period is less, leases tend to be much shorter, 5 to 10 years, in contrast to “contracts” that can be as long as 30 years.
Auction
The auction model is used extensively in Jinghuiqu Irrigation District. It is a variation in the contract model where the irrigation management station prequalifies three to four contractors to bid on the operations and maintenance responsibility for the lateral canal. A base bid standard is established (usually Y 2/m of canal) and then a date is established for the contractors to publicly bid on the contract. The bid amount is paid to the irrigation district, which in turn places it in a pool of funds from which contractors can borrow for canal improvements. With auction contracts contractors are usually not required to invest a fixed amount or line a specified length of canal but they do have to agree to intake a fixed volume of water. This volume increases by a specified amount, such as 3 percent annually. Consequently, contractors are encouraged to make investments to expand their service area and use additional water. Management is by the contractor with staffing and all operations and maintenance activities his responsibility.
Joint Stockholders
This model converts communal ownership to shares. Proportions of the irrigation system are divided into shares and these are sold to farmers, local residents, irrigation section staff and other local officials. Property rights belong to the individuals but the operation of the system is collective. The shareholders elect a five to seven member Board of Directors including a Chairman of the Board as well as selecting a manager by inviting interested parties to apply for the position. The manager and hired staff are responsible to operate and maintain the system as well as collect the irrigation fees. Part of the funds from the sale of shares is used to improve laterals and sublaterals as well as expand the service area. In 262 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform
addition to paying operation and maintenance costs, a percentage of the irrigation water fees are used to pay a return on the investment to shareholders.
Water User Associations (WUAs)
WUAs are established to benefit farmers receiving irrigation water at the lateral and sublateral level of irrigation systems. They have been designed to enable farmers to be responsible for water use management at the lowest levels of the irrigation systems and to ensure that water measurement, water prices, and the collection and use of water charges based on water supplied, is transparent.
The WUA signs a contract with the irrigation management station, usually for 3 to 5 years, that clearly establishes the rights and responsibilities of both parties. In most cases the members and farmer groups elect a representative council as the decision-making organization for the WUA. It in turn elects an executive committee as well as a chairman and one or two executive chairmen. The chairman and executive chairmen are responsible for irrigation system operation using hired staff as well as farmer groups. As the farmers elect the executive committee and leadership, this model is most responsive to local needs.
Irrigation districts that have chosen this model for pilot reforms include Shijin in Hebei; Yahekou, Renmin and Shengli in Henan; Hetao in Neimenggu; Dongping Pump in Gansu; Shuangpai in Hunan; Dongfeng in Hubei; Rizhao Reservoir in Shandong; and Hongchaojiang in Guangxi. For example, in Yahekou, one of the WUAs organized its members to maintain one lateral and one farmland channel, and restore eight farmland channels in the first half year of its establishment, which improved irrigation of 1,500 mu and expanded irrigation of 500 mu. In Hetao, one of the WUAs called for its members to finance the construction of two control gates and dredging of canals at a cost of Y 7,000, which greatly improved water transfer. In Tieshan Irrigation District in Hunan Province, one WUA volunteered to pool Y 100,000 and 20,000 laborers for the construction of three small branches to improve and expand irrigation of 500 mu.
Water Supply Companies (WSCs)
In contrast to the above five models that are primarily focused on one or two laterals, water supply companies cover a branch or a subbranch canal and therefore serve all the laterals that take water off that branch. This can include up to 20 laterals. In most cases to date WSCs have used the joint stockholder model in order to raise the larger investments that are required to improve the multiple laterals as well as the branch. Shares are usually sold to farmers, staff of the irrigation station, and local government officials with some restriction on the number of shares that any investor can hold to prevent individual control of the company. In a number of cases these companies are assuming responsibility for the entire area previously managed by an irrigation section. As a result, these sections are phased out, although often their staff ends up working for the WSC. These companies end up covering much larger areas, often more than 10,000 mu, than the lateral reform models and consequently are operated with more staff. In some cases the head of each lateral is a paid employee but also owns a share in the company.
Self-financing Irrigation and Drainage Districts (SIDDs)
As stated previously the government’s primary strategy is to transform irrigation management agencies into self-financing, independent legal entities. One of several experimental institutions, the
262 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform 263
SIDD has been successfully piloted for several years and it, or similar institutions, will increasingly be responsible for holistic water management.
The SIDD concept was developed to address the management weaknesses during the preparation of the Yangtze Basin Water Resources Project in Hunan and Hubei, a project loaned by the World Bank and with one of the targets improvement of four large-scale irrigation systems in Hubei, and construction of two new large-scale systems in Hunan. SIDDs are a type of “participatory irrigation management” and the structure essentially comprises a water supply company and a water users association.
Figure A10.1-1 shows the relationship between the WSC and the WUA in the SIDD arrangement for irrigation water supply management as developed in the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. The SIDDs negotiate water use licenses and agreements with prefectures, water resources bureaus and water management departments, and assume sole responsibility for their profits and losses.
FIGURE A10.1-1: SIDD ARRANGEMENT IN THE TARIM BASIN PROJECT
Prefecture Water Resources Bureau, Water Management Department, PMO Office
Kashgar Bayinguolen Aksu Kerzilseu-Kirghiz WSC WSC WSC WSC
Contracts Contracts Contracts Contracts
WUAs WUAs WUAs WUAs
RECOMMENDATIONS
Increased water use efficiency and local farmer management control are the key reforms required. More specifically it is suggested that consideration be given:
· Introducing and enforcing a rational system of water pricing and volumetric measurement. Over the long-term volumetric measurement would considerably improve water use efficiency. Farmers cannot be expected to conserve water or alter their cropping patterns when effective water costs are low or unrelated to the amount used. Water charges that fully recover cost would encourage better water management on all crops and would influence nongrain cropping patterns by increasing the production cost of crops with higher water demand. 264 Annex 10.1: Irrigation Management Reform
· Conducting a comprehensive study of system-wide efficiency.
· Rehabilitating the irrigation and drainage systems and undertaking canal lining where economically justified to increase the overall delivery efficiency and improve on-farm facilities. Such investments will have an income impact by ensuring “tail-end” farmers receive an equitable share of water, but system- wide water savings will be modest.
· Encouraging farmers to refine cropping patterns in water-short areas to more water-efficient crops. In some areas considerably more wheat and corn could be grown with water rice currently consumes, with little or no reduction in farm incomes. The incentive would best come in the form of appropriate water pricing supported by farmer education.
· Expanding the collection, treatment, and reuse of municipal wastewater, particularly around larger urban areas, with suitable monitoring and control to prevent contamination by hazardous wastes. In particular, the new “Filter” technology for productive and sustainable reuse of wastewater for irrigated cropping developed by CSIRO Australia, and currently under trial near Beijing and Tianjin, offers excellent potential.
· Introducing improved land-leveling technology (e.g. use of laser guided equipment). This technology appears financially attractive and should be explored as a means of saving water and increasing yields, particularly on newly reclaimed lands. Given China’s small cultivated plots, land leveling may not be practical in all areas but would be feasible in new land reclamation. Full cost, volumetrically based water charges would provide an incentive to save water and make precision leveling financially attractive.
· Expanding the establishment of self-financing water enterprises to manage water supplies and operate and maintain irrigation systems as rapidly as management expertise can be developed. It is suggested the key to successful irrigation management transfers, where the overall objective is sustain efficient, effective and productive schemes and reduce the cost of irrigation to farmers and to the government, is “local” control where farmers have the will and commitment to manage their own systems. Incentive measures are essential because active water pricing policies are more accepted where the regulatory environment encourages farmers to be financially self-sufficient. International and local experience confirms the MWR policy to transfer management authority to Self-financing Irrigation and Drainage Districts (SIDDs) wherever possible is most appropriate but, cautions any “top-down” direction to reticent areas and districts. However, where it is not possible to adopt the SIDDs model over entire irrigation and drainage districts, the recommended strategy is to strongly encourage the establishment of the small scale, farmer WUAs at the lateral and sublateral level, or WSCs at the larger branch and subbranch canal level, with the principle of “three transparencies” i.e., where water use and water price are transparent and unambiguous, and the collected water fees are transparent and are not used for any purpose other than operation and maintenance of the water supply system.
· ensuring agricultural research and extension programs accord appropriate priority to crop water use efficiency (drought tolerance); and
· further consideration be given constructing one or more routes of the proposed South-North transfer scheme as early as possible. Delays will increase the cost in terms of lost industrial and agricultural output, the social costs associated with chronic water shortages, and irreparable environmental damage from overuse of seriously depleted surface and groundwater resources.
264 Annex 10.2: Flood Control 265
ANNEX 10.2: FLOOD CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
Every year floods throughout the world cause considerable economic losses, untold human misery and suffering and loss of life. In China flooding ranks amongst the worst of all natural disasters and inflicts massive economic damage and social disruption on vulnerable communities, and floods continue to impose a heavy burden on the national economy, both in developing measures to combat their effects and in recovering damages.
Because of rapid urbanization and increasing population on flood-liable lands, the potential for flood losses is increasing dramatically. In China the greatest concentration of population and national wealth is on these flood-liable areas even though the floodplains represent only a small fraction of the total land area. In spite of the flood threat, pressure to occupy floodplains will continue because they are generally the most attractive and easily developed of the available land areas.
Disaster relief from losses, damage, adverse social and cultural consequences, and demands on emergency services resulting from flooding can only be achieved through planned flood loss prevention and management techniques involving the recognition of flooding characteristics and the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. Without the commitment of substantive funds and realistic levels of expenditure, very little can be achieved in the way of relief to the flooding problem.
Floods can impose a high cost on the community in terms of loss of life, social disruption, hardship, and damage to property. The whole community bears these costs. The costs to flood victims are immediate, real and tangible; the cost to the general population may not be so readily discernible, but the taxes and rates, and subsidies used to fund relief and cleanup operations represent the community’s contribution to flood damage costs.
Porter11 stated that having passed the 1997 Law of Flood Control, which provides the basis for more integrated floodplain management, the Chinese agencies and in particular the MWR face the dilemma of how to make it work effectively. “The introduction of planning and development controls on land use requires a skeleton to be put in place before the system will work—a skeleton of regulations, local government ordinances, administrative processes, planning schemes, processes of appeal, penalties and enforcement”. Essentially, institutional arrangements and processes to give effect to the new legislation are required.
EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters chaired by a Vice-Premier and reports direct to the State Council, is the peak national body responsible for flood loss prevention and management, and drought relief, when an emergency arises. The Office of State Flood Control and Drought Relief is the executive body and its office is located in the Ministry of Water Resources, and its tasks are also to develop flood control projects on the major rivers and provide funds to organizations under the control of the various tiers of government. The organization chart for the entire flood control and floodplain management arrangements is shown at Figure A10.2-1 and brief responsibilities of the respective units follow.
11 J. Porter (1999) Flood Control and Floodplain Management in China: Hai, Huai and Huang River Basins 266 Annex 10.2: Flood Control
FIGURE A10.2-1: ORGANIZATION CHART FOR FLOOD CONTROL
State Council
State Flood Control Related Ministries, Headquarters Commissions, Bureaus and Agencies under the State Council
Related Departments Flood Control Provincial Flood Control Provincial Bureaus Officer of River Headquarters Basin Commission Committees
Prefecture/city Flood Control Related Bureaus/Divisions Headquarters
County Flood Control Related Bureaus/Sections Headquarters
Township Flood Control organizations
Ministry of Water Resources
MWR has the primary responsibility for water resources management throughout the nation. Besides water planning, administration and associated matters, the ministry also has responsibility for construction of multipurpose projects, flood protection and rural water development, especially irrigation and drainage. Under recent central government restructuring it has also gained responsibilities for groundwater administration, for guiding water services in urban areas, and nonpoint source pollution control.
A number of specialized institutes also operate under the direction of MWR to support the application of technology and maintain standards of professional practice in the water resources field. These include the General Institute for Water Resources and Hydropower Planning and Design (GIWP) which has responsibilities in flood control planning, and the Nanjing Institute of Hydrology and Water Resources (NIHWR), in flood research.
266 Annex 10.2: Flood Control 267
Coordinating Committees
As stated previously, the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters operates within the ministry and reports directly to the State Council, and has the authority necessary to assume full control during emergencies. It played an important role in responding to the severe floods that occurred in 1998, and it also has an advance planning role for managing flood and drought emergencies. Special coordinating committees may also be established for the direction of particular purposes or programs, either by the central government or by provincial governments as appropriate.
In addition to the administration of the flood control headquarters at different levels, there are various specialized departments like meteorology, hydrology, telecommunications etc, which provide technical and/or sectoral support during the flood season.
Role and Function of the Flood Control Headquarters. They are:
· Organization of flood control;
· Formation of an annual flood control plan;
· Inspection of the preparatory work before the flood season;
· Monitoring and reporting rainfall, issuing flood forecasts, and flood warning and flood operation information;
· Preparation and distribution of materials needed for flood control;
· Allocation of funds for flood control and repair and restoration of the projects damaged by floods; and
· Coordination of all the activities of related departments.
Reporting and Flood Forecasting. The reporting and flood forecasting system has been developed since 1950 which has ensured the delivery of real time forecasting during the flood season and provision of information for decision makers. The diagram of the system for the key projects, including large reservoirs, storage and detention areas, and levees, is shown in Figure A10.2-2.
Operation of Flood Control Projects. For all the large and medium sized reservoirs, the major tributaries and the main stream, the flood forecasting schemes are made available for real time operation. The operational schemes i.e., the operation plan is prepared each year on the basis of hydrological design of the projects and can be revised if necessary with reference to past experiences and the current status of the projects. The important part of the operational plan is the identification of the flood control level of the reservoir and the rivers during the flood period, which is the basis for operation of the reservoirs, and storage and detention areas.
The operation schemes for the 3-H Basins for extraordinary flood events exceeding the design standard were prepared jointly by the river commissions and the provinces concerned and approved by the State Council (through MWR). The governments at all levels are obliged to operate in accordance with the approved schemes. 268 Annex 10.2: Flood Control
FIGURE A10.2-2: REPORTING, FORECASTING AND OPERATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
National Flood Control in office forecasting Headquarters for checking
Advice Hydrological Network: Flood Control Office of in office forecasting Rain RBCs Gauges, Discharge Exchange and Stations, Flood Control consultation
projects Information reporting Flood Control Headquarters in office forecasting Final decision for operation of Provinces
River Basin Commissions
The seven River Basin Commissions, including the Hai, Huai, and the Huang, operate under the MWR to help coordinate activities in the large interprovincial river basins. Their activities and organization structures differ to some extent but their responsibilities include among other matters:
· formulating development strategies and plans at the basin level in cooperation with government departments and provincial governments;
· monitoring, surveying and evaluating water resources, supervising implementation of development plans, managing water user licenses and protecting water resources in the river basin;
· construction, management and/or supervision of major water engineering projects, particularly those affecting more than one province;
· coordinating and supervising soil and water conservation efforts;
· reviewing project proposals, feasibility studies and preliminary designs submitted by provincial or local governments, and formulating the proposed plan for annual investment by the central government in the basin;
· planning, surveying, designing, research and supervision of important projects on main rivers and tributaries (including watercourses);
· issuing water licenses for diversions from the main stream;
· formulating a flood management plan for the basin, coordinating provincial flood control plans and programs, and guiding the safety and construction work of flood detention areas; and
· submitting proposals to the State Flood Control Headquarters for real time operation of identified key projects on the bases of the agreements and consultation among the concerned provinces.
268 Annex 10.2: Flood Control 269
The River Basin Commissions are effectively the field offices of the MWR, which will normally take the advice of the commissions for action, and in view of the fact that the flood control headquarters are equipped with a very efficient communications system, monitoring, forecasting, and decision-making during the flood period is operational without delay.
For example, the Yellow River Basin Commission takes direct control of works on the strategic levees and other key projects along the lower Yellow River and the Yumankou reach, whereas responsibility for works along the Wei River and on the Yellow River between Sanmenxia and Tongguan (the confluence of the Wei River) is delegated to the provincial governments consistent with plans integrated by the commission. However, it has no legislative authority or control.
Provincial and Local Governments Each province has a water resources bureau, which has a vertical “technical” link to the MWR (although its primary accountability is to the respective provincial government), and takes responsibility for designing and implementing projects delegated to it.
The provincial water resources bureaus can, and often do, initiate project proposals and feasibility studies for flood control and water resources management. These are reviewed by the relevant river basin commissions which then forward those consistent with their basin-wide strategies and funding programs for approval by MWR and the central government.
Project proposals may also originate from local governments at prefecture and county level through their respective water resources bureaus.
Integration
The entire process operates from both a “bottom-up” and “top-down” approach whereby needs are generally identified at a local or provincial level, coordinated at a broader regional planning level, approved for implementation by the central government consistent with national programs and funding priorities, then passed back down to an appropriate level for detailed design and implementation. The arrangements are fine provided the plans and proposals are critically reviewed at the appropriate level. With most project proposals being initiated at the local level, there is a risk that the total program could be little more than a collection of ideas generated by local interests. It is important that the proposed River Basin Councils, through the river basin commissions, take a lead role in reviewing, modifying or adding to the proposals put forward to ensure that expenditure on flood management and control is properly integrated and directed to the national interests. In order to do this the central government (or its agency MWR) must have a clear perception of its priorities in flood control, a national strategy for management of flooding issues and a mechanism or decision support system for deciding which projects best merit its support.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Flood control and flood fighting is organized and operated on the basis of the Water Law, the Law of Flood Control, and the Regulations for Flood Control, which specifies that: the head of government at different levels is responsible for flood fighting within their jurisdiction and should be the officer-in-charge of the headquarters at the same level. 270 Annex 10.2: Flood Control
The 1997 Law of Flood Control was introduced to address the specific nature of causes and remedial measures with respect to flood management. It requires an integrated planning approach with river basin management plans prepared by the river basin commissions, and by provincial and local governments, specifically including urban areas. An important innovation is the mechanism of “planned reserve zones/areas” in which special regulations may be enforced on land use activities. This puts in place a platform for improved floodplain management through nonengineering methods. The law also requires preparation of flood impact assessments for any projects proposed in flood prone areas.
This is a relatively new law that is yet to take full effect. The MWR and the River Basin Commissions are still in the process of formulating regulations and procedures by which to implement the provisions of the law. In the past, flood control in China has strongly emphasized a structural or engineering approach and advantage should now be taken of the opportunities the new law provides for improved floodplain management and a better balance of engineering and nonengineering measures in the future.
An outline from the MWR of the provisions of the Law of Flood Control is as follows:
Chapter 1: General Rules Clause 1: The Law of Flood Control is designed to prevent and control floods; to defend and reduce the calamities of flood and waterlogging; to safeguard the safety of people’s life and property; and to guarantee successful socialist modernization.
Effectively, clause 1 stipulates the purpose of this law. Historically China is a country with many calamities of flood and waterlogging due to the prevailing conditions of climate and geography. In addition, there are dense populations in the middle and downstream districts of the main rivers.
Some statistics state that from 206 BC to 1949 AD, large floods averaged once every two years. Floods in the seven largest rivers were especially frequent. For example, in the Yellow River from 602 BC to 1949 AD floods occurred once every five years; for the Huai River, in the 500 years before 1949 floods averaged once every two years; and in the Hai River from 1368 to 1948, floods also occurred on average once every two years.
Since the foundation of the PRC flood control has become more important because of the development of the economy and increasing population. Considerable manpower, and material and financial resources are put in flood control work. In addition, many laws and rules, such as the Water Law, the rules of Flood Control, the Administrative Rules of Water Resources, and Essential Safety and Construction Guidelines for Flood Storage and Detention Basins have been stipulated to standardize and promote flood control.
However, there have been many problems including:
· The scheme of flood control has not been carried out well. For example, some locals encroach upon lands for flood control facilities.
· There is no effective means to prevent the actions that arbitrarily take up the river course, and there is no effective measure to protect the flood control facilities either. Moreover, silting of rivers and lakes is serious to storages and flood control.
270 Annex 10.2: Flood Control 271
· The standard of flood control is low and many flood control facilities have long been out of repair. Some statistics confirm that in those cities threatened by flood, 70 percent of the flood control projects do not meet the State standard.
· There is no effective administration of the safety and construction of flood storage and detention basins.
· The investment for flood control is deficient. Flood control is public welfare.
· Some enterprises and persons are unwilling to invest in flood control and there is no guarantee of investment from State finance. Consequently the Law of Flood Control was stipulated and become effective on 1 January 1998.
Clause 2: The principles for flood control are overall planning; taking all factors into consideration; giving first place to prevention; comprehensive administration; and partial interests are subordinated to the overall interest.
Essentially flood control should be carried out according to the law and the flood characteristics. Generally there are two ways to prevent the impact of floods—one is to carry out comprehensive measures such as technical, economic and law, and the other is associated with dredging, diversion, storage and detention etc.
Overall planning involves first undertaking an overall survey, research and analysis of the geography, social economy, law, and the characteristic of the flood of some regions and some basins, then drawing a comprehensive and rational dredging scheme taking from a completed flood control system according to the reality of those basins and regions and the State’s related policies. In addition, the ecological environment must also be taken into account.
Taking all factors into consideration means mainstream and tributaries, upstream and downstream, left bank and right bank, partial and overall interests, and general and key point protection into consideration. For example, for project construction site selection must take the safety and rationality of the project into consideration. For dredging, should take the potential impact on upstream, downstream, left bank and right bank, as well as the relationship of each department into consideration, and avoid reducing the function of irrigation, power generation etc.
Giving first place to prevention is the most basic principle for flood control. The focus is to avoid losses caused by floods. Comprehensive administration, that is carrying out multiple measures to dredge, such as preventing soil erosion, conserving water and soil, building dike reservoirs, setting up storage and detention basins etc is essential. Partial interests must be subordinated to the overall interest, that is an inevitable and effective measure. Because, more or less, floods always cause loss of life and property, the key is how to reduce the losses to a minimum. However, in flood control regions, the sacrificed are for sure the districts that loose less in the economy. For these reasons, flood storage, detention basins, and flood diversions are established. For example, the Jing Jiang detention basin is famous. It is set up to safeguard those important cities and industrial bases, main lines of communication of middle and downstream of the Yangtze River. Generally huge manpower and financial resources are put in construction of storage detention basins to prevent and reduce losses caused by flood as far as possible. 272 Annex 10.2: Flood Control
Clause 3: The construction of flood control facilities should be listed in the development plan for society and the national economy. The costs of flood control should be collected according to the principle of combining government investment with rational bearing of beneficiaries.
This clause stipulates the relationship between the construction of flood control facilities and the program of social and national economic development, as well as the principle of bearing the costs of flood control. The development of Chinese society and economy demand excellent flood control facilities. Up to now Chinese water resources construction, especially the construction of flood control facilities, has made considerable progress. For example, in the water resources project for the Three Gorges, its essential function is locking the Yangtze River and preventing floods causing great losses to middle and downstream reaches.
In addition, most water resources facilities were built in 1950s or 1960s and have long been out of repair. For them, it is hard to fight large floods. Those dikes at the middle and downstream of the Yangtze can only control 10 to 20-year floods, and Jing Jiang can only control 10-year floods. These situations should be changed as soon as possible; otherwise they are disadvantageous to socialist modernization.
The middle and downstream reaches of the seven large rivers are densely populated with flourishing economies. The population in these areas accounts for 60 percent of the national total and two-thirds the value of the national industrial and agricultural output. If these rivers flood the casualties and losses will be immeasurable and can cause some rivers to change course as proved in the case of the Huai and Yellow River.
Investment in flood control is a big problem that restricts the development of flood control. As a developing country China has not a very large sum of money to invest to flood control so it is necessary to solve this problem by two ways. One is asking the governments in different levels to give priority to the investment in flood control, and the other is mobilizing social forces to increase the investment in flood control. Meanwhile, according to the principle of “who are the beneficiaries, who will bear the costs”, those regions and units who benefit from flood control should bear some of the costs.
Investment in flood control not only contains usual investment, but also the investment for fighting floods and dealing with the emergencies during the flood season. This is a direct and urgent investment, which the masses are willing to bear. However, after the flood season only a small part of these investments can be compensated. In summary, investment for flood control is not only a State matter but also the duty of citizens.
Clause 4: The development, utilization and protection of water resources should be subordinated to overall arrangements for flood control. The dredging of rivers, lakes and the construction of flood control facilities should be in accordance with the overall scheme of the basins and should combine with overall development of the basins water resources. The overall scheme of this law is the overall scheme for utilization of water resources preventing and controlling floods.
Clause 4 stipulates that the relationship between development, utilization, protection of water and flood control. Dredging of rivers and lakes, the construction of flood control facilities should be in accordance with the overall scheme of the basins. Clause 4 also explains what “overall scheme” means.
In China water resources per capita is 2,300 m3 or more, only a quarter of the world average. China is water deficient and the distribution of its water resources is unbalanced in time and space. In addition, the water pollution and soil erosion situation is gross and aggravated by the deficiency of water
272 Annex 10.2: Flood Control 273
resources. Consequently, when developing, utilizing, and protecting water resources, flood control should be taken into consideration and should be subordinated to the demand for flood control. Flood control is the first priority.
Construction of flood control facilities is the most important aspect of flood control. Implementation of other measure should be in accordance with the overall scheme of the basins and should take into account time and space.
Clause 5: On the basis of basins or regions, flood control puts the system of combining a unified scheme implemented by different levels of management with management of administrative division into practice.
Clause 5 stipulates the basic system of flood control. Practice proves that, in order to effectively control floods, you must adhere to the principle of “storage at upstream, dredge at downstream” to correctly deal with the relationship of upstream and downstream, and the relationship of removing disaster and building water resources projects. From tributaries to main streams, from upstream to downstream, make overall plan of dredging.
Clause 6: It is the duty of every unit and person to protect flood control facilities and to take part in flood control and flood fighting.
Everybody’s life and property will be safe as long as the flood control facilities are firm. Protecting the flood control facilities means protecting the safety of oneself. Taking part in flood fighting has many meanings such as subordinated to the command of flood control organization and, according to the law, to actively fight floods and other guarantee services etc.
Clause 7: Governments at different levels should strengthen unified leadership for flood control, should organize related departments and units, should mobilize social forces, should dredge rivers and lakes in a planned way and depend on science and technology, should adopt measures to reinforce the construction of flood control facilities, and should strengthen and improve their flood control capability.
Clause 7 stipulates the duties of different levels of government in flood control. These are the usual works—flood control and flood fighting during the flood season, and support and help after floods.
Flood control is long-term work and cannot be neglected. During normal periods the governments at different levels should do the prevention work and improve their capability in flood control. During the flood season they should supervise and forecast the weather and hydrologic information, organize communication, power and materials, and ask the public security and transportation departments to carry out traffic control. After flood they should concentrate on food supplies, sanitation and antiepidemic, materials supply, security, renewal of schools and production etc and in the meantime repair damaged facilities.
Clause 8: Under the leadership of State Council, the responsible water administration department of the State Council is in charge of the national organization for coordinating, supervision and guiding of flood control. The basin administrative organization set up by the responsible water administrative department exercises the duties of coordinating and supervision for flood control which is stipulated by law and rules within their jurisdiction. Under the leadership of State Council, the responsible construction administration department and other related departments should be in charge of related flood control work according to their respective duties. Under the leadership of their governments, the responsible water administrative departments at county level and above are in charge of the day-to-day work of organization, coordinating, supervision and guiding for flood control. The responsible local construction 274 Annex 10.2: Flood Control
administration departments and other related departments are in charge of related flood control works under the leadership of their governments according to their respective duties.
Clause 8 stipulates the administrative system for flood control. It is hard for any department to bear complete responsibility. The responsible water administration department of the State Council bears the responsibility of administrating national water resources, courses, reservoirs and lakes, is in charge of national flood control, drought fighting, and conservation of water and soil. Seven River Basin Commissions have been established nationally and are empowered to take the duties and responsibilities of the water administration department at the basin level. (However, as stated previously, they are not yet in the Water Law and have no legislative authority or power.)
THE ROLE OF THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The Corps of Engineers is a major army command with a broad set of missions and capabilities. One of its missions is to provide assistance, within its authorities, when natural disasters or other emergencies occur.
In the United States of America emergency preparedness and response is primarily a state (provincial) and local government responsibility. However, in instances when the nature of the disaster exceeds the capabilities of state and local interests, such as in major floods and droughts, the Corps of Engineers may provide help to save human life, prevent immediate suffering, or mitigate property damage. Essentially, the state and local governments are responsible for emergency preparedness, including training and stockpiling of flood fighting supplies and materials, and the corps supplement their maximum efforts during an emergency.
The corps gives emergency assistance top priority and provides immediate response using every resource and expedited procedure available. Assistance is limited to the preservation of life and protection of residential and commercial developments, to include public and private facilities that provide public services. Exclusive assistance to individual homeowners and businesses, including agricultural businesses or farms, is not authorized. However, during periods of extreme drought, such assistance may be provided to farmers under certain circumstances. Rehabilitation assistance may also be available for eligible flood control structures with public sponsors.
The types of flood response provided by the corps are as follows:
· technical advice;
· assistance in search and rescue missions;
· provision of emergency repairs to levees and other flood control projects; and
· provision of materials such as sandbags, polyethylene sheeting, timber, pumps, or rock for stabilization when the corps is actively participating in a flood fight. If the corps is not actively participating in a flood fight, government supplies may be furnished only if local resources are exhausted or will be exhausted. Under such circumstances, supplies will be replaced in kind or paid for by local interests. All unused stock should be returned or reimbursed to the government at replacement cost.
274 Annex 10.2: Flood Control 275
· Corps assistance terminates when the emergency is over (i.e., when the floodwaters have receded within the top bank or some other predetermined stage).
During droughts, and within specific guidelines, the Corps of Engineers is also authorized to provide emergency assistance to any community confronted with water supply problems associated with drought conditions if there is a substantial threat to the public health and welfare of the inhabitants in the area.
The intent of the program is to provide temporary emergency water assistance to meet minimum public health, safety, and welfare requirements. Evaluations of requests for assistance are tempered by the fact that corps assistance is temporary and supplemental to state and local efforts. Long-term solutions to water supply problems remain the responsibility of the state and local governments.
The types of drought assistance provided by the corps include transportation of water by vehicles, small diameter pipelines or other means for human and livestock consumption, and the construction of wells.
In addition, the corps is also authorized to provide clean water to communities with contaminated water supplies that present a substantial threat to public health and welfare. The contamination may have resulted from deliberate, accidental or natural events, including flooding. Here the types of assistance provided by the corps is:
· provision of water tank trucks to haul water from a safe source to the point established for local distribution;
· procurement and distribution of bottled water;
· temporary connection of a new supply to the existing distribution system;
· installation of temporary filtration systems; and
· provision of mobile military purification units.
The geographically diverse location of Corps of Engineers offices nationwide assures an immediate response to disasters in any area. The corps is divided by drainage basins into regional divisions. The divisions are subdivided by smaller drainage basins into districts. During disasters, personnel in any locality may be quickly mobilized to assist in response and recovery work. Emergency Response Managers have been appointed to each division and district to carry out all emergency actions. Each is responsible for maintaining an emergency organization of trained specialists. Most important however, each district has a single point of contact for all emergency activities.
SUMMARY
The primary responsibility for flood loss prevention in China is properly that of the central government. The provincial, prefecture and county governments rightly are only assigned a subordinate role in policy making and planning functions.
The major advantage of concentrating the control of the management of flood loss prevention activities in the central government is the ability to organize activities in respect of basin boundaries rather than political or administrative boundaries, which in most cases bear no relationship to actual river 276 Annex 10.2: Flood Control
basins. Other advantages include the application of consistent policies throughout the country, uniform technical standards, a better ordering of planning and construction priorities, and streamlined administration. The major disadvantage is the sheer scale and complexity of the flood problem in China, which suggests that control would be more effective with a focus at the basin level. The choice of institutional structure is less important than the requirement to provide a localized, coordinated approach on a comprehensive catchment basis.
However, although the institutional responsibilities are outlined in the Law of Flood Control, the weakness is that there are no complementary enforcement arrangements or detailed rules and regulations. In addition, there are some “connection” problems between local rules and regulations and administrative management systems. Some local rules and regulations do not conform with the State’s.
It is suggested the above discussion confirms that establishment of the proposed River Basin Councils with the respective river basin commissions providing the administrative and technical secretariats, with clear unambiguous flood control responsibilities and authority, and supported by necessary amendments to the Water Law (Chapter V: Flood Control and Flood Fighting) and the Flood Control Law, and regulations, will provide the appropriate solution. The councils would have the essential basin-wide focus, and with a Vice-Premier as chairman, would have the same chairman as the State Flood Control (and Drought Relief) Headquarters to ensure the essential coordinated approach.
It is understood the updated law will confirm the obligation of every citizen and unit and require the people's government at all levels to strengthen their leadership and flood control measures. Specifically, the responsibility for flood control and flood fighting will rest with the flood control headquarters under the government above the county level. Additionally it needs to confirm that the proposed councils will have the responsibility to develop flood control (and drought relief) plans, consistent with the national headquarters office guidelines, involving both structural and nonstructural options, that provide clear responsibilities and accountabilities of the respective provinces which, again, must be supported by regulations.
Simply people that live and work on floodplains need to know about the flood hazard and the actions they can take to reduce property damage and to prevent loss of life by floods. Potential nonstructural components include education and public information, zoning, early warning systems and possible reservoir prerelease, flood-proofing buildings, and emergency preparedness. Potential structural measures include levees, flood control dams, urban detention and retention basins, channelization, floodwalls and sea walls.
It is expected that flood defense plans, and standards and measures for flood control, will be developed by the government above the county level based on river basin plans and follow the principle of ensuring the key (concerns) while taking the general into account.
During flood events the proposed River Basin Councils, through the river basin commissions and under the guidance of the State Flood Control headquarters, would have the legislative responsibility to direct and control the operation and management of the major dams and reservoirs throughout the basins as required to mitigate the effects of the floods.
Finally, and particularly given the scale of the flood problem in China, it is recommended that consideration be given to establishing a division within the People’s Army, along similar lines to the US Army Corps of Engineers, to provide emergency assistance during flood and drought events.
276 Annex 10.3: Demand Management 277
ANNEX 10.3: DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Appropriate pricing of water, both surface and groundwater, for all its urban, industrial, and irrigation uses, is the single most effective demand management mechanism available to assist in overcoming the critical resource problems in the 3-H Basins.
Freshwater availability per capita in the basins is among the lowest in the world but, thanks to many engineering interventions, urban water use per capita for both domestic and industrial use is more than most cities of the world, and irrigation water use per capita is also more than in the majority of countries of the world.
A study in the mid 1980s 12 into cost effective ways of meeting Beijing’s future water requirements without major investments in new sources of supply, found that one-third of industrial water consumption could be saved by the adoption of three measures: more recycling of industrial cooling water, recycling of power plant cooling water, and wastewater recycling. They were all substantially cheaper than the obvious next project to develop supply. In the domestic sector it was found that four techniques could save 15 percent of consumption, and each of them was cheaper than the alternative of augmenting supply. These are: improving conservation in public facilities, programs for the reduction of leakage in reticulation systems, recycling air conditioning cooling water, and installing water-efficient flush toilets.
However, throughout the 3-H Basins water shortages are widespread, many rivers rarely flow, pollution is excessive, groundwater is overexploited, and aquifers are becoming polluted, and conflicts over water quantity and quality are increasing. Irrigation agencies, urban municipalities, and rural townships do not have adequate funds to maintain and improve their systems, and many do not have adequate quantity and quality of water to meet growing demand. The present level of water use is unsustainable.
Much of this is attributable to the fact that water prices have not kept pace with costs (including both direct and indirect costs) and water use has become inefficient and wasteful. With appropriate pricing and other demand management mechanisms, urban and industrial water consumption can be reduced, and allocation and efficiency of irrigation water use improved. However, international experience has shown that simply increasing water prices, or limiting supply to production capacity, has undesirable repercussions. The level of service suffers, supply becomes unreliable, and a high level of subsidy is required.
Charging for water and cost recovery is recognized in the water law and in government policy. In general, the policies set out are consistent with the user pays/polluter pays principles while allowing continuing subsidies for social purposes. In all cases however, subsidies are to be subject to users being responsible for using water efficiently and for protecting the environment.
However, it is only recently that it has started to be put into practice. Prices are increasing rapidly with a view to achieving full cost recovery of urban water supply, to recover costs of new engineering works, and to recover at least the full operation and maintenance costs of existing irrigation schemes. Users are responding. Continuing increases will temper demand, improve efficiency of water use, and restore to some extent the balance between supply and demand. Allocation of water resources will be
12 Hufschmidt et al., 1987. 278 Annex 10.3: Demand Management
improved, but direct cost recovery pricing will not solve all the water resource allocation problems between the regions and between surface and groundwater resources.
There has not yet been any attempt to incorporate opportunity cost into water prices. In the 3-H Basins this will be necessary to achieve a more efficient allocation between upper and lower reaches of river basins, and between the use of surface and groundwater resources. Irrigators in the upper Yellow River pay a minimal amount per cubic meter of water, causing river flows to cease and aggravating pollution, at substantial cost to other water users in the basin.
Domestic and industrial consumers in the 3-H Basins pay a very small proportion of their income on water charges. Domestic consumers pay an average of about 0.3 percent of their income on water charges and industrial consumers pay about 0.2 percent. Studies in China and overseas indicate domestic and industrial consumers are willing to pay about 1 percent of their income on water charges, and they are willing and able to adjust consumption to maintain this expenditure at 1 percent, or less than 1 percent of income. An IWHR study demonstrates that farmers are willing to pay Y 50/mu, and more, for irrigation water, and suggests there is an ability to pay Y 100/mu for irrigation water. In all sectors there is a willingness to pay prices sufficient to meet cost recovery targets, and there is a willingness to adjust consumption to use water more efficiently, given the appropriate price incentives.
For water pricing to be effective in improving efficiency of water use and tempering demand, water needs to be charged on a volumetric basis. Price signals must be clear and undistorted to the user, and all users must be required to pay. Water charges should not be lumped in with other charges, nor should water charges be subsidized by institutes or enterprises. The structure of charges should be simple.
Volumetric water pricing structures vary greatly around the world. There are rising block tariffs, falling block tariffs, there are quota allocations with penalties for excess water use, there are fixed and part volumetric tariffs, there are uniform rates with a set minimum charge, and then there are simple uniform rates per cubic meter used. It is coming to be realized that complex tariff structures, generally designed with welfare and equity objectives in mind, do little to reduce demand, and do little to help the poor. Inequitable situations are common. Water tariffs are not an appropriate vehicle for welfare assistance and are not successful in this role. Around the world therefore, the uniform tariff rate is becoming a more common volumetric tariff structure. It is the simplest, the fairest, and the most effective structure for demand management. A different uniform rate might apply to different categories of consumer, but again, for simplicity and to minimize conflicts and abuse, the number of different categories of user should be kept to a minimum. Where water is short and incomes are low, a simple uniform volumetric rate is best. Where water is plentiful across a whole basin, or where incomes are high, a fixed part and part volumetric tariff may be more appropriate. For the situation in the 3-H Basins, a uniform volumetric tariff rate is the most appropriate.
For domestic and industrial users served by municipal water supply companies and wastewater companies, pricing should be such that full cost recovery is achieved, including an allowance for profit and retained earnings, to enable future capital expansion. In the cities of the 3-H Basins at present this may be of the order of Y 2.0/m3 to Y 2.5/m3. In the townships it may be less because of less sophisticated systems, particularly sewerage and drainage systems. In both cities and townships it must be anticipated that the present level of costs will increase as incomes increase. For surface water irrigation, pricing should be such that at least the full management, operation, and maintenance costs are recovered, and allocations should be regulated and enforced.
278 Annex 10.3: Demand Management 279
Where groundwater is being overexploited, all large users, including municipal water supply companies, should be required to pay an opportunity cost for groundwater used. For water supply companies this is of the order of Y 0.5/m3 at the present time. For industry it is of the order of Y 1.0/m3. Irrigators using groundwater should also be licensed and regulated, and where groundwater is overexploited, pumps should be registered and annual fees paid relative to the capacity of the pumps. Tradable water rights can also play a part in conservation and allocation of water use and their potential use in the 3-H Basins, in time, is considered inevitable.
China is one of only a few countries that has legislated a resource charge (in the water law and its implementing regulations and policies), though many countries levy administrative fees (e.g. to cover the costs of a permit) and pollution charges (on the "polluter pays principle"). The resource charge in China has, however, been linked to resource administration costs rather than to opportunity and externality costs. It is thus regarded more as a cost recovery instrument comparable to a service charge than as an economic incentive mechanism that incorporates opportunity costs into water charges. However, the irrigation sector is normally exempt; groundwater charges from dispersed small wells are difficult to collect; and the level of the resource charge is in general too low to have a significant impact on water use no matter what its objective.
Pollution charges for point sources are similarly linked to the costs of environmental administration although they tend to be greater and have a relatively greater incentive impact. Even so, it is claimed that industries often find it advantageous to dilute wastewater with additional freshwater pumped for this purpose rather than to invest in (expensive) clean production technologies.
Charges for resource use and water discharge could play an important role in promoting sustainable and optimal water use and achieve more efficient allocation between upper and lower reaches of river basins, and a better balance between surface and groundwater use. Two main decisions need to be taken:
· Firstly, the charge should ideally be separated from the costs of resource administration. These costs should in principle be a regular item in the national and/or provincial budget, and should be met out of general revenue. Even if income from the resource and pollution charges continue to accrue to the RBC, or to the provincial water and environmental agencies, their levels should be set independently of any costs of administration.
· Secondly, to the extent acceptable, the levels of the charge should be varied to reflect specific conditions and be increasingly adjusted to reflect scarcity and externality effects associated with the resource concerned (river basin, groundwater management zone etc). In many cases a relatively steep increase in the resource charge may be required if it is to have a real impact.
The relationship between water permits and resource charges should be clarified. In the case of domestic and industrial demands, normal economic principles apply. In the case of irrigation, it has been argued that the sector can use any water that is available. Only if the resource charge was to be increased to levels that made irrigated agriculture at the margin unprofitable would it begin to have a true allocative impact.
However, although the introduction of a resource charge for irrigation may be politically and socially unacceptable to some, the resource situation demands that it be introduced, together with enforcement of water permits, as important mechanisms in reducing water use. But, as an incentive, 280 Annex 10.3: Demand Management
irrigation companies should be able to absorb any water saved as a result of increased irrigation efficiencies by extending the actual irrigated area. Groundwater is a special case. In principle, groundwater withdrawals should be regulated and charged for in a similar manner to surface withdrawals. This is feasible for urban and industrial supply from large wells that normally exploit confined aquifers. But, experience has shown that as long as the resource charge for groundwater is close to zero, the utility or enterprise will utilize pumping capacity to the full rather than buy more expensive surface supplies. It is recommended that a concerted program to enforce permits in line with sustainable development as defined under a groundwater management plan, together with the imposition of a significant groundwater resource charge, be implemented as a matter of urgency. Overexploitation of shallow aquifers for irrigation is more problematic but may have less serious implications. In principle, shallow wells should be regulated and charged for in a comparable manner to deep wells, but in practice regulation of dispersed small wells may be socially and politically difficult, and farmers may resist resource charges. Unsustainable use results in well interference, higher pumping costs, reductions in storage and other adverse externality effects (of which mobilization of arsenic and other minerals may be the most damaging). Nevertheless exploitation of shallow aquifers tends ultimately to be self-regulating as farmers adjust conjunctive use of rainfall, surface supplies and groundwater to whatever combination of resources is available to them. This may not result in a theoretical "optimum" but in practice may be an acceptable compromise. Similar considerations apply in the case of pollution discharge permits. Only if a charge is levied at a rate that begins to affect the commercial viability of excessively polluting processes and/or industries can it be said to have the desired effect. As in the case of irrigation, closure of small paper and other highly polluting enterprises may be unacceptable on short-term employment and income grounds. If so, the approach may need to be gradual and include:
· enforcing discharge permits in line with realistic total pollution loads (e.g. a river reach); · increasing charges and penalties while separating these from the costs of administration; · promoting cleaner technologies wherever affordable, e.g. through special programs and subsidies; and · adopting industrial restructuring and location policies that increasingly support the achievement of realistic ambient water standards. Finally, similar considerations also apply in the case of land use viz., a combination of regulation and charges to promote desirable outcomes (e.g. based on plans for nonpoint source pollution, floodplain management, catchment management etc.). The combination of regulatory powers and charges (or taxes) must be appropriate to the specific purpose and location. They should also complement the provision of physical facilities (e.g. relating to floodplain risk), and be integrated with programs that recognize the legitimate interests of the local population. This is of particular significance in catchment management where experience shows that soil conservation is only sustainable if the inhabitants see it to be in their financial interest. It is also important in such areas as the control of nonpoint pollution from livestock; in conservation of wetlands and other areas of environmental value; and in flood proofing and related programs, notably in detention basins.
280 Annex 10.3: Demand Management 281
As has been demonstrated throughout the study, the need to save water is critical. The scarcity of both surface and groundwater resources in the 3-H Basins is of course well known in MWR and its various provincial departments and the prefecture and county bureaus but, it is suggested the seriousness of the situation, and the necessity to save water, is not understood by the vast majority of the population. In July Vice-Premier and chairman of the State Flood Control and Drought Relief Headquarters Wen Jiabao made a very important statement confirming that preparations must be made for long-term drought relief and that the people must save water to meet long-term needs. The statement confirmed that water saving measures must be taken for industrial and agricultural production, and urban and rural living, through the adoption of new technology and, that the necessity to save water must be “in people’s heads.” The headquarters office sent the statement to the provinces and autonomous regions. The Vice-Premier’s statement is very timely and provides the ideal opportunity to follow it up and initiate an ongoing community education and awareness program emphasizing the grave surface and groundwater resource situation in the 3-H Basins, the necessity to save water, and the means by which this may be achieved. It is suggested targeted programs along similar lines (with Chinese characteristics) to the Australian WaterWise initiative, e.g. WaterWise in the Home, WaterWise on the Farm, etc., may well prove an ideal basis directed to both school children and adults. Incentive measures involving direct interventions, such as rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage infrastructure or canal lining (where economically appropriate) and urban water supply systems through leak detection programs; water recycling; and instituting a regulatory environment that encourages farmers to accept the challenge to operate and manage their own irrigation systems and be financially self-sufficient, are also very important. Expanding the collection, treatment, and reuse of municipal wastewater, particularly around larger urban areas, with suitable monitoring and control to prevent contamination by hazardous wastes, would also assist managing demand. In particular, the new “Filter” technology for productive and sustainable reuse of wastewater for irrigated cropping developed by CSIRO Australia, and currently under trial near Beijing and Tianjin, offers excellent potential. It is also recommended that further consideration be given constructing one or more routes of the South-North transfer scheme as early as possible. Delays will increase the costs associated with lost industrial and agricultural output, the social costs associated with chronic water shortages, and environmental damage from overuse of seriously depleted surface and groundwater resources. The severely depleted resource situation in the 3-H Basins and the overlapping jurisdictions of the various ministries and agencies also demands that any proposal for major new infrastructure development requiring water e.g., a power station, must be brought to the attention of the appropriate, recommended River Basin Council by the planning authority in the first instance for consideration as to the availability of water of appropriate quantity and quality. To summarize, it is suggested that the most effective and appropriate demand management solution is to institute appropriate pricing for all water uses, supported by incentives, water permit/licensing regulations, water use efficiency/savings activities, and ongoing rural and urban community education and extension programs outlining the severely depleted water resource situation and the necessity to save water and, the means by which it may be achieved. In other words, a demand management program that comprises an appropriate mix of pricing, regulatory, educational, promotional, and incentive measures. As a first step it is suggested that adoption of the recommended institutional reform, supported by legislation, will facilitate and expedite implementation of the program. 282 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China
ANNEX 10.4: WATER LAW OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
(Draft 2000 Revision)
CHAPTER I General Provisions
Article 1: This law is formulated for the purposes of rational development, utilization and protection of water resources, control of water disasters, fully deriving the comprehensive benefits of water resources and meeting the needs of national economic development and the livelihood of the people.
Article 2: For the purpose of this law, “water resources” means surface water and groundwater. This law must be observed in developing, utilizing, protecting and managing water resources and in controlling water disasters within the territory of the People’s Republic of China. Provisions for developing, utilizing, protecting and managing seawater shall be stipulated separately.
Article 3: Water resources are owned by the State, that is, owned by the whole people. The State shall protect the legitimate rights and interests of units and individuals engaged in the development and utilization of water resources in accordance with the law.
Article 4: The State shall encourage and support various undertakings to develop and utilize water resources as well as to control water disasters. In developing and utilizing water resources and in controlling water disasters, planning should be performed in a comprehensive and systematic manner with all aspects taken into account and with emphases on multiple purpose uses and achieving maximum benefits so as to allow full play to the multiple functions of water resources.
Article 5: People’s government at various levels shall make out the targets of water resources development, and take them into the national economic development planning and social development planning, increase the input to speed up water works constructions. The State shall encourage and support oversees investors to invest in water resources projects.
Article 6: The State shall protect water resources and adopt effective measures to preserve natural flora, plant trees and grow grass, conserve water sources, control water and soil losses and improve the ecological environment.
Article 7: The State shall emphasize both of water resources development and water saving, and put water saving at the first priority, exercise planned water allocation, practice strict water conservation, and build up the water-saving agriculture, industry and society. People’s government at various levels shall strengthen the management on water conservation, promote the development of water saving activities, enhance publication and education of water saving, spread scientific knowledge on water saving, and improve the whole people’s water saving consciousness. All units and individuals shall fulfill their obligations of water saving.
Article 8: The State shall exercise scientific water controls, encourage and support research, spread and application of advanced scientific technologies. The units and individuals that have made outstanding achievements in developing, utilizing, protecting and managing water resources, in controlling water disasters, in water conservation, and in conducting related scientific and technical research, shall be rewarded by the people’s governments at various levels.
282 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China 283
Article 9: The State shall exercise a system combining basin management and administrative district management on water resources. The department of water administration under the State Council shall be in charge of the unified administration and supervision of water resources throughout the entire country.
The basin management agencies set up by the department of water administration under the State Council for the key rivers and lakes designated by the State (simplified as “basin management agencies” hereinafter) shall execute their responsibilities for water resources management and supervision within their jurisdictions, as authorized by the laws, administrative rules and regulations, as well as by the department of water administration under the State Council.
Local people’s governments at or above the county level shall be in charge of the unified management and supervision of water resources of their corresponding administrative regions within the limits of authorities at various levels.
The State shall pursue the unified management system on urban water affairs in order to implement unified management and supervision to flood control, water sources, water supply, drainage, wastewater treatment and reuse.
Article 10: The basin administration committees are set up by the State consisting members of relative departments under the State Council, concerned provincial governments and the leaders of basin management agencies, to be responsible to coordination of key issues on basin control and development, supervision of water resources management within the basin, and to exercise other functions and powers authorized by the State Council. The administrative body of such basin administration committee is set up under the corresponding basin management agencies.
CHAPTER II Development and Utilization
Article 11: Hydrology is the basis of water resources development, utilization, protection and management, as well as flood and drought control and resistance. The State shall enhance the construction, management and protection of hydrological facilities.
Article 12: For the development and utilization of water resources, comprehensive scientific investigation, survey and assessment must be undertaken. Comprehensive scientific investigation, survey, and assessment of water resources throughout the entire country shall be performed by the department of water administration under the State Council with association of other departments concerned.
Article 13: In the development and utilization of water resources, as well as in controlling water disasters, overall planning shall be undertaken with river basin or region as basic units. Plans are classified into comprehensive plans and specialty plans.
Comprehensive plans for the basins of major rivers so designated by the State and the training plans for the international boundary rivers shall be formulated by the department of water administration under the State Council in conjunction with relevant departments and relevant people’s governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, directly under the central government. These plans shall be submitted to the State Council for approval. Comprehensive plans for the rivers and lakes across different provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government shall be proposed by the concerned basin management agencies in conjunction with the water administration departments of people’s governments of the relevant provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government where the rivers and lakes locate. These proposed plans shall be submitted to the State Council or it’s authorized departments for approval upon the revision and 284 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China
comments by the people’s governments of relevant provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government. The comprehensive plans for basins of other rivers or for regions shall be formulated by the water administration department of local people’s governments at or above the county level, in conjunction with relevant departments and relevant regions. These plans shall be submitted to the people’s government at the corresponding level or its authorized departments for approval and to the water administrative department at the next higher level for record. Comprehensive plans shall be in coordination with the National Land Plan and consider the demands of various regions and various sectors.
Specialty plans for sectors of waterlogging, irrigation, water and soil conservancy, water saving, navigation, urban and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power generation, bamboo and log rafting, fishery, hydrologic survey and water resources monitoring, and investigation and assessment etc, shall be formulated by respectively concerned competent departments of the people’s governments at or above the county level. These plans shall be submitted to the people’s government at the corresponding level or approval. The plans for flood control shall be formulated and approved as per the stipulation of the Law of Flood Control.
Regional plans shall obey the basin plans, specialty plans shall obey the comprehensive plans.
The approved plans serve as the bases for the development and utilization of water resources as well as for the control of water disasters. Any modification on an approved plan must be reviewed and approved by the organ that originally approved the plan.
Article 14: The formulation of national economic plans, social development plans and urban development plans, as well as the distribution of key construction items, shall be in compliance with the local flood control conditions and water resources conditions, and special justification shall be done correspondingly.
Article 15: No unit nor individual, while diverting, storing or draining water, shall infringe upon public interests and lawful rights and interests of others.
Article 16: The development and utilization of water resources shall conform to the overall arrangement for flood control, follow the policy of deriving benefits while mitigating damages, and take into account the interests of both upstream and downstream, both left and right bank as well as all involved regions, so as to fully realize the comprehensive benefits of water resources.
Article 17: In the development and utilization of water resources, the domestic water demands of urban and rural inhabitants shall be satisfied first, while agricultural and industrial water demands, ecological environment water needs as well as navigation requirements shall also be considered and taken care of. In areas with weak ecological and environmental conditions, special attention shall be given to the water demands of environmental and ecological system.
Article 18: All areas shall develop their irrigation, drainage and water and soil conservancies based on the local water and land resources conditions to promote stable and high agricultural yield.
The State shall support and develop water saving irrigation and improve irrigation water use efficiency. In areas deficient of water sources, the State shall encourage the collection and utilization of rainfall.
In areas prone to salinization-alkalization and waterlogging, measures shall be taken to control and lower groundwater tables.
284 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China 285
Article 19: The State shall encourage the development and utilization of hydropower potential. On rivers rich in hydropower potential, multiple-purpose cascade development shall be practiced.
In the development of hydropower stations the ecological environment shall be protected, and the requirements of flood control, water supply, irrigation, navigation, bamboo and log rafting, fishery etc., shall be taken into account.
Article 20: The State shall safeguard and encourage the development of navigation potential. When building permanent dams and sluice gate structures on navigable or bamboo and log rafting streams, the construction unit must simultaneously build facilities for ship or log passage or, after being approved by departments authorized by the State Council, take other remedial measures and also make adequate arrangements for navigation and bamboo and log rafting during the construction period and the initial filling period, and bear the expenses thereby incurred.
In case a nonnavigable stream or manmade waterway becomes navigable after a dam or sluice gate structure is built, the construction unit shall simultaneously build ship-passage facilities or reserve sites for such facilities, and the expenses needed thereby incurred shall be borne by the communication departments concerned, unless there are other State-provisions applicable.
For any existing dam or sluice gate structure that hinders navigation, the corresponding construction unit shall be ordered by the people’s government at or above the county level to take remedial measures within a stipulated time limit.
Article 21: When there is serious impact on fishery resources due to the building of a dam or sluice gate structure on migration route of fish, shrimp or crab, the construction unit of the dam or sluice gate structure shall build fish passage facilities or take remedial measures.
Article 22: Building of dam, sluice gate, bridge, wharf and other structures blocking, crossing or bordering a river channel, and laying pipelines or cables across a river, must comply with State-specified standards for flood control and navigation as well as other related technical requirements. According to the stipulation of Law of Flood Control, the works construction programs of such activities shall be submitted to relative water administration department and subject to the revision and agreement.
When existing structures or facilities require extension, modification and removal, or suffer damage because of the building of the structures or facilities listed in the foregoing clause, the construction unit of the subsequent projects shall bear the expenses for the extension and modification as well as the expenses for the compensation of losses, except when the existing structures or facilities violate relevant regulations.
Article 23: When building a water project or other construction project occupying any water supply source or engineering facilities for irrigation, or having adverse impacts on any existing source of water supply, or the flow in navigation waterway, the construction unit of the project shall take remedial measures or otherwise pay compensation.
Article 24: For any interbasin diversion project, integrated planning and scientific justification must be undertaken, water demands of both the export and import basins must be considered, and adverse impacts on the ecological environment must be averted.
Article 25: For all water projects, capital construction procedures stipulated by the State and other relevant provisions must be observed. When the feasibility study report is submitted for approval, an 286 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China
agreement issued by the competent water administration department which shows such construction complying with the basin comprehensive plan shall be attached. In case the interests of other regions and other sectors are involved, the construction unit of the project must first consult with the regions and departments concerned, and report, in accordance with regulations, to the people’s government at higher level or the relevant competent department for approval.
Article 26: A policy of development resettlement shall be undertaken by the State that is to supply compensation and subsidies at initial resettlement stage and supports at later stage to the resettlers of a water project, protect the resettlers’ legitimate rights and interests, and properly arrange the resettlers’ livelihood and production.
When there is a need for relocation of inhabitants for a water project, the project construction unit shall make out the resettlement plan based on the local conditions and environmental affordability complied with the principle of sustainable development. This resettlement plan shall be submitted to the competent administration department for revision and approval, and the local people’s government shall be responsible to organize the implementation of such plan to properly arrange the livelihood and production of resettlers. The funds needed for the resettlement shall be included in the investment plan of the project, and the resettlement work shall be completed within the construction stage according to schedule.
CHAPTER III Protection of Water, Water Bodies and Water Projects
Article 27: In any river, lake, reservoir, and canal, the following activities are prohibited: discarding or piling objects impedimental to flood passage and navigation; planting trees and growing crops of long stalk variety impedimental to flood passage.
In any navigation channel the following activities are prohibited: abandoning sunken vessels, laying fishing implements impedimental to navigation, and cultivating aquatic plants. Building structures within river channel or on river beaches is prohibited without approval from the competent water administration department.
Article 28: When exploring for sand and gravel or placer gold within river course administrative scope, it must be submitted to the competent water administration authority for approval and get permission for mining within river course. The mining activities shall be undertaken at the time, with the scope and by the working measures as approved, and shall not infringe the dikes, bank revetments, and facilities for hydrological survey and forecast and telecommunication under water; when navigation channel is involved in such mining activities, the water administration department in conjunction with the competent navigation canal administration department shall make the approval.
In the river sections where the mining of sand and gravel or placer gold brings serious impact to the stability of river flows or endangers safety of the dikes, the water administration department of people’s government at or above county level can specify the exploration forbidden area and period and make them publicized. When navigation channel is involved, such exploration forbidden area or period shall be specified by water administration department and the competent navigation canal administration department together.
Article 29: In the water resources protection planning, water areas with various functions shall be specified and bordered, and the relative water quality standards of which shall be designated accordingly.
The basin management agency and the competent water administration department of people’s government at or above county level, in conjunction with concerned departments, shall define the
286 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China 287
pollutants adoption capacity of the water area, submit to the people’s government at same level the proposal on limitation of total pollutants discharge amount into the water area, and take it into implementation upon the approval. The plan of water pollution prevention and control shall be made out based on such approved proposal on limitation of total pollutants discharge amount into the water area.
Article 30: Any units or individuals that discharge pollutants into water areas such as river course, lake, canal, reservoir and so on, shall, before their registration in the competent environmental protection department, get revision and agreement by water administration department with the jurisdiction or by the basin management agency.
Article 31: The State shall set up system of safeguard zone for drinking water sources to prevent water source depletion and water pollution and ensure the safe drinking water to urban and rural inhabitants.
Urban people’s government shall strengthen the centralized wastewater treatment and its reuse.
In the area of lake and reservoir where water flow converging together, the people’s government at or above county level shall prohibit or limit the use of chemical fertilizer, pesticide, detergent with phosphate and etc. which could cause rich nutrients in the water body of such lake and reservoir.
Article 32: The water administration department of people’s governments at various levels, basin management agency and other concerned departments shall, when they make out water development and utilization plans and distribute water resources, maintain reasonable flow amount of rivers and reservoirs and reasonable level of groundwater, keep the natural purification capability of water body and protect the ecological environment system.
Compensation fees for water resources protection and ecological environment restoration shall be levied from the units and individuals that develop and utilize water resources not complying with comprehensive plan or specialty plan, and, such development and utilization or other activities bring adverse impacts damaging water functions of rivers and lakes, cause groundwater depletion and land subsidence, or result heavy water pollution due to serious pollution accidence.
The method of levy and collection of such compensation fees for water resources protection and ecological environment restoration shall be defined by people’s government at provincial level.
Article 33: When drawing groundwater, unified planning must be conducted based upon the findings from survey and assessment of water resources, supervision and management shall be strengthened. In areas where groundwater has already been overdrawn, strict control on drawing shall be imposed and effective measures shall be taken to protect groundwater resources and control land subsidence. When drawing groundwater in coastal area, scientific justification shall be conducted and practical measures shall be taken in order to prevent seawater intrusion.
Article 34: In mining operations or the construction of underground projects, when water drainage results in lowering of the groundwater table, groundwater depletion, ground subsidence or cave-ins, and causes losses to the livelihood and production of other units or individuals, the mining unit or the construction unit shall take remedial measures and compensate for the losses.
Article 35: Reclaiming parts of lakes for farmland is prohibited. In case that such reclamation has been done already, training works shall be conducted as per the flood control standards specified by the State to return the occupied area to lakes in a planned way. Reclaiming river beaches for farmland is also prohibited. In case of definite necessity, scientific justification is mandatory and must be approved by the 288 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China
people’s government at or above the province level upon the agreement by the competent water administration department.
Article 36: The State shall protect water projects and related facilities such as dikes, bank revetments etc., as well as flood prevention facilities, hydrologic monitoring facilities, hydrogeographic monitoring facilities, navigation aids, and navigation facilities. No unit or individual shall encroach upon or damage these facilities.
Article 37: For each State-owned water project, a management and safeguard zone shall be defined based upon the approved design and in accordance with State provisions by the people’s governments at or above the county level.
For the other water projects, a safeguard zone shall be defined in accordance with stipulations made by the people’s government of the corresponding province, autonomous region, municipality directly under the central government.
Within the safeguard zone of a water project, activities such as blasting, well sinking, rock quarrying, earth borrowing etc., which endanger the safety of the water project, are prohibited.
CHAPTER IV Management of Water Use
Article 38: The long-term plan on water demand and supply of the entire country and those of districts covering different provinces or autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government shall be formulated by the department of water administration under the State Council in cooperation with other relevant departments and shall be submitted to the competent planning department under the State Council for approval. Local long-term plans on water demand and supply shall be formulated, based upon the long-term plan on water demand and supply formulated by the competent department of the people’s government at the next higher level and upon actual local conditions, by the water administrative department of the local people’s government at or above the county level in cooperation with other relevant department, and shall be submitted to the competent planning department of the people’s government at the corresponding level for approval.
The long-term plan on water demand and supply shall be formulated based on the present status of water demand and supply, planning of national economic development and social development and planning of river basins, and, in accordance with the principles of coordinating and balancing water resources demand and supply, protecting ecological environment, practicing strict water saving and reasonably developing new sources.
Article 39: In runoff regulation and water allocation, water demand from both upstream and downstream as well as from both sides of the river, requirements from navigation bamboo and log rafting, fishery and ecological environment protection, shall be taken into account.
Water allocation program covering different administrative divisions shall be formulated by the water administrative department of the people’s government at the next higher level after consulting with the concerned local people’s government, and shall be submitted to and approved by the people’s government at corresponding level. Water allocation program covering different provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under central government as well as the standby program of water allocation under drought emergency shall be formulated by the basin management agency, and shall be submitted to and approved by the State Council or the competent departments authorized by the State Council. The
288 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China 289
approved water allocation program and the standby program under drought emergency must be implemented by the concerned local people’s governments.
The competent water administration department of local people’s government above county level or the basin management agency shall, as per the approved water allocation program and standby program under drought emergency, make out water allocation plan to exercise unified water distribution, supervision and management that must be abided by the concerned local people’s governments.
Article 40: For drawing water directly from ground aquifers, rivers, or lakes, the State shall exercise a water-drawing permit system. Those get water-drawing permit in accordance with legal provisions have the right to use water resources. Such right of water resources use can be transferred in accordance with legal provisions upon the approval by the organ, which originally approved such permit
For drawing water for household use and for livestock and poultry drinking, and also for other small quantity water drawing, it is not necessary to apply for water-drawing permit. The water administration department under the State Council shall be in charge of the organization and implementation of the water-drawing permit system.
The implementation measures for the water-drawing permit system shall be stipulated by the State Council.
Article 41: For new projects, extension projects and modification projects, in case it is necessary to apply for a water-drawing permit, the construction unit shall attach the written comments of the organ in charge of water-drawing permit applications to the feasibility study report while submitting it.
Article 42: Those who use water provided by water supply project, shall pay water charge to the supplying unit in accordance with stipulations. Water price shall be defined as per the principles of cost recovery, reasonable profit, and good price for good quality and fair shares. The system of accumulative pricing shall be conducted to the water use over than the planed amount.
Methods of water price management shall be defined by the competent price administration department of people’s government above provincial level in cooperation with the competent water administration department at the same level.
Article 43: For water drawing directly from ground aquifers, rivers, or lakes by units and individuals, the competent water administration department of people’s government above county level shall levy water resources fees to such units and individuals.
The standard of such water resources fees shall be defined as per the value and deficient level of water resources. Measures for collecting water resources fees shall be formulated by people’s government at provincial level.
Article 44: Water resources fees shall be incorporated into financial budget and with specialty management. It shall be mainly used for survey and assessment, monitoring, management, saving and protection of water resources.
Water resources fees shall be shared by central government and local governments as per proportions. The detailed measures of sharing as well as the use and management of the portion shared by the central government shall be jointly formulated by the competent finance administration department and water 290 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China
administration department under the State Council. The measures of use and management of the portion shared by local governments shall be defined by the people’s government at provincial level.
Article 45: The State shall exercise a system of total amount control in conjunctive with quota management to manage water use. The competent water administration department of provincial people’s government in cooperation with the competent department of technical supervision administration at the same level shall make out the comprehensive water use quotas for various sectors in the local region, and submit the quotas to water administration department and competent department of technical supervision administration under the State Council for record. Measures to make out water use quotas shall be with advanced technology, in economical and reasonable ways, and improved from time to time.
People’s government above county level shall make out the plans of water saving and annual water use as per the water use quotas, local technical and economic condition and water resources status, and, exercise the total amount control for the annual water use within the corresponding administrative region.
Article 46: For new-built construction project, extension project and improvement project, a proposal for water saving measures and facilities must be attached to the water drawing permit application submitting to the competent water administration department or basin management agency. Facilities for water saving must be designed, constructed and put into operation simultaneously with those for main works.
Water supply enterprises and the units that build up their own water supply facilities shall enhance maintenance of water facilities to reduce water losses.
Article 47: All water users shall install metering facilities and use water as planned. Water used shall be charged as per the used amount. Contracting a fixed water charge is prohibited.
Article 48: Advanced technologies and procedures shall be used during industrial water use in order to increase the recycling use of water. The State shall exercise the system to eliminate the technologies, products, equipment and household utensils which are out of date and with high water consumption. The competent department for economical comprehensive administration under the State Council in cooperation with the water administration department and other concerned departments under the State Council shall publicize the name list of the technologies, products, equipment and household utensils prohibited to be used, produced and sold after a limited period due to their high water consumption feature. The producer, seller or user must stop adapting, producing, selling or using such technologies, products, equipment and household utensils included in the name list specified in the above.
Article 49: Water administration department of people’s government above county level shall set up the system of water resources statistics, establish and improve water resources information system and publicize regular water resources bulletin.
Article 50: Water dispute arising between districts shall be handled through consultation in adherence with the spirit of mutual understanding and mutual accommodation as well as the spirit of solidarity and cooperation. When consultation in unsuccessful, the dispute shall be adjudicated by the people’s government at the next higher level, and such adjudication must be abided by and implemented by concerned parties. Pending a settlement of the dispute, neither party shall build any project to drain, block, divert, or store water within a certain zone on both sides of the common boundary defined by the State and neither party shall alter the existing water regime one-sidedly, unless an agreement is reached between the parties or an approval is granted by the people’s government at the next higher level.
290 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China 291
Article 51: Water dispute arising between units, between individuals, or between units and individuals, shall be resolved through consultation or mediation. In case that one party is unwilling to have the dispute resolved through consultation or mediation, or if consultation or mediation is unsuccessful, the parties involved may request that the dispute be handled by the people’s government at or above the county level or by the competent department authorized by the concerned government and may also directly initiate legal action in a people’s court. When any of the parties involved refuses to accept the decision made by the concerned people’s government or the competent department authorized by the concerned government, the party may initiate legal action in a people’s court within fifteen days of the day on which notification is received.
Pending the resolution of the water dispute, no party shall alter the existing water regime one-sidedly.
Article 52: When handling a water dispute, the people’s government at or above the county level or the competent department authorized by the concerned government, has the power to take temporary measures which the parties involved in the dispute must obey.
CHAPTER V Flood Control and Flood Fighting
Article 53: People’s governments at all levels shall strengthen their leadership and take effective measures for flood control and flood fighting. Every unit and individual has an obligation to work for flood control and flood fighting.
Article 54: Flood control and flood fighting work shall be put under the unified direction of the flood control headquarters under the people’s governments above the county level.
During a flood emergency, the flood control headquarters have the power to requisition within their jurisdictions materials, equipment and manpower for use in urgent need, and these requisitioned resources shall be returned afterwards without delay or, properly compensated.
Article 55: Flood defense plans shall be formulated, and standards and measures for flood control shall be determined by the people’s governments at or above the county level, based upon river basin plans and following the principle of ensuring the key concerns while taking the general into account. Flood defense plans for major rivers of the entire country shall be formulated by the National Flood Control Headquarters and submitted to the State Council for approval.
After the flood defense plan has been approved or formulated, the concerned local people’s governments must implement it.
Article 56: In management and safeguard scope of rivers, lakes, reservoirs, flood detention basins and flood storage basins, all utilization of land and construction activities must meet flood control requirements.
The State Council and relevant local people’s government shall enhance the safety constructions of flood storage or detention basins. For those residents living in floodways (including beach area) or the flood storage and detention basins prone to adopt flood diversion frequently and without adequate safety assurance facilities, local people’s government shall organize them to move out and resettle in new-built townships in a planned way, based upon the planning approved by the State Council for removing polders for flood discharge, returning farmland to lakes and building up townships for resettlers. 292 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China
Article 57: In regard to flood water or excess water discharged according to the natural flow trend or according to the design standards of flood control project, or according to the approved operation plan, the downstream shall neither hinder the flow by blocking the water nor reduce the carrying capacity of the river, and the upstream shall not increase the discharge without authorization.
Article 58: During a flood emergency, flood control headquarters at different levels may, within their jurisdiction, take measures in the diversion and detention of floods based upon the approved plan concerning these measures. When these measures are detrimental to adjoining districts, the adoption of these measures must be reported to the flood control headquarters at the next higher level for approval, and the concerned districts shall be notified in advance.
The State Council and the people’s governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government shall respectively formulate special management measures regarding the safety, evacuation, livelihood, production, rehabilitation, compensation for losses, etc, for the inhabitants in the flood detention basin and the flood storage basin within their jurisdiction.
CHAPTER VI Supervision and Inspection
Article 59: The water administrative departments of the people’s governments at or above the county level and the basin management agencies shall supervise and inspect the acts in violation of laws, rules and regulations relative to water affairs.
The people’s governments at or above the county level shall set up and improve the system of water affairs supervision and enforcement of laws relative to water affairs in order to inspect and make punishment in accordance with legal provisions to units and individuals whose acts violating water affairs laws.
Water affairs supervisor shall be familiar to the laws, rules and regulations relative to water affairs, faithful in the discharge of his duties, and enforce the law impartially.
Article 60: When the water administrative departments of the people’s governments at or above the county level and the basin management agencies as well as the water affairs supervisors execute their supervision and inspection duties, they shall have the power to take the following measures:
· Requiring the units and individuals receiving the inspection to supply the relative documents, certificates and/or licenses, and materials;
· Requiring the units and individuals receiving the inspection to give explanation on the problems relative to execution of laws, rules and regulations for water affairs;
· Entering into the production sites of the units and individuals receiving the inspection to take survey activities and so on;
· Ordering the units and individuals receiving the inspection to stop their acts in violation of laws, rules and regulations for water affairs, and fulfill their relative obligations stipulated by laws.
Article 61: When the water affairs supervisors from water administrative departments of the people’s governments at or above the county level or from the basin management agencies implement supervision and inspection to the acts breaking laws, rules and regulations for water affairs, the involved units and individuals shall supply their supports and cooperation and convenient conditions for such supervision
292 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China 293
and inspection. They shall not refuse or impede the water affairs supervisors to execute their duties in accordance with provisions of laws.
Article 62: When the water affairs supervisors execute their supervision and inspection duties, they shall show the units and individuals receiving supervision and inspection their papers for water affairs supervision and inspection which are made under the unified supervision of the water administrative department under the State Council, and follow up the due procedure of law enforcement.
Article 63: When the water administrative department of the people’s government at or above the county level and the basin management agency as well as their water affairs supervisor find any illegal acts during the supervision and inspection, shall give administrative punishment or take administrative measures in accordance with legal provisions. The concerned responsible persons may be suggest to be given administrative punishment by the units they belong to or by the above authorities. In case a crime has been committed, the case shall be transferred to relevant authorities for criminal responsibilities investigation in accordance with legal provisions.
Article 64: When the water administrative departments of local people’s governments at or above the county level and the basin management agencies execute their supervision and inspection duties, shall accept supervision of the people’s governments at the same level and the water administrative departments at above levels. When the people’s governments at the corresponding levels or the water administrative departments at above levels find any illegal acts or dereliction of duties undertaken by the water administrative departments at the same level, or at lower levels during the supervision and inspection activities, they shall be granted the power to order them to make corrections accordingly.
CHAPTER VII Legal Liability
Article 65: Whoever draws, intercepts, blocks or discharges water in violation of this law and thereby causes impediments or losses to others shall stop the infringements, remove the impediments and compensate for the losses incurred.
Article 66: Whoever constructs water project in violation of this law and without planning agreement issued by the competent water administration department or basin management agency shall be ordered by the water administrative departments at or above the county level or basin management agency, to stop the illegal acts, make up the application procedure for planning agreement, and may be concurrently fined with amount below Y 100,000. Whoever violates the specifications of the planning agreement during construction of water project, shall be ordered to correct their acts within a stipulated time limit, and maybe concurrently fined with amount below Y 100,000.
Article 67: Whoever commits any of the following acts in violation of this law shall be ordered by the water administrative departments at or above the county level, to stop the illegal acts, clear away the obstacles or to take other remedial measures within a stipulated time limit, and may be concurrently fined with amount below Y 50,000. The persons who are responsible may be subjected to administrative punishments made by the unit they belong to or by higher competent authorities.
· In any river, lake, reservoir and canal: discarding or pilling objects impedimental to flood passage and navigation, or planting trees and growing crops of long stalk variety impedimental to flood passage, and in any navigation channel; abandoning sunken vessels, laying fishing implements impedimental to navigation, and cultivating aquatic plants. 294 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China
· Building structures within river channel or on river beaches without approval;
· Reclaiming parts and lakes or river beaches for farmland in violation of the provisions of Article 35 of this law.
Article 68: Whoever violates this law to explore sand and gravel and placer gold within river course administration scope without approval or not in compliance with the approved time, scope and exploration manners, shall be ordered to stop the illegal acts, confiscated all illegal incomes and properties, and fined with amount below 10 times of the illegal incomes by the local people’s government at or above the county level or basin management agency, and the mining permit may be revoked. Those who damages dikes and bank revetments, or seriously endangers the stability of river flow and security of dikes, and, merits public security administrative punishment, the punishment shall be given in accordance with the Regulations on Administrative Penalties for Public Security; in case a crime is committed, criminal responsibilities shall be investigated in accordance with legal provisions.
Article 69: Whoever commits any of the following acts in violation of this law shall be ordered by the water administrative departments of the local people’s government at or above the county level or the basin management agencies to stop the illegal acts, take remedial measures in a time limit and may be concurrently fined with amount below Y 100,000. The persons who are responsible may be subjected to administrative punishments made by the unit they belong to or by higher authorities.
· Violation the provisions of Article 30 of this law discharging pollutants to water area before revision and agreement;
· Violation the provisions of Article 48 using the technologies, products, equipment and utensils prohibited by the State;
· Violation the provisions of Article 51 changing water present status one-sidedly before settlement of water disputes.
Article 70: Whoever commits any of the following acts in violation of this law shall be ordered by the water administrative departments of people’s government at or above the county level or the basin management agencies to stop the illegal acts, take remedial measures in a time limit, be fined with amount below Y 100,000, and may be revoked the water withdraw permit and confiscated the illegal incomes.
· Withdrawal water without approval;
· Withdrawal water not in compliance with the requirements stipulated in the approved water withdrawal permit;
· Transference water withdrawal permit without approval.
Article 71: Whoever violates provisions of this Law to refuse or delay the payment of water resources fees or pay inadequate amount, shall be ordered by the water administrative departments of people’s government at or above county level to pay such water resources fees in a time limit. In case of failed payment after the time limit, shall be punished with an overdue fine since the date of payment delaying with amount of 2 percent of delayed payment per day, and fined with amount below 5 times of due payment or supplement payment of water resources fees.
294 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China 295
Article 72: Whoever violates provisions of this Law to put the constructed project into operation before the completion of water saving facilities or the completed water saving facilities not meeting the requirements stipulated by the State, shall be ordered by the water administrative departments of people’s governments at or above the county level to stop the operation of the project, take correction measures, and may be fined with amount below Y 100,000.
Article 73: Whoever commits any of the following acts in violation of this law shall be ordered by the water administrative departments of people’s governments at or above the county level or the basin management agencies to take improvement measures within a time limit; in case not meeting the requirements upon the end of time limit, may be reduced the water use amount, and, fined with amount below Y 50,000.
· Not installation of metering facilities;
· Water use exceeding the planned amount.
Article 74: Whoever commits any of the following acts in violation of this law shall be ordered by the water administrative departments or relative competent departments of people’s governments at or above county level or the basin management agencies to stop the illegal acts, take remedial measures and may be fined with amount above Y 10,000 and below Y 100,000. The persons who are responsible may be subjected to administrative punishments made by the unit they belong to or by higher authorities. In case when a crime is committed, it shall be investigated for criminal responsibilities in accordance with the Criminal Law.
· Violation relative regulations such as that for infrastructure construction procedure stipulated by the State constructing water projects or training river courses or navigation passages without authorization;
· Violation the provisions of Article 57 of this Law in the absence of authorization, increasing discharge of flood or drainage of excess water to downstream, or impeding discharge of flood or drainage of excess water from upstream.
Article 75: Whoever commits any of the following acts in violation of this law shall be ordered by the water administrative departments of the local people’s governments at or above the county level or the basin management agencies to stop the illegal acts, compensate for the losses incurred, take remedial measures, be revoked the illegal incomes, and may be concurrently fined with amount below Y 50,000. In case when public security administrative punishment is merited, the punishment shall be given in accordance with the Regulations on Administrative Penalties for Public Security. In case when a crime has been committed, it shall be investigated for criminal responsibilities in accordance with the Criminal Law.
· Damaging, occupying or destroying water projects and related facilities such as dikes, bank revetments etc., damaging or destroying flood prevention facilities, hydrologic monitoring facilities, hydrogeologic monitoring facilities, navigation aids and navigation facilities.
· Conducting acts endangering the safety of water projects, such as blasting, well sinking, rock quarrying, earth borrowing etc., within their safeguard zone. 296 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China
Article 76: Whoever commits any of the following acts in violation of this law, and in case public security administrative punishment is merited, the punishment shall be given in accordance with the Regulations on Administrative Penalties for Public Security. In case when a crime has been committed, it shall be investigated for criminal responsibilities in accordance with the legal provisions.
· Stirring up troubles among masses, banding together for fighting, seizing or damaging collective or private properties, illegally limiting others’ personal freedom;
· Violation provisions of Article 52 of this Law refusing to abide by the handling decisions made by people’s governments at or above the county level or the competent departments authorized by the corresponding people’s governments.
Article 77: In case of any of the following acts in violation of the Articles 39 and 50 of this Law, the persons concerned and the main leaders shall be investigated for their responsibilities in accordance with legal provisions. The concerned responsible persons shall be given the administrative punishments by the unit they belong to or the above authorities. In case public security administrative punishment is merited, the punishment shall be given in accordance with the Regulations on Administrative Penalties for Public Security. In case when a crime has been committed, it shall be investigated for criminal responsibilities in accordance with the legal provisions.
· Refusing to implement water allocation plan and water distribution plan;
· Refusing to obey the unified water amount distribution;
· Refusing to implement the adjudication made by the people’s government at the next above level, or provoking incidents on purpose that caused heavy losses;
· Changing the present water status one-sidedly before agreement reached by concerned parties or approval made by the people’s government at the next above level.
Article 78: Whoever impedes or threatens the working staffs of the competent water administrative departments and the basin management agencies, or water affairs supervisors, to perform their official duties, in case a crime has been committed, shall be investigated for their criminal responsibilities in accordance with legal provisions; in case a crime has not been committed but public security administrative punishment is merited, shall be given a punishment by public security authorities in accordance with the Regulations of Administrative Penalties for Public Securities.
Article 79: If the party involved does not accept the decision on administrative punishment, a request for reconsideration may be submitted within fifteen days of the day on which notification of the punishment is received to the corresponding authority at the next higher level of the authority that made the decision of the punishment. If the party does not accept the decision made after such reconsideration, a suit maybe filed in people’s court within fifteen days of the day on which the decision of reconsideration is made. The party may also directly file a suit in a people’s court within fifteen days of the day on which notification of punishment is received. If the said party neither files a request for reconsideration, nor files a suit in a people’s court, nor complies with the punishment within the time limit, the authority that made the decision of punishment shall apply to the people’s court for compulsory execution. If the said party does not accept the public security administrative punishment the case shall be handled according to the Regulations on Administrative Penalties for Public Security.
296 Annex 10.4: Water Law of the People’s Republic of China 297
Articles 80: Whoever steals or forcibly seizes the supplies for flood prevention, farmland irrigation, hydrological monitoring and survey, or materials and equipment for water projects, and whoever embezzles or misappropriates State funds and supplies allocated for disaster relief, emergency fighting, flood prevention and relocation settlement, shall be investigated for criminal responsibilities in accordance with Criminal Law.
Article 81: Any functionary of a water administrative department or other competent department and water project management unit, who neglects his duty, abuses his power, plays favoritism, and commits irregularities, shall be given administrative punishment by the unit he belongs to or by higher authorities. Whoever causes heavy losses to public properties or to interests of the State and people shall be investigated for criminal responsibilities in accordance with the Criminal Law.
CHAPTER VIII Supplementary Provisions
Article 82: Where an international treaty or agreement which is relevant to international and border rivers or lakes, and to which the People’s Republic of China is party or a signatory, has provided differently from the law of the People’s Republic of China, the provisions of the international treaty or agreement shall prevail, with the exception of those clauses on which the People’s Republic of China has declared reservation.
Article 83: The standing committees of the people’s congresses of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government may, in accordance with this law, formulate measures for its implementation.
Article 84: This law shall come into force as of ______. 298 References
REFERENCES
Chapter 1 1 China Environment Yearbooks, 1992-98
2 China Population Statistic Yearbook , China Statistic Publishing Press, 1998
3 NIWHR & IWHR, China’s Water Supply and Demand in the 21st Century, China Water & Hydropower Publisher, June 1999.
4 State Flood Control & Drought Resistance Headquarter and NIWHR, Water & Drought Disasters in China, published by China Water & Hydropower Publisher, December 1997
5 World Bank, World Development Indicators, Washington DC, March 2000.
Chapter 2
1 “China’s Macroeconomic Progress,” by the Economics Unit of Country Office in China of the World Bank, May 2000.
2 “Proceedings of International Workshops on Innovative Strategies for Urban Infrastructure Financing in China,” jointly by The State Reform Commission of The Economic Systems of PRC, The French Ministry of Public Works, Transportation and Tourism, The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the World Bank, January 1996.
3 China Engaged: Integration with the Global Economy, one of China 2020 Series, published by the World Bank, September 1997.
4 Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries, published by the World Bank, December 1998.
Chapter 3 (Agriculture and Food Security)
1 Agriculture Action Plan for China’s Agenda 21, Ministry of Agriculture, October 1998.
2 Albert Nyberg and Scott Rozelle, Accelerating China’s Rural Transformation, World Bank, Washington DC, August 1999
3 China Agricultural Development Reports, Ministry of Agriculture PRC, 1998 and 1999,
4 China Agriculture Yearbook , China Agriculture Press, 1999.
5 “China Overcoming Rural Poverty”, Joint report of the Leading Group for Poverty Reduction, UNDP, and the World Bank, May 16, 2000
6 Colin A. Carter, Jikun Huang and Scott Rozelle, “China’s Agricultural Trade and the Asian Financial Crisis”, September 20, 1999
298 References 299
7 Crook, Frederic k W., “China’s Quest for Food Grain Security”, Washington Journal of Modern China, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 13-34, 1999.
8 Frederick W. Crook, Hsin-Hui Hsu, and Michael Lopez, “The Long-term Boom in China’s Feed Manufacturing Industry”, Agricultural Outlook, pp. 13-19, December 1999.
9 Douglas L. Vermillion and Juan A. Sagardoy, Transfer of Irrigation Management Services: Guidelines, FAO, 1999
10 Douglas L. Vermillion, Impacts of Irrigation Management Transfer: A Review of the Evidence, IIMI, 1997
11 Douglas L. Vermillion, “Management Devolution and the Sustainability of Irrigation: Results of Comprehensive Versus Partial Strategies”
12 Heilig, G.K., “China Food. Can China Feed Itself?”, IIASA, Laxenburg, 1999.
13 Hugh Turral, Recent Trends in Irrigation Management Changing Directions for the Public Sector, Overseas Development Institute, UK, Sept. 1995.
14 Jacob, W. Kijne, “Improving the Productivity of Pakistan’s Irrigation: the Importance of Management Choices”, draft, Oct. 1999.
15 Jianfa Shen, Department of Geography, Chinese University of Hong Kong, “China’s Future Population and Development Challenges”, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 164, No. 1, March 1998, pp. 32-40.
16 Jikun Huang and Chunlai Chen, “Effects of Trade Liberalization on Agriculture in China: Commodity Aspects”, Working Paper 43 of the CGPRT Center, May 1999
17 Jikun Huang and Chunlai Chen, “Effects of Trade Liberalization on Agriculture in China: Institutional and Structural Aspects”, Working Paper 42 of the CGPRT Center, May 1999
18 Jikun Huang, “Performance, Prospects and Challenges for China’s Agriculture in the 21st Century”, paper presented at a policy workshop, Beyond the Asian Crisis: Sustainable Agricultural Development and Poverty Alleviation in the Next Millennium, FAO Regional Office, Bangkok, Thailand, in 14-15 June 1999
19 Jikun Huang, “Trade Liberalization and China’s Food Economy in the 21st Century: Implications to China’s National Food Security”, paper presented in “China’s Agricultural Trade and Policy: Issues, Analysis, and Global Consequences”, San Francisco, California, June 25-26, 1999; Mansholt Seminar in Wageningen University on September 15, 1999; Conference on “The Effects of Trade Liberalization on Agriculture”, CGPRT/ESCAP, United Nations, Bogor, October 5-8, 1999; the Lobe International Symposium on Food Security Issues in Northeast Asian Countries in 21st Century, in Kobe University, November 13-14, 1999, and a Policy Seminar, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C., November 16, 1999.
20 Mark Svendsen, Jose Trava, and Sam H. Johnson III, “Participatory Irrigation Management: Benefits and Second Generation Problems”, Feb. 1997. 300 References
21 Ministry of Water Resources and Electric Power PRC, Irrigation and Drainage, China Water Resources and Electric Power Press, 1987
22 Pinstrup-Andersen, Per, Rajul Pandya-Lorch, and Mark W. Rosegrant, “World Food Prospects: Critical Issues for the Early Twenty-First Century”, IFPRI, Washington DC, 1999.
23 Sam H. Johnson III, “Irrigation Management Transfer: Decentralizing Public Irrigation in Mexico”
24 Shahla Shapouri and Stacey Rosen, “Food Security Assessment: Why Countries are at Risk”, Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 754 of USDA, August 1999
25 The Fifty Years of China’s Agricultural Investment and Construction, China Agricultural Publishing Press, 1999
26 The World Bank, “Implementation Completion Report of Tarim Basin Project, China”, report No. 18156, June 30, 1998.
27 The World Bank, “Staff Appraisal Report of Tarim Basin Project, China”, Report No. 9338- CHA, July 31, 1991
28 The World Bank, At China’s Table: Food Security Options, Washington DC, September 1997
29 USDA, “International Agriculture and Trade Reports: China”, March 2000.
30 Will Martin, Development Research Group, World Bank, “WTO Accession and China’s Agricultural Trade Policies”, June 14, 1999
31 World Bank Data, various years.
32 Yang, Dennis Tao and Hao Zhou, “Rural-Urban Disparity and Sectoral Labor Allocation in China”, Journal of Development Studies, February 1999.
(Water Pollution & Wastewater Reuse)
33 “Clear Water, Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Century”, China 2020 Series, Washington DC, September 1997
34 “Guidelines on the Quality of Stormwater and Treated Wastewater for Injection into Aquifers for Storage and Reuse”, a research report No. 109 of Urban Water Research Association of Australia,
35 “Huai River Water Pollution Control Project: Intermediate Report”, a World Bank study jointly by Mott MacDonald and ERM, October 1999.
36 ADB, “Water Supply Tariff Study, PRC”, Draft Final Report, 1998.
37 Asian Development Bank’s Study by Binnie Black & Veatch (HK) Ltd, “Hai River Basin Wastewater: Management and Pollution Control”, November 1999
38 CARES, Integrated Optimal Water Use and Pollution Control Management for the Yellow, Huai and Hai River Basins, 1999.
300 References 301
39 China Agricultural Statistic Yearbooks, China Statistic Publishing Press, various years.
40 China TVE Yearbook , China Agriculture Publishing Press, various years.
41 Dasgupta, Huq, Wheeler and Zhang, “Water Pollution Abatement by Chinese Industry: Cost Estimates and Policy Implications”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 1630, August 1996.
42 Hai River Basin Pollution Control Plan, April 1999
43 Industrial Wastewater Control Program for Municipal Agencies, Water Pollution Control Federation, 1982.
44 James Boyd, “The New Face of the Clean Water Act: A Critical Review of the EPA’s Proposed TMDL Rules”, RFF Discussion Paper 00-12, March 2000.
45 J. Stapleten, H. Ludwig and John Foerster, “Water Pollution Management”, Action Program Study for Water Resources jointly by Ministry of Water Resource, PRC and the World Bank, November 1999.
46 Joint Treatment of Industrial and Municipal Wastewaters, Water Pollution Control Federation, reprinted in 1986.
47 SEPA Survey, 1999.
48 State Statistical Yearbook , China Statistic Publishing Press, 1999
49 Tang Kewang, “Technical Framework for Economic and Financial Analysis of Water Pollution Control”, 1995
50 Technical-Economical Handbook of Industrial and Urban Wastewater, Tsinghua University Press, 1992.
51 Terence J. McGhee, “Water Supply and Sewerage”, Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 1991.
52 Water Pollution Control Program and 9th Five Year Plan for Huai River Basin, April 1996.
(Environment Pollution & Relative Pollution Control Guidelines)
53 “Implementation Completion Report: Changchun Water Supply and Environmental Project, China”, World Bank’s Report No. 19961, February 11, 2000.
54 20 Years of Environmental Monitoring in China (1973-1993), NEPA, 1993.
55 Asian Development Bank: “Guidelines on Appropriate Environmental Standards for DMC Use”
56 Beijing Environmental Master Plan Studies, Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau, 1996. 302 References
57 Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, The Handbook of Regulations on Environmental Protection in China, 1988.
58 China Managing Environmental Challenges, the World Bank, Nov. 1996.
59 China: Mass Load Control and Tradable Permits: Efficient Regulation for Industrial Pollution Control in the 21st Century, June 30, 2000.
60 Daniel Gunaratnam and H.F. Ludwig, “Wanjiazhai Project for Optimal Integrated Water Importation/Use/Reuse/Waste Management/Water Pollution Control at Taiyuan, China”, a paper presented at International Conference on “Pollution Control 97” in Bangkok, Thailand, November 12-16, 1997.
61 ESSA Technologies Ltd. & Seate International, “Capacity Building in Ministerial Level Responsibilities in the State Environmental Protection Administration Project”, draft Inception Report, ADB TA 3290-PRC, June 10, 2000.
62 H.F. Ludwig, R.G. Ludwig, D.R. Anderson and W.F. Garber, “Appropriate Environmental Standards in Developing Nations”, Wat. Sci. Tech. Vol. 25, No. 9 pp. 17-30, 1992.
63 Hai and Huai Pollution Control Plans
64 Harvey F. Ludwig and Daniel G. Gunaratnam, “Marine Waste Disposal for Optimal Regional Economic-cum-Environmental Development”, 1988.
65 Harvey F. Ludwig, “Manual of Guidelines on Environmental Research and Development for Developing Countries in Asia Pacific Region”, October 1997.
66 Harvey F. Ludwig, J. Warren Evans, Warren Y. Brockelman and Bindu N. Lohani, Manual of Environmental Technology in Developing Countries, South Asian Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1991.
67 Hua Wang and David Wheeler, “Pricing Industrial Pollution in China: An Econometric Analysis of the Levy System”, a policy research working paper 1644, September 1996.
68 Institute of Environmental Science, PRC, “General Study Report of China Pollution Charges System Design and Its Implementation”, (in Chinese), Oct. 1997.
69 Man and Environment: Environmental Protection in China, Changcheng Publishing Press, 1992.
70 National Water Quality Management Strategy: Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, November 1992.
71 National Water Quality Management Strategy: Draft Effluent Management Guidelines for Dairy Sheds, published by Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, and Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, December 1995.
302 References 303
72 National Water Quality Management Strategy: Draft Effluent Management Guidelines for Intensive Piggeries, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, and Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, December 1995.
73 National Water Quality Management Strategy: Draft Effluent Management Guidelines for Tanning and Related Industries, published by Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, and Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, December 1995.
74 NEPA and SPC, PRC, Environmental Action Plan of China, China Environmental Science Press, 1994.
75 NEPA, SPC and SETC (State Economic and Trade Commission), China Trans-Century Green Project, China Environmental Science Press, 1997.
76 Per G. Fredriksson, editor, Trade, Global Policy, and the Environment, a World Bank Discussion Paper No. 402, August 1999.
77 Pollution and Capital Markets in Developing Countries in Trade, Policy, and the Environment ?
78 Selected Environmental Standards of PRC (1973-1995), NEPA, July 1995.
79 Shen Xianchen, Feng Huihua, Wang Fengrong and Liu Linhua, “Water Quality Simulation of Heavy Metal Transportation in the Yellow River”, International Journal of Sediment Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, September 1998.
80 Susmita Dasgupta and David Wheeler, “Citizen Complaints as Environmental Indicators: Evidence from China”, a World Bank policy research working paper 1704, January 1997.
81 Susmita Dasgupta, Hua Wang and David Wheeler, “Surviving Success: Policy Reform and the Future of Industrial Pollution in China”, a policy research working paper 1856 of the World Bank, November 1997.
82 Susmita Dasgupta, Mainul Huq, David Wheeler and Chonghua Zhang, “Water Pollution Abatement by Chinese Industry: Cost Estimates and Policy Implications”, a World Bank policy research working paper 1630, August 1996.
83 Wang Jinnan, The Theory of Pollution Charges, China Environmental Science Press, June 1997.
84 Xia Guang, “An Economic Estimation for Environmental Pollution Losses in China”, China Environmental Science Publisher, September 1998.
85 Xie Qingtao, “Guidelines for Preparation of Taiyuan Integrated Water Environment Master Plan”, November 1998.
86 Zheng Shaoqing, “Non-point Source Pollution Investigation and Research”, China Water Sector Study Program, August 1999. 304 References
87 Zhou Niansheng and Li Yandong (main editors), Planning Methods and Practices of Basinwide Environmental Management,(in Chinese), China Water and Hydropower Publishing Press, May 2000.
(Water Resources & Water Use)
88 “Economics of Xiaolangdi Multipurpose Reservoir”, working paper of Xiaolangdi Appraisal Mission, World Bank, 1995.
89 Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management, Allocation and Use of Groundwater: a National Framework for Improved Groundwater Management in Australia, Gonna Print Pty Ltd, December 1996.
90 Ben Hallam, “Irrigation Water Demands”, China Water Sector Action Program Study, July 1999.
91 Blue Book ?(flood damages statistic)
92 China’s Water Resources Development
93 Encyclopedia Yearbook of China, 1988 ?
94 Frederick W. Crook, Xinshen Diao, Dannyu Goodwin, Dale Heermann and Vernon R. Schneider, “China’s Water Situation in 1999: A Trip Report”, USDA, November 1999.
95 Houjie, Chief editor, The Technology Development Plan 2010 for Urban Water Saving in China, (in Chinese),Wenfei Publishing Press, April 1998.
96 Hydrology Dept., MWR, “Water Quality Assessment of China”, 1997.
97 IWHR Nanjing Report, 1999 ?
98 IWHR Water Bulletins, various years
99 IWHR, “Industrial and Domestic Water Demand Forecasts”, China Water Sector Action Program Study, September 1999.
100 Kenneth Frederich, “Water Resources and Climate Change”, June 1997
101 MWR, Farmland Irrigation and Drainage Development History of New China, 1949-1998, China Water and Hydropower Press, 1999.
102 NIHWR, China: Water Resources and Their Use, ESCAP, United Nations, 1997.
103 NIWHR & IWHR, China’s Water Supply and Demand in the 21st Century, Water Resource & Hydropower Publishing Press, June 1999.
104 State Flood Control & Drought Resistance Headquarter and NIWHR, Water & Drought Disasters in China, China Water and Hydropower Press, December 1997
304 References 305
105 United Nations, “Study on Assessment of Water Resources of Member Countries and Demand by User Sectors: China: Water Resources and Their Use”, 1997.
106 United Nations, “Toward Efficient Water Use in Urban Areas in Asia and the Pacific”, 1998.
107 United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, “Food Balance Sheets, 1994-96”, Rome, 1997.
108 Water Resources Assessment of China (CCPC 1992) and IWHR (for transfers) ?
109 Water Resources Center of MOC, “Study Stage Report: Urban Development and the Water Use in North Area”, Jan. 2000.
110 Wu Yiao, Water Resource Exploitation of China, China Water and Power Press, 1986.
111 Yearly Statistics of Chinese Urban Construction, edited by Ministry of Construction, PRC, 1992 - 1998.
112 Zhang W, 1998 ? (Figure 3D-4: withdrawals of groundwater in 17 north China Provinces for 1977-1996)
(Groundwater)
113 David W. Mittelheuser, “River Basin Management and Institutional Reform”, China: Water Section Action Program Study, October 1999.
114 Delaware River Basin Commission, “Special Groundwater Study: Basinwide Report and Executive Summary”, December 1982
115 Han Zaisheng, “Groundwater for Urban Water Supply in Northern China”, paper presented at the XXVII IAH Congress on Groundwater in the Urban Environment, Nottingham, UK, Sept. 21-27, 1997.
116 James Crook, Takashi Asano and Margaret Nellor, “Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Water in California”, Water Environment & Technology, pp. 42-49, August 1990.
117 R. David G. Pyne, Groundwater Recharge and Wells, Lewis Publishers, 1994.
118 Randall J. Charbeneau, editor, Groundwater Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1995.
119 Richard Evans and Han Zaisheng, “Groundwater: Hai, Huai and Huang River Basins”, China Water Sector Action Plan Program Study, June 1999.
120 Salman M.A. Salman, editor, “Groundwater: Legal and Policy Perspectives”, proceedings of a World Bank Seminar, World Bank Technical Paper No. 456, November 1999.
121 Stephen Foster, John Chilton, Marcus Moench, Franklin Cardy and Manuel Schiffler, “Groundwater in Rural Development: Facing the Challenges of Supply and Resource Sustainability”, World Bank Technical Paper No. 463, March 2000. 306 References
122 Zhang Weizhen, “Groundwater Resources Study”, a substudy of China Water Section Action Program Study, May 1999.
(Water Institutional Management)
123 Baruch Boxer, “China’s Water Management Options: Issues and Alternatives (Summary)”, March 1999.
124 China Conservation Strategy, United Nations Environment Program, China Environmental Science Press, 1990.
125 Haihe River Water Conservancy Commission, Harnessing & Exploiting the Huaihe River, China Today Press, September 1993.
126 Hua Wang, “Marginal Value of Water: A Case Study of Chinese Industrial Firms”, March 1999
127 Jennie Litvack, Junaid Ahmad and Richard Bird, “Rethinking Decentralization at the World Bank”, 1998.
128 Jun Ma, “Macroeconomic Management and Intergovernmental Relations in China”, World Bank Policy Research Paper 1408, January 1995.
129 Ke Lidan, Chinese Water Laws and Water Management, (in Chinese), China Water and Hydropower Publishing Press, June 1998.
130 Kenneth D. Frederich, “Marketing Water: the Obstacles and the Impetus”, 1998
131 Qian Zhengying, editor, Water Resources Development in China, China Water and Power Press, 1994
132 Richard Reidinger and Juergen Voegele, “Critical Institutional Challenges for Water Resources Management”, April 2000
133 Song Xutong, “21st Century Urban Water Management in China”, 1999
134 World Bank, “Managing Public Expenditures for Better Results”, Report No. 20342-CHA, April 2000.
135 World Bank, Greening Industry: New Roles for Communities, Markets, and Government, a World Bank policy research report, Oxford University Press, October 1999.
136 Yan Keqiang, Review and Study of Water Conservancy Economic Policies, Hehai University Press
(Water Pricing)
137 ADB, “Water Supply Tariff Study”, draft final report, October 1998.
138 Daniel Gunaratnam, editor, “Water Pricing Studies”, China: Water Sector Strategy Study, World Bank, 1999.
306 References 307
139 Hehai University & Yangtze River Water Resources Committee, “Theoretical Studies on Water Charges and Affordability of Water Users for Large Water Supply Projects”, Nov. 1997.
140 J. Boland, Dziegielewski, D. Baumann and M. Opitz, “Influence of Price and Rate Structures on Municipal and Industrial Water use”, June 1984.
141 J. Elston, “Water Pricing Study”, China: Water Sector Action Program Study, December 1999.
142 Research Institute of Water Economy, Hehai University & NIHWR, “Review of Current Water Price System in China”, China Water Sector Action Program Study, September 1999.
143 World Bank, “Pricing Urban Water and Wastewater Service to Sustain Urban Growth”, April 1999
(Flood and Drought)
144 Beijing NOVO Information Technology Co., Ltd., “Project Plan for Flood Damage Investigation of Dongting Lake in 1998: Using Remote Sensing Technology”, February 2000.
145 Chinese Major Rivers Flood Control Series: Volumes of Yellow River, Huai River and Huai River, 1996
146 John Porter, “Flood Control and Floodplain Management in China”, China: Water Sector Action Program Study, July 1999.
147 Luo Chengzheng and Le Jiaxiang, main editors, Big Floods in China, China National Press, 1996
148 State Flood Control & Drought Resistance Headquarter and NIWHR, Water & Drought Disasters in China, China Water & Hydropower Press, December 1997
Chapter 4
1 ADB & IWHR, "Strategic Options for the Water Sector", TA NO 2817-PRC, July 1999 2 Ben Hallam, "Irrigation Water Demands", China: Water Sector Action Program Study, July 1999. 3 China's Water Resources Development, China Science and Technology Press, 1992. 4 IPPDI, China’s Water Resources Development, China Science and Technology Press, Study, 1992 5 IWHR unpublished data. 6 IWHR, "Industrial and Domestic Water Demand Forecasts", project working paper, 1999 7 IWHR, Water Bulletin, 1997 8 NIWHR & IWHR, China's Water Supply and Demand in the 21st Century, China Water & Hydropower Publisher, June 1999. 9 Planning & Design Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydropower, MWR, "China's Water Resources Development, 1992 10 UNESCAP, "China: Water Resources and Their Use", 1997 11 "Water Demand Study", China: Water Sector Action Program, October 1999. 12 "Water Resources and Food Potential", background paper for China: long-term Food Security, World Bank Report No. 16469-CHA, 1997 ? (1998 in John's report, but not find the book). 308 References
Chapter 5
1 DNRE (1998): Victoria Flood Management Strategy. Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
2 FIFMTF (1992): Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report. Prepared for the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force.
3 INCID (1994): Non-Structural Aspects of Flood Management in India . Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, New Delhi.
4 NSW Government (undated): Floodplain Management Manual. ISBN 07313 0370 9.
5 SCARM (2000): Floodplain Management in Australia: Best Practice Principles and Guidelines. Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management. CSIRO Publishing.
Chapter 6
1 Alston, Julian M., Philip G. Pardey and Johannes Rosebloom, “Financing Agricultural Research: International Investment Patterns and Policy Perspectives”, paper presented at the Conference of the International Association of agricultural Economists, Sacramento, California, August 1997.
2 China Irrigation Districts’ Association, Proceedings of Irrigation Districts’ Reform Proposals, July 2000.
3 CIDA, World Bank & Dept. for International Development UK, “Proceedings of Farmer Participation in Irrigation Management Seminar”, PRC, July 2- 5, 2000.
4 World Bank, “China: Guangzhong Irrigation Improvement Project” (no date)
5 Dept. of Land, Air & Water Resources, University of California, Davis, Irrigation With Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater: A Guidance Manual, California State Water Resources Control Board, California, July 1984
6 Echeverria, Ruben G., “Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research”, in Methods for Diagnosing Research System Constraints and Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research, edited by R.G. Echeverria, the Hague: ISNAR, 1990.
7 Fan, S. and P. Pardey, “Research Productivity and Output Growth in Chinese Agriculture”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 53, pp. 115-137, June 1997.
8 Fan, Shenggen, “Research Investment, Input Quality, and the Economic Returns to Chinese Agricultural Research”, paper presented for the post-conference workshop on Agricultural Productivity and R & D Policy in China, Melbourne, Australia, 29 August 1996.
9 Gunaratnam, D.J., Gary Kutcher, and S.J. McGurk, “Application of A basin Level Model to the Yellow River”, World Bank Technical Paper No. 249, Water Policy and Water Markets, Washington DC, 1992.
308 References 309
10 Hillel I. Shuval, Avner Adin, Badri Fattal, Eliyahu Rawitz, and Perez Yekutiel, Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries, World Bank Technical Paper No. 51, 1990.
11 Huang, Jikun and Scott Rozelle, “Technical Change, Reform and Agricultural Growth in China”, working paper, mimeo. 1997.
12 Huang, Jikun, Justin Y. Lin and Scott Rozelle, “What Will Make Chinese Agriculture More Productive”, paper presented at a Conference on Policy Reform in China, 18-20 November 1999, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
13 Huang, Jikun, Ruifa Hu and Xiandan Fan, “Agricultural Research Investment in China”, China Soft Sciences (in Chinese), No. 7, pp. 95-101, 1998.
14 Hubei Provincial Water Resources Bureau, “A Comprehensive Report on SIDD Construction in Hubei Province”, October 1997.
15 Lu Rongsen, “The Application of Plastic Film Technology in China”, International Center for Integrated Mountain Development, Katmandu, Nepal, 1994.
16 MWR, Irrigation and Drainage in China, China Water Resources and Electric Power Press, 1987.
17 MWR, Irrigation Districts in China, Agricultural Publishing House, 1991.
18 Proceedings of Special Issues on SIDDs, Hubei Water Resources, 1997.
19 Shah, Mahendra and Maurice Strong, “Food in the 21st Century: From Science to Sustainable Agriculture”, CGIAR Secretariat, Washington DC, 1999.
20 Shen Zhenrong, Wanglin, Yu Fuliang and Liubin , New Concept of Water Saving: Study and Application of Real Water Saving, China Water Resources and Hydro-power Publishing Press, April 2000.
21 Special Issues on SIDDs, Hubei Water Resources, 1997.
22 Sum, P. (editor), Multi-purpose River Basin Development in China, EDI Seminar Series, Economic Development Institute of the World Bank, Washington DC, 1994.
23 World Bank, “PAD for Guanzhong Irrigation Improvement Project”, Report No. 18966, April 1999.
Chapter 7 1. See references 41-87 Chapter 3.
2. Selected Environmental Standards of the Republic of China 91979-1997) SEPA (1998)
Chapter 8
1 “Guidelines on the Quality of Stormwater and Treated Wastewater for Injection into Aquifers for Storage and Reuse”, a research report No. 109 of Urban Water Research Association of Australia, 310 References
2 Anon., “Brewery Wastewater Pollution and Control Technique”, Jour. Environmental Protection in Light Industries, Vol. 20, Nos. 1 & 2, 1998
3 Data from the Information Center of Chinese Light Industry, 1998.
4 EPA, “Catalogue for National Standards of Environmental Protection (1973-1994).
5 Fegan et al. (1998), after Mara and Cairncross, 1989
6 G Tchobanoglous, “Appropriate Technologies for Wastewater Treatment and Reuse”, Water TECH, pp. 247-388., Australian Water & Wastewater Association Incorporated, 1996.
7 Hai and Huai Pollution Control Plans
8 High Strength Organic Wastewater, Chemical Industry Press, 1988.
9 Industrial Wastewater Control Program for Municipal Agencies, Water Pollution Control Federation, 1982.
10 IWHR Water Bulletin, 1997
11 Jian Peng, David K. Stevens and Xinguo Yiang, “A pioneer Project of Wastewater Reuse in China”, Wat. Res. Vol. 29, No. 1, PP. 357-363, 1995.
12 Joint Treatment of Industrial and Municipal Wastewaters, Water Pollution Control Federation, reprinted in 1986.
13 NHMRC, 1987 (suggested guidelines for nonpotable municipal reuse)
14 Tchobanoglous G., “Appropriate Technologies for Wastewater Treatment & Reuse”, WaterTECH, pp. 247-388, Australian Water & Wastewater Association Incorporated, 1996.
15 Technical-Economical Handbook of Industrial and Urban Wastewater, Tsinghua University Press, 1992.
16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Water Reuse, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington DC, 1992
17 Using Reclaimed Water to Augment Potable Water Resources, Water Environment Federation and American Water Works Association, 1998.
18 Water Pollution Study, China Water Sector Action Program, World Bank, 1999.
19 Water Treatment Handbook , the sixth English edition, published by Degremont, 1991.
20 Working Paper: Water Pollution in the 3-H Basins
Chapter 9
1 Crook, F. W., Diao, X., Goodwin, D., Heermann, D. and Schneider, V. R. 1999. “China’s Water Situation in 1999: A Trip Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture”. Nov. 1999.
310 References 311
2 David W. Mittelheuser, “River Basin Management and Institutional Reform”, China: Water Section Action Program Study, October 1999.
3 Delaware River Basin Commission, “Special Groundwater Study: Basinwide Report and Executive Summary”, December 1982
4 Hai River Basin River Resources Committee. 2000. “Assessment of Present Groundwater Resources in Hai River Basin and Analysis of Environmental and Geological Effect in Typical Area”. Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology Research Institute, China Geological Science Institute.
5 James Crook, Takashi Asano and Margaret Nellor, “Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Water in California”, Water Environment & Technology, pp. 42-49, August 1990.
6 Liu Peimin, Liu Zhenfan and Duan Zengshan. 1994. “A Case Study on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater into the Coastal Aquifer in Longkou, China. Proceedings of the Second Int. Symp. On Artificial Recharge of Groundwater”. ASCE. pp 464-470.
7 Loucks D. P. and Gladwell J. S.. “Sustainability Criteria for Water Resource Systems”. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
8 R. David G. Pyne, Groundwater Recharge and Wells, Lewis Publishers, 1994.
9 Randall J. Charbeneau, editor, Groundwater Management, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1995.
10 Richard Evans and Han Zaisheng, “Groundwater: Hai, Huai and Huang River Basins”, China Water Sector Action Plan Program Study, June 1999.
11 Stephen Foster, John Chilton, Marcus Moench, Franklin Cardy and Manuel Schiffler, “Groundwater in Rural Development: Facing the Challenges of Supply and Resource Sustainability”, World Bank Technical Paper No. 463, March 2000.
12 Tianyuan, Zhang Yuanxiu, Sun Xuefeng (Eds.) Artificial Recharge of Groundwater in the Huang, Huai, Hai Plain . Water Resource and Power Publishing House, 1990
13 Water Pollution Substudy for Hai/Huai basins
14 Xue Y., Wu J., Ye S. and Zhang Y. “Hydrogeological and Hydrogeochemical Studies for Salt Water Intrusion on the South Coast of Laizhou Bay”, China. Groundwater. Vol. 38, No 1. pp 38- 45, 2000
15 Zhang W. 2000 Water Sector Strategy Study. Personal Communication to World Bank.
16 Zhang Weizhen, “Groundwater Resources Study”, a substudy of China Water Section Action Program Study, May 1999.