Recently, within the framework of the conference Challenges after the occupation, organized by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, a discussion took place about what to do in the future with the territories of the former Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant. Texty media outlet presents the opinions of the candidate of biological sciences, a military expert, and publicist, Yevhen Dykyy, and the head of the department at the Institute of Geography of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Roman Spytsia.
Yevhen Dykyy: We shouldn’t assume that money will come easily after the war, and we’ll simply rebuild everything. Instead, the situation will be such that finding the funds will be the least of our problems; the much greater challenge will be how to use them wisely.
This concerns the elimination of not just one but two crimes committed successively. One was committed in 1956 when the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant was built, and the other unfolded right before our eyes when it was destroyed.
No country, except the Soviet Union, constructed reservoirs in flat territories. It was evident to everyone that flooding vast expanses of plains, fertile lands, forests, and floodplains was absurd. However, this was not the case for the Soviet Union. As a result, the Dnipro River was almost entirely destroyed, and the same fate befell the Volga, and they even managed to export their experience to the Nile.
This was undoubtedly a crime, and its consequences are irreversible. If water is simply drained, the submerged areas won’t magically reappear. Instead, there will be layers of sediment, which the sun will dry out, and powerful Ukrainian winds will lift into the air. This will create something similar to what happened in the once-plowed American prairies — a dust bowl (referring to the severe dust storms in the United States in the 1930s).
I have always adhered to this position: a crime has been committed, but now we have to live with it, and the lesser evil is to leave things as they are. I believe that it will be the same with the entire Dnipro cascade in the future.
However, with the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, we no longer have such a choice. Russians have done irreversible things.
See also: Blowing up the Kakhovka Dam: Russia’s announced crime
We currently don’t have the option to quickly fill the reservoir with water and return everything to how it was before. Even if we imagine that all the occupied territories are liberated right now, and this autumn we get the opportunity to do something, it would still take more than one season or year to completely refill the reservoir. Therefore, first, we will have to live with the consequences of what has already happened. But at the same time, it opens up certain opportunities for us. Specifically, the possibility to consider whether restoring the reservoir to its previous state is the only solution or if there are alternative options.
To begin with, at an expert level, we need to outline the problems that arise with each option to understand the real situation. This task involves dozens of specialists, resulting in, to put it simply, a comparative table with key issues for each course of action. Only then can our decision be adequate. Currently, each of us has only some personal ideas.
I believe it is unlikely that the Dnipro floodplain will be restored to its previous state before flooding. Hoping that if we leave it unattended, it will naturally recover, as with Chornobyl, where we simply fenced off the area and now it has become one of the best reserves in the country, won’t work here.
We have to start from the assumption that the ecosystem itself will not recover, so we need to consider the option of creating a human-managed new agroecosystem, which will result from a very powerful eco-engineering project. By the way, this could become one of the most significant projects of its kind in Europe, and one of the advantages is that it will be relatively easy for us to involve foreign experts and obtain foreign funding.
For now, of course, I am talking at a hypothetical level because we are currently unable to gather accurate information about what is happening at the site of the Kakhovka reservoir. This can only be done once both banks are deoccupied. At present, the only reliable source of information is satellite imagery.
Roman Spytsia: Currently, we do not have accurate knowledge of what is happening on the territory where the Kakhovka reservoir used to be. We are unaware of the properties of the soils present there now. The information collected before the flooding either no longer exists or is no longer relevant. After the flooding, the topography of the reservoir has changed, and we also lack a map of the spread of pollutants. Additionally, we must consider the tectonic factor — the release of such a massive amount of water will eventually influence tectonic processes in the region.
It is not possible to say that nature will completely restore everything. Dnipro River has changed; its riverbed is now regulated, and reservoirs upstream will not be eliminated. We no longer have the same regime where floods occurred annually, water brought deposits, and floodplains were formed. That will not happen anymore.
At the same time, if the drainage canals that run from the Kakhovka reservoir are left without water for even one summer, the concrete will simply deteriorate. We have seen something similar with the North Crimean Canal. When concrete is exposed to unsuitable conditions – heat, sunlight, rapid temperature changes within one day — its integrity is compromised, and it loses its ability to retain water. Essentially, we will be watering everything except what is necessary. Consequently, all these canals will need to be reconstructed from scratch. This is also a task that will take several years.
Yevhen Dykyy: The most viable option could be a compromise. It is necessary to keep this section of Dnipro regulated but significantly reduce the volume and area of the reservoir. To put it simply, maintain the old riverbed of the Dnipro River with a slightly higher water level. The rest of the territory should undergo a program of reconstruction for the restoration of the natural systems that were there. Yes, it will be artificial reconstruction, but it can still yield good results, starting from fish passages and old floodplains, which were essential spawning grounds for migratory fish.
Huge populations of sturgeon used to migrate for spawning in the lower Dnipro. They easily survived the construction of the Dnipro Hydroelectric Station because they hardly crossed the dams. However, after the construction of the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, sturgeon populations in the Black Sea decreased by tens of times. It is possible to restore this now.
Originally posted by Andrii Harasym on Texty.org.ua. Translated and edited by the UaPosition – Ukrainian news and analytics website
