Four-rivers project a terrible boondoggle

Well, I'm leaving the country soon and one place I regret not visiting is Taebaek in Gangwondo, the start of two of South Korea's four major rivers.  While in Gangwondo and somewhat afterward, I was a keen observer of the Four Rivers project started by past president Lee Myungbak.  Now the project is mostly finished and considered a mess.  I still want to visit Taebaek, but perhaps the sights will not be as wondrous and natural as they could have.

People became suspicious of the project immediately, not due to evidence of poor planning but due to the connection to a previous proposal.  The first plan was to build a series of locks on the Han and Nakdong Rivers so that goods could travel by ship from Seoul to Busan via Daegu on an inland route.  When there was too much opposition, he proposed similar work for a different purpose.

From the Donga Ilbo, November, 2009:

In his 2007 presidential campaign, President Lee had pledged to build a cross-country canal in Korea, but strong resistance from the opposition and a faction in the ruling Grand National Party prompted him to give up the project to prevent dividing public opinion. He then suggested the restoration of the country’s four major rivers.

To me, this was definitely suspicious, but being ignorant of the details I had to accept that there could be some truth or idealism to President Lee's plan.  This statement of his contains both a reasonable rationale and remarkable naivete:

Some civic groups say that the four-rivers projects will hurt water quality, but it makes little sense to leave already polluted rivers alone without even trying to improve them. As the president remarked, would a head of state carry out a project to deliberately pollute the environment?

And so, at the start of the project, I was suspicious but unable to form a conclusion.  I used the 'foreigner card': "I can't vote here and can't read the relevant technical information; it is not really my country, I guess I'll wait."

One other possible defense of the project was flood control, including maliciously released water from North Korea.  It is not really on point, but here is a link to a post on the subject from 2009.

Before I get to the bad news about the four rivers project, let's look at what Arirang TV had to say.  Follow the link to the video.  Here is the 'About' info:

Published on Apr 29, 2012We take a look at Korea's multi-purpose green growth project, the Four Major Rivers Restoration Project, along with a group of special guests.

Well, Arirang is the national cheerleader station and nothing in the video is wrong.  I'm sure there are beautiful parts of the river and had personally enjoyed the riverside biking trails.  I guess I just feel they left a lot out.

Okay, enough suspense.  What are people saying now that a new report has been released.  Briefly, "Effed-up", "a train wreck" and a "Scathing study".

"Due to faulty designs, 11 out of 16 dams lack sturdiness, water quality is feared to deteriorate... and excessive maintenance costs will be required," the report said.
Silting would require another round of dredging at an estimated cost of 289 billion won, it said.
Driven by tight timetables, work was pushed through without proper inspection and the river bed protection of 15 dams has partially subsided or been washed away.

A common though minor complaint about the work was the algae outbreaks seen after construction.

Global voices reports:

However, mass algae-outbreaks have been reported in several rivers in 2012, which many believe somehow correlate to the construction.

Note the cautious language used.  The best phrase in this regard is "many believe somehow".

The Minister of the Environment rebutted the claim:

The Ministry of Land and Maritime Affairs and the Ministry of Environment convened a joint press conference yesterday. 
They said the reservoirs are strong enough to bear an influx of waters and the algae was not related to the project. 
“The appearance of algae occurred before the construction,” Yoo Young-sook, Minister of Environment, said. “We need to take a long-term perspective in evaluating water because it’s been only a year since the construction was completed. Water quality can be affected by many factors, such as weather conditions.”

While I don't know what the cause of the algal blooms is, they are reported world wide these days so I am willing to accept the minister's defense, for now.

At this point, January 22, it seems President-elect Park Geun-hye is taking a wait-and-see approach. it is probably wiser than leaping in.

As my in-laws farm on a floodplain, I hope the expectations of increased flooding prove exaggerated.

------------

Background at Gangwon Notes.

Seaways, Canadian and Korean

Time to learn about the four rivers project

How could government...

"But how could the government possibly conduct a project that hurts water quality?"

Lee Myung Bak made a good point in defending his 4-rivers project.  The quote I am using as a title, though, sounds improbably naive or poorly translated.

From the Chosun Ilbo (I have italicized the 'good point'):

...He pledged to stop answering questions on the issue and "proceed with the projects without listening to further criticism." 

At the ground-breaking ceremony, he declared that no future can be opened with "old ways of thinking" and parties' regional interests, and that the projects will be conducted in a "future-oriented" manner with best efficiency, environment-friendly and state-of-the-art technology combined. "Some people allege that water quality will deteriorate in the course of the projects," he said. "But how could the government possibly conduct a project that hurts water quality?" 

Some civic groups say that the four-rivers projects will hurt water quality, but it makes little sense to leave already polluted rivers alone without even trying to improve them. As the president remarked, would a head of state carry out a project to deliberately pollute the environment? 

I do think there is some merit in the first sentence I quoted.  I would have approved of the late Roh Mu-hyun more if he had been firmer in his decisions, even if I didn't care for those decisions themselves.  Still, some merit is a long way from something I would accept.  I feel this way chiefly because I am not sure when he ever answered questions on the subject.

Still, I do agree that the rivers are already polluted to some degree.  GI Korea has frequently pointed out that Koreans pollute their own rivers, it is only when Americans do it, that it becomes news.

The GI linked to this Korea Times article:

It is shocking news that 29 timber companies were found to have released 271 tons of formalin over the past three years into streams feeding the Han River, the main source of drinking water for Seoul and Kyonggi Province.

Okay, the rivers are polluted.  I can't say whether President Lee's project will help or not, but we clearly aren't dealing with pristine rivers here.

And the rivers aren't surrounded exclusively by forest, pristine or not.  I have written before, describing floods, nearly yearly and the need for some flood control.  This is the one reason I am ambivalent about the project.

Again, we crash into the quote I used as my title.  This might (maybe) be reasonable for a president with no historic ties to heavy industry or who had not recently been thwarted in another river project that could be seen only as a big-money project for heavy industry with no conceivable benefits.  President Lee, once leader of a Hyundae construction group and architect of the Trans Korea canal project, does not get the benefit of the doubt.

Guess its time to learn what the four river project actually is.

This seems like a difficult project for a westerner, particularly a Canadian, to accurately judge the value of. My country is thinly populated and we have a surplus of water. Korea, on the other hand, is densely populated and inland Gangwondo has suffered severe water shortages in recent times. I do want to protect ecosystems, but people are part of the ecosystem and we naturally have to count ourselves as at least as important as the other parts. Further, Korean rivers don't run steadily through the year. When water flows increase, they can increase dramatically and cause flood damage.

From the Times:

Korea's 22 trillion-won civil engineering project, aimed at restoring the basin areas of four major rivers, has passed an environmental impact assessment test, giving momentum to a project critics argue will devastate the country's ecosystem.

From the Joongang:

The controversial four-river restoration project will begin tomorrow following an announcement that the government-led evaluation of the environmental impact of the project was completed last Friday, according to the Land Ministry yesterday.

The report concludes that the quality of the water in the rivers will have improved on [I think they mean 'improved to 2006"] 2006 levels after the project has been completed in 2011, the ministry said.

From the Donga:

President Lee Myung-bak’s project to restore the country’s four major rivers will finally begin this week with the construction of 15 dams to start Tuesday.

The venture has long faced resistance from opposition parties but is set to proceed this week. With the completion of the government assessment of the project, operations are expected to be accelerated.

In his 2007 presidential campaign, President Lee had pledged to build a cross-country canal in Korea, but strong resistance from the opposition and a faction in the ruling Grand National Party prompted him to give up the project to prevent dividing public opinion. He then suggested the restoration of the country’s four major rivers.

The Donga article seems to best summarize why the project is controversial. Building fifteen dams seems a strange way to help river ecosystems recover, and the apparent connection in the final quoted paragraph is what seems most ominous. No canal? Okay, let's call it river restoration.

Levy and gate in Gangneung

I wrote earlier about the four rivers project and how I wasn't sure if it was a good thing or not.  I remain suspicious but look at this wall and flood gate in Gangneung

It has been raining for the past few days but the water is well below the level of this parking lot.  In the past, however, it has reached this high and the wall (is it a levy?  I think so.) and gate have been needed. Evening the flow of rivers might well be good for everyone, including the fish.

4 rivers project: possibly not all that bad

Yonhap news has the details in English.

An excerpt:

"Dredging and the dams were believed to worsen the water quality by prolonging the time water stays there," the commission noted.
Overall, however, the 16 dams have no serious safety problems, the commission highlighted, adding that, "The 16 dam structures were properly built in consideration of standard weight and the safety level proposed in the design have been attained."
   The river project also has successfully lessened the risk of flood in the areas adjacent to the rivers and enabled the use of pooled water for drought-hit areas, the government panel said.
"All in all, the four-river project has attained its goals to some extent ... but it has generated some side effects because it was carried out too hastily amid some limited local river management technology," it said.

Water shortages: an update

From an editorial at the Donga Ilbo:

The scarcer the water supply, the more frequent disputes between provincial governments will become. The serious drought this winter season could further fuel such disputes. Korea must enact basic water laws and establish an organization to comprehensively manage water resources if necessary. For the country to come up with legal and institutional measures for this, the central and provincial governments must work together.

Ultimately, Korea must increase its supply of clean water. About two thirds of annual precipitation comes in summer. So the country must urgently increase its capacity to collect and store seasonal precipitation rather than let it flow again. The government must actively consider building dams that can help store water. While carefully examining the impact of dams on the environment, the government should not be swayed by the argument objectively lacking logic and wasting time. Improving water quality through a new state project designed to streamline the four major rivers will be helpful toward this effort. The people should also recognize the severity of the water shortage and strive to save water in their daily lives.

The first paragraph quoted cites conventional wisdom and makes the same statements one could find anywhere in the world. I am concerned, however, by the expectation that legal measures will solve the problem. In addition to the historic examples of the law being ignored in similar cases is the diplomatic situation. Water for inland Gangwon Province and even Seoul itself comes form North Korea. I hope a solution can be found.

It is the second paragraph that I find more interesting. Increasing a supply of clean water might be possible, although the solution suggested (damming) will only supply more water (critically absent is the adjective 'clean').

Quickly, damming has it's own problems. Chiefly, dams silt up so they don't hold much extra water for long but do change areas up- and down- stream in ecologically unfriendly ways.

Alright, back to Clean water. GI Korea might well be the best source for the problem with his '2000 Yongsan Water Dumping Scandal' post. Well, he is more interested in the Yongsan scandal himself, but his main point is that up to 60 gallons of formaldehyde were dumped into the Han River, causing a huge PR mess for the US Army. Around the same time, as the GI quotes, "It is shocking news that 29 timber companies were found to have released 271 tons of formalin over the past three years into streams feeding the Han River, the main source of drinking water for Seoul and Kyonggi Province." (Korea Times, 2nd Article).

Ah, more later. I don't know how ironic this is, but my son and I are going to a Water park, Waterpia.

LATER: We had a great time at Waterpia but my enjoyment was somewhat disturbed by thinking about the water shortages in Gangwon. I think I covered all I wanted to in this post. This is as good a place as any to end.

previously at Gangwon Notes and Brian in Jeollamnam-do.

Big river project

The Joongang has an article about government plans to clean up Korea's four major rivers. I would like to know about the specifics about the bike trails, among other things.

UPDATE: Someone at the English Chosun is concerned about the project.

Book Tag

Finally. GI Korea tagged me to join in a bloggers game to describe my interests in books. I watched sadly as the A-list Korean bloggers choose each other and I truly learned my place in the blogosphere. That's not to say anything bad about the GI whose blog has the most indepth commentary I've seen.

Coincidentally, I was reading up on tag so as to teach it to an ESL class. Sure, any individual game of tag is easy to teach, but try the terminology. In Canada, the person doing the chasing is called "it". Explain "it" - and not the "They're doing it!" idiom.

Anyway, now I'm 'it'.

How many books have I read?
As with everyone else in this game of tag, thousands. As with the other bloggers I read, I am old enough to have grown up with books rather than the computer to entertain me. I bought my first computer in '81, so I wonder how people born after that would respond.

Everytime I visit my mother's house in Canada, I both choose a half dozen books to bring to Korea and take another dozen (or two or three) books to the local used book store. I am probably down to a hundred books at my mother's house. In Korea, I have a large bookshelf full but also leave books at a coworkers office that serves as a current English language book for coworkers.

The last book I bought and read.
I have a four pack coming from Amazon right now. I recently reread the two Shaara's accounts of the American civil war but the last book I read for the first time is 'Guns, Germs and Steel' which I reviewed here.

The last book I read but didn't buy.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place. A gift from my sister, it tells the true story of a man who was exploring a crevice and had a rock fall on his hand, trapping him in place.

five books that meant a lot to me
In no particular order:

1) Ringworld - or the Ringworld series. Larry Niven is a great SF author who puts the emphasis on the Science part of science fiction. Each book is great but the first was strikingly original. Since then, each new book (there are three and the gap betwen first and last is 30 years) has had new technology that was missing in the earlier books which is as jarring as it was in the Star Wars movies.


2) Our Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Sagan was a wonderfully articulate astronomy and science populizer. In this book, he compares ancient accounts of demonic and angelic sightings with modern accounts of UFOs and finds the stories are the same with new covers.


3) Any of Tim Powers' books. My favorite is 'Anubis Gates'. He is known as the author who must hate his heroes- most of them finish the story missing fingers or more. He studies historical documents and keep the known timeline. Then he fills in the blanks with magic and secret conspiracies.


4) Where Rivers Run, by the Macguffins. Gary and Joan were neighbors of mine in Bracebridge and have written books on exploring Canada by canoe. Reading their exploits, you see a mater-of fact, "we went from A to B on the twentieth" then you look at a map and see they travelled fifty or seventy km in a day.

5) Thor Heyerdahl's adventures, especially Kon-tiki: Across the Pacific by raft. His work, particularly on Easter Island, has not been well recieved by professional historians and I don't know why... But I don't care. The stories are very exciting on their own. Simply thinking about his books makes me want to find a way to sail home when we leave Korea for Canada.


Who's next
After badmouthing myself as a C-list blogger, tagging someone else might be considered rude. Still, I would like to hear from Lao-ocean girl, James and Rory . I hope they do see it as a compliment, as I intend it to be.