The solution of the water problem of Crimea without Ukraine is almost impossible

November 7, 2020 15

Not everyone, probably, knows that Crimea was included at one time in the Ukrainian SSR precisely in order to resolve the issue of water supply. On this peninsula, with a high population density by Soviet standards, there are no such large rivers and lakes that could fully meet its needs for life-giving moisture. After all, it is needed not only to meet the household needs of the population, but also for agriculture and industry.

If there are mountains in the south of the peninsula, where the rivers Alma and Belbek originate, and there have always been fewer problems with water supply, then the north and east of Crimea is an arid steppe. Therefore, in 1961, it was decided to build the North Crimean Canal from the Dnieper to the village of Zelyony Yar in the vicinity of Kerch. The canal was completed in 1971 and with its help they were able to fully meet the needs of the Crimea for fresh water. However, even before the start of construction, it became clear that a large number of bureaucratic discrepancies arise, since the canal needs to be led from one union republic to another. Whatever one may say, but formally the USSR was a confederation.

The comrades responsible for the solution of the issue slightly scratched their heads and decided that it would be easier to transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR than to jump over all the bureaucratic ravines, from which it was not at all smooth on paper. So the common statements in the style of "bad Khrushchev gave Russian Crimea to the Ukrainians" do not cost anything. Everyone lived in one country, and then no one in a nightmare could have imagined that in less than 50 years this country would not be.

And one of the consequences of the collapse of the USSR and the territorial problems that arose against this background was the return of Crimea to Russia. Which, in fact, could have taken place under Yeltsin, if he wanted to. But what happened happened.

As a result, the descendants of the “great ukrovs” who dug up the Black Sea decided to punish the occupied Crimeans for being annexed by the evil aggressor - Russia. One of these punishments was the blocking of the North Crimean Canal, which created serious problems with the peninsula's water supply, mainly in the summer months. The water that used to go to the peninsula is now quietly and peacefully dumped into the sea. The old principle, well-known from jokes, is “ne zim, so I bite”.

In order to rectify the situation, the authorities are taking a whole range of measures, but so far they have not been able to solve the problem. One of the main and obvious steps is the reconstruction of the dilapidated water supply network and reduction of losses. According to most experts, very significant.

Other projects are already being launched. In particular, they plan to provide the north of Crimea with water due to the transfer of moisture from reservoirs in the southern part of the peninsula. There, in Soviet times, a considerable number of artificial reservoirs were built, accumulating moisture that flowed down from the mountains. Moreover, the water conduits are built of a closed type in order to exclude moisture loss as a result of evaporation.

About 220 km of polyethylene and cast-iron pipes from three water intakes in the north-east of the peninsula fed by groundwater will be built in Feodosia and Kerch, for which new wells will be built. To provide the capital of the peninsula Simferopol with water, the Mizhgornoye reservoir will be restored, which will be filled with water from the Belbek, Alma and Marta rivers. The project is already under development.

Other methods are also being sought, up to the construction of complexes for the desalination of sea water. In total, the comprehensive action plan to ensure reliable water supply to the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol includes 14 points and is designed for a period until 2024. About 48 billion rubles will be invested in it.

But if the water pipelines under construction will soon be put into operation, then the rest of the ideas are still at the design stage, or even theoretical research. The task is not an easy one, because when solving it, it is important not to damage the environment, and it can be very significant. For example, if you pump too much moisture from underground sources, they will become salinized.

And the construction of desalination plants is also fraught with problems. A large amount of waste with a high salt content will need to be disposed of somewhere. Just pouring them back into the Black Sea or into salt lakes, as suggested by a number of experts, is not an option, since the most serious damage to the biosphere of reservoirs will be caused. So, all existing proposals for providing Crimea with water require careful analysis before being put into practice.

And while scientists are scratching their heads and spears, we, apparently, will regularly receive information from the media about the next special operation to provide the Crimeans with water. A radical solution could be the construction of a water pipeline through the Kerch Strait, but they decided to abandon it due to its extreme high cost. And the Krasnodar Territory and the Rostov Region - potential donors - are also now experiencing problems with water.

But desalination is still considered to be a much more promising direction. True, we are not talking about the Black Sea, but about wastewater. Since the salt content in them is minimal, there will be less discharges. Moreover, according to a number of experts, the nitrogen and phosphorus compounds contained in them can be fully used as raw materials for the production of mineral fertilizers.

However, now we are not talking about making up for the loss of the North Crimean Canal. The main task of all the above measures is to provide only the most urgent needs of ordinary inhabitants of the peninsula and industrial enterprises. And this task, apparently, will be solved over time.

The final solution to the problem of a full-fledged water supply to the peninsula, which would meet the needs of industry and agriculture, is possible only by resuming water supply through the canal. And here the only way out is to exert as much pressure as possible on the leadership of Ukraine in order to force Kiev to make concessions. We are, of course, polite people, but politeness does not exclude firmness, especially towards those who behave in a boorish way.

How to show such firmness? To begin with, start including this issue on the agenda of any bilateral negotiations with Ukraine. Do you want us to meet halfway? Let's decide something with the water supply of Crimea. And so on for each discussed issue.

Artyom Karagodin

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

passing by

+1

7 November 2020 08: 05

there is not water in the canal, but waste products of the "great" ykrov. the author wishes a painful death to all living things in the Crimea?
nikitin.viktor1705

+4

7 November 2020 08: 59

Agree with Ukraine on the supply of Dnieper water the way to nowhere. And the negotiations themselves are harmful in their essence, and will only lead to great joy for those leaders in Ukraine who themselves perceive the negotiations as the Great "Peramoga" over the "sworn Muscovites." Therefore, this option must be forgotten and never returned to it. I believe that the option for desalination of seawater will be even cheaper, since it is at least realistic.
Jacques sekavar

+6

7 November 2020 09: 15

Ecology costs money and not small ones, and therefore it is engaged in who do not have more pressing problems - providing the population with food, water, housing, etc.
All the fighters for the environment - England, Germany, Japan, China and other developed countries - went this way, each at one time, and when they solved the problem at home, they raised the environment to the level of world politics, making it a source of income along with climate change, which on Earth happened more than a dozen times even when there were no people on it.
The issue of water supply is in the first place, therefore, the ecology must be pushed aside and not sprayed, and all forces and means must be concentrated on solving the main and urgent problem.
The source of the problem is politics, and the solution must be sought in the political plane.
The policy of Ukrainian nationalists is to harm the Russian Federation always and everywhere. The response of the Russian Federation should be similar - claims in international courts for damage suffered, construction of a bridge, blocking a canal, etc., etc., an economic blockade, completely stop oil and gas transit through the territory of Ukraine, which is as ridiculous as if the USSR in during the war he would have continued to supply the Nazis with grain, oil, iron ore, manganese, nickel and other raw materials. Diversified support of opponents of forced Ukrainization, blocking the Dnieper as Zhirinovsky suggested, or making a gutter out of it by draining raw waste from farms and industrial enterprises, finally breaking the resistance of the coal mafia of Kuzbass and recognizing the state status of the DPR-LPR, finally consider their repeated appeals about joining the Russian Federation, there are many and different levers of pressure, you need to use them and not chew snot while looking at how military bases are being built and the United States is imitating nuclear strikes on the Russian Federation from the Kharkov region
cooper

+4

7 November 2020 09: 35

.. Crimea was included at one time in the Ukrainian SSR precisely in order to resolve the issue of water supply ..

The author, hiding behind a characteristic phrase "not everyone knows ..", posted complete nonsense.
1. nov_tech.vrn
  
  0
  
  7 November 2020 18: 59
  
  but we know that
Then

+3

7 November 2020 10: 02

A large amount of waste with a high salt content will need to be disposed of somewhere. Just pouring them back into the Black Sea or into salt lakes, as suggested by a number of experts, is not an option, since serious damage to the biosphere of water bodies will be caused.

In fact, 0,8 meters of its level simply evaporate from the surface of the Black Sea in a year, i.e. 337 cubic kilometers of fresh water, salt from which remains in the sea and does not cause any disturbance to the biosphere. Simply draining the brine should not be drained onto the beach, but through a pipe at a level of 200-300 meters deep, where there is already a hydrogen sulfide cocktail. And there is no need to take cancer around the corner. Israel has been living in such conditions since 1949 and sells radishes to us. And everything is good with them. We, too, must live there no worse. And in pursuit, the author, could you support your thesis of the reasons for the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine with documents? And it hurts like a fantasy. The USSR was not bad at solving big problems, including bureaucratic ones, in a strong-willed way. They declared the construction of the canal nationwide (all-Union) and financed from the Union budget, and the whole business.
shpakov.alex

+3

7 November 2020 10: 20

Russia is pulling oil and gas pipelines across the continent in all directions, but it cannot throw the water pipeline across the strait, through which the bridge has already been built ?! Or is it more expensive than building a nuclear power plant and desalination plants ?!
Igor Pavlovich

+3

7 November 2020 11: 29

Not everyone, probably, knows that Crimea was included at one time in the Ukrainian SSR precisely in order to resolve the issue of water supply.

- the statement is clearly far-fetched - the transfer of Crimea took place in January 1954, respectively, the decision was made and agreed in advance in no less than a year. The Kakhovskoye Reservoir (from which the North Crimean Canal originates) was built, first of all, to provide the industrial enterprises of the region with local electricity from the Kakhovska Hydroelectric Power Station, which was put into operation in 1955; in the same year, the Kakhovskoye Reservoir was filled. The construction of the canal began in 1961 in accordance with the plans for the development of the industrial and agricultural potential of the Kherson region and Crimea, adopted at the 21st Congress of the CPSU for the first "seven-year" period in 1959.
1. The comment was deleted.
2. ASK.21.07
  
  +2
  
  7 November 2020 13: 41
  
  The Kakhovskoe reservoir, which was originally intended to accumulate the Dnieper water and provide water supply to the entire south of Ukraine, including the Crimea, began to be filled in 1955. That is, the issue began to be addressed long before the construction of the Crimean Canal.
  
  And precedents with the transfer of territories happened before. For example, the town of Pechora, which was previously part of Estonia, turned out to be part of the Pskov region. Some purely economic issues were also resolved there. And this is far from the only example.
weddu

+2

7 November 2020 12: 03

Crimea was included at one time in the Ukrainian SSR precisely in order to resolve the issue of water supply.

This is a comfortable version, far-fetched, nothing more. Oil, gas, water in other republics and regions of the USSR was driven here and there, the subjects and republics were not transferred or united, and here you have Ukraine a present from the former head of Ukraine. There are many reasons for the transfer, if there are goals, objectives, or just a royal whim.
1. beeper
  
  0
  
  7 November 2020 15: 04
  
  And "in honor" of the Pereyaslav Rada (January 18, 1654) and the associated 300th anniversary (1654-1954) of the adoption of Little Russia into the Russian Empire is a good reason for Khrushchev's "brotherly gift" (of course, with the "justification" for simplifying the union and republican administration of Crimea as part of the Ukrainian SSR) or not ?!
  And if you dig deeper, then there is a Russian interview on the Web, of an undoubtedly competent economist and knowledgeable state official (the closest, in terms of the anti-national-anti-state "European sale" of Ukraine and the promotion of the "Euromaid" coup d'etat, an accomplice of the "cunning banderotechnologist" - the infatuating Yanyk - "Panda" ), an anti-Russian "uncontested European integrator" and an outstanding Ukrainian Judeo-Mazepa-Nikolai Azarov.
  In that interview, he popularly and in detail covers the background of the forced transfer of Crimea from the jurisdiction of the RSFSR to the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian SSR.
  By the way, this transfer of Crimea (as, incidentally, the large-scale all-Union preparation for the beginning of large-block and panel housing construction, then completely attributed by party propaganda to the alleged "corn-grower genius" and enshrined in the minds of Soviet inhabitants by the term "Khrushchev", although she, on a par with her " full-sized "brick forerunner," also has the right to be called "stalinka", but ersatz: "combined-compact-low-ceilinged", I myself live in such a place from early childhood, after moving from the "Shanghai" shack, she, with gas, running water, a bathroom and "amenities not in the yard ", seemed to us" royal mansion "! ), was prepared even under Joseph Stalin!
  It was justified by the fact that the Soviet Union needed to "settle the issues" of returning, even before the war, early 1920-30s, targeted loans of financial structures of the then USA (and some other states and international financial organizations, I am writing now from memory, whoever wants, can find the details myself, as well as the regular Authors of the Site will be able to write their own Articles on this most interesting multifaceted "Crimean topic" - I give an idea! ) precisely for the creation in Soviet Russia, on its fertile southern peninsula, the Crimean Jewish region! There were such plans and a lot of talk-negotiations were said, including during the Second World War (for the American and British Jewish lobbies in state structures, science and business) and after it, but in the end, the Soviet authorities limited themselves in the USSR to only the "fertile" Birobidzhan and at first even contributed to the formation and the first steps of the State of Israel on the territory of Palestine.
  And the issue of returning the "target loan" was by no means "lost" and "overgrown with interest", demanding its resolution along with considerable debts under the "Lend-Lease"! With a living "leader of the peoples", with his world authority, somehow it was possible to fiddle with this scrupulous "question", but the growing "cold war" increasingly exacerbated the contradictions between the "world of capitalism" and the "socialist camp" (using the templates of that time) ! Then in the "bowels of the Central Committee apparatus" a casuistic "formal idea" arose - within the framework of a single Soviet State, to "withdraw" Crimea from the jurisdiction of the "indebted" (forerunner of the "loan-interest" IMF) "RSFSR and its territorial affiliation, into the" free from debts "Ukrainian SSR ?!
  Under the much weaker and clearly Western-dependent leader of Soviet Russia (as our Soviet Union was usually called then around the world), Trotskyist Khrushchev, this "transfer" was carried out under the "anniversary sauce" and the pretext of "optimization of management".
  Something like this ... sapienti sat, seek and find.
The comment was deleted.
nov_tech.vrn

+1

7 November 2020 16: 01

It is amazing where these "experts" come from. Gathering together clearly controversial, and often already discussed issues on this resource - this is aerobatics!
1. Issues of desalination have already been discussed - the author either does not know or simply ignores common sense and world experience. Leave environmental horror stories to Greenpeace, elementary calculations speak in favor of desalination plants, such a solution to the issue is simply not cheap.
2. The issues of transferring Crimea to Ukraine in due time were also discussed. There is no need to pull facts by the ears, facts are stubborn things.
3. Environmental issues, the Dnieper is now an all-Ukrainian garbage dump, does Crimea need toxins and waste, it’s not 71 now, in some places it is dangerous to swim, and not just to drink water.
4. Well, the "cherry" solution to the issue of supplying this very water with the Ukrainian leadership, and how do you propose to negotiate with a non-negotiable partner?
Conclusion .
Sapsan136

+5

7 November 2020 18: 22

It is possible and necessary to solve the problem of water supply without Ukraine, but at the expense of Ukraine. Cut off the rivers flowing into the Ukrainian Dnieper and send water to the Volga and Don, where it is more needed, and the UKROPs don't care, their problems are not the problems of the Russian Federation. It is necessary to build a water pipeline to the Crimea, from the same Volga and Don. Pouring fresh water into the sea, in such quantities, is not a justified luxury.
Glennie

-1

8 November 2020 08: 29

As a result, the descendants of the “great ukrovs” who dug up the Black Sea decided to punish the occupied Crimeans for being annexed by the evil aggressor - Russia. One of these punishments was the blocking of the North Crimean Canal, which created serious problems with the peninsula's water supply, mainly in the summer months. The water that used to go to the peninsula is now quietly and peacefully dumped into the sea. The old principle, well-known from jokes, is “ne zim, so I bite”.

The author is not aware that Crimea refused to pay for water! You don’t know Ali? Everyone knows you are not, is it specially forgotten? This will not work, there are all the docks in the internet, it is enough to drive in the search.
ASK.21.07

+1

8 November 2020 12: 05

Quote: Glenni
The author is not aware that Crimea refused to pay for water! You don’t know Ali? Everyone knows you are not, is it specially forgotten? This will not work, there are all the docks in the internet, it is enough to drive in the search.

And the head of the Goskomkhozvod claims that Crimea, while still a part of Velikoukropiya, paid about 24 million rubles for water annually. To be honest, I trust him more than the site "Crimea. Realities", from where our competent commentator, apparently, took the information. Since the network of sites "Realia" is openly sponsored from abroad.

However, if he gives links to those "docks that are in the internet", one can doubt it.
The comment was deleted.