Skip to main content

This photo taken on June 29, 2020, shows water being released from the Three Gorges Dam, a gigantic hydropower project on the Yangtze river, in Yichang, central China's Hubei province.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

As China counts the costs of its most punishing flood season in more than three decades, the role played by the massive and controversial Three Gorges Dam – designed to help tame the Yangtze river – has come under fresh scrutiny.

Amid some of the heaviest rainfall on record, the Chinese government says the world’s biggest hydroelectric plant has reduced flood peaks, minimized economic losses and slashed the number of deaths and emergency evacuations.

But critics say the historically high water levels on the Yangtze and its major lakes prove the Three Gorges Dam isn’t doing what it was designed for.

Story continues below advertisement

“One of the major justifications for the Three Gorges Dam was flood control, but less than 20 years after its completion we have the highest flood water in recorded history,” said David Shankman, a geographer with the University of Alabama who studies Chinese floods. “The fact is that it cannot prevent these severe events.”

Ye Jianchun, China’s vice-minister of water resources, said at a Monday briefing the “detailed scheduling” of water discharges from reservoirs, particularly the Three Gorges, had been effective in controlling floods this year.

He said 64.7 billion cubic meters of flood water has been stored in 2,297 reservoirs, including 2.9 billion cubic meters at Three Gorges.

The company running the Three Gorges Project also said on Saturday that downstream water discharges had been halved since July 6, “effectively reducing the speed and extent of water level rises on the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze.” The total amount of stored flood water had now reached 88 per cent of the reservoir’s total capacity, it added.

But parts of the Yangtze, its tributaries and major lakes like the Dongting and Poyang have hit record levels anyway.

Fan Xiao, a Chinese geologist and long-standing critic of giant dam projects, said the storage capacity at Three Gorges amounts to less than 9 per cent of average flood water.

“It can only partially and temporarily intercept the upstream floods, and is powerless to help with floods caused by heavy rainfall in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River,” he said.

Story continues below advertisement

Fan said Three Gorges and other major dam projects could even make flooding worse by altering the flow of sedimentation down the Yangtze. The project’s need to generate electricity has also undermined flood control, he said.

“When people only consider using reservoirs to solve flood-control problems, they often overlook or even weaken the natural ability of rivers and their lakes to regulate floods,” he said.

Shankman said that the Three Gorges Dam helps alleviate flooding during normal years, but that it was always likely to be vulnerable to more extreme weather, a problem that is exacerbated by shrinking flood plains downstream.

“The Three Gorges Dam reservoir does not have the capacity to significantly affect the most severe floods,” he said.

“Flood water storage along the middle Yangtze is less because of stronger levees that are less likely to fail,” he added. “Both of those things are at play here. This was predictable.”

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies