By Iskander Khisamov, "Water as a Cause of Fire" [Moscow, Literaturnaya Gazeta in Russian, No. 2, 16 Jan 91, p. 8].

Is it possible to return to a discussion of the question of river diversion?

It is as though two hydraulic dredgers are mirroring each other, working on both sides of a bend in the river. And they are doing the very same thing: They are deepening the bottom and sucking the water onto their own shore, as if spurning the opposite shore. This absurd picture could serve as a symbol of the developing struggle for water in Central Asia. You see, one dredger is in Uzbekistan, and the other is in Turkmenia.

Komsomol [All-Union Leninist Communist Youth League] detachments from Khorezm conduct bold night raids on the "foreign" sides of rivers and canals, and on the sly they cut the drive belts of the dredgers set up there. However, their own peasants are also not blameless, and young Tashauz men watch them vigilantly. Disputes and fights among irrigation workers are becoming more frequent at rayon junctions. They are dividing the water.

Justifying its ancient name of Dzheykhun (Wild), the Amu Darya frequently cuts across republic borders. During the sanctioned friendship of peoples, this did not alarm anyone. Thus, the Karshu main canal, which serves southern Uzbekistan, began on the territory of Turkmenia. And the Karakum canal has its source in Uzbekistan and exits into Turkmenia. And now appeals can be heard frequently at meetings of informals, writers' plenums, and scientist symposiums of both republics to close the "foreign" canal that is robbing "our" river.

Also not standing aside are colleagues from Kirghizia and Tajikistan, where the two great Central Asian rivers, Amu Darya and Syr Darya, have their sources. They are demanding payment from "lower neighbors" for water that flows there, which is causing outbursts of righteous indignation and promises of retaliation.

Tens of millions were expended on the creation of an integrated water distribution system in the basin. But it is not working, because the republics do not plan to set up hydraulic headwork projects in it.

The whole world grieves for the Aral. The government, scientists, and specialists are engaged in a search for the Aral, and the public is sounding the alarm. And, nonetheless, I will risk the assertion that the efforts that are directed at saving the sea will not lead to anything. By all accounts, the heavily populated region will reach a severe water crisis in no longer than five years. One does not even want to imagine to what political consequences this could lead, aside from all the rest.

The many years of newspaper and journal discussions on these questions developed a whole series of stereotypes. The first: The water in Central Asia is being used wastefully, by economizing many happy years can be lived. Second, the odious Minvodkhoz [Ministry of Land Reclamation and Water Administration], which has now been converted to a concern, is to blame for everything. It is to its advantage to carry out gigantic projects for developing new lands and diverting rivers. And the third: The Aral was destroyed by the socialist system of economic management and the rapacious use of natural resources.

It seems, Dostoevsky said, that if 70 percent of a book is true, then it is entirely a lie. That is the situation here. During the years after the revolution, the population of the region grew from 7 million to almost 40 million. And already now there are quite a few huge economic units with 25-40,000 persons is oases that have only 4-6,000 hectares of land requiring irrigation. In a word, unemployment in Central Asia is a direct result of a shortage of arable land, and it is the result of a lack of water.

As for drainage canals for saving moisture, there are not very many of them. Crop farming in Central Asia is probably the highest in the country. These figures were cited at a recent conference on the problems of the Aral in Bloomington, United States [at Indiana University]. In Uzbekistan, an average of 12-14,000 cubic meters of water is used on one hectare. In California, which is similar but less arid, 9-12,000 is used on the very same crops. To reduce water irrigation by 5-10 percent, it is necessary to spend enormous amounts of money.

The number of projects to save the Aral and the region is increasing. Some people propose engaging in large-scale pumping of water from under the ground. Others--to draw in all reservoirs. Incidentally, this means a full degradation of the rural economy of the kray and the collapse of hydropower. Crop irrigation, which now yields more than 90 percent of agricultural products, will remain only in river floodplains.

There are versions of the immediate substitution of cotton and rice by fodder and fruit. However, in our arid region, fodder requires no less irrigation. But their profit is much lower, which would lead to a new impoverishment of the peasants, more than half of whom are already living on the edge of poverty.

In any case, a large-scale reorganization of the rural economy, a change in the system of crops, and the reorientation of industry and science associated with this will take many years. But the water is coming to an end.

Here is an assessment by F.P. Miklin, who is far removed from our national and territorial passions and contractions:

"The Soviet Union has run into a hopeless crisis of water resources in Central Asia. It is very doubtful, even with the most careful water-saving measures, that regional water resources will be adequate to satisfy future economic and social requirements and also preserve the Aral Sea. This, the Soviet Government, possibly, will be forced to return to the project of diverting part of the flow of the Siberian rivers in the 1990's not only for water management reasons, but also for political and social reasons."

The situation in the country is changing rapidly. Both Russia and the Central Asian republics have legislatively reinforced their sovereignty with respect to natural resources. Market relations are approaching. And while previously the problem was who will be able to persuade the center to adopt one or another decision, now decisions will have to be made independently.

There is probably no need to relate in detail the history of the rise and fall of the project to divert part of the flow of the Ob and the Irtysh into the Aral basin. One can understand the angry reaction of the people of Russia--the potential water donor for Central Asia--behind whose back important decisions were made. Especially since this project was associated in the mass conscience with European, really farfetched diversions.

"But now, when the Russians can be assured that no one will make arrangements for them, can this subject finally be discussed in a businesslike way?" asks Rim Giniyatulin, Uzbekistan Minister of Water Administration: And he cites reasons: A water catastrophe in Central Asia will have disastrous consequences for the economy of the whole country. Up to 90 percent of the cotton is exported to the other republics, including half of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic). A sharp drop in deliveries will paralyze the textile and light industries.

Second, the Central Asian region is a huge and very simple market for commodities from other republics. If as a result of a crisis this market gets smaller or is closed entirely, millions of workers throughout the Union will become unemployed.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of fruit, vegetables, grapes and melons come from Central Asia to the all-Union table. With the elimination of the cotton plant monoculture this stream increases sharply. The rich natural climatic potential of the region is opened up and promises the whole country a sizable addition of food.

It can also be added that Uzbekistan itself and contiguous republics are suppliers of many kinds of strategic products, fuels, and nonferrous metals, including gold also. There is no need to shatter the air with invocations about internationalism and lasting friendship--a pragmatic calculation is necessary.

What is needed? There is talk about five to seven percent of the water of the Ob basin (so far there are no other versions). Of course, there can be no avoidance of consequences for the nature and the population of the northern rayons of Western Siberia, and there is no reason to be cunning here. But then, a majority of the rivers in the world are used and expended for irrigation. The Mississippi, the Yangtze, the Nile, the Euphrates, and the Volga give their water to feed people. And no one gives a thought to refusing their use.

The example of the little Baltic area and episodes from the life of the Transcaucasus show how vulnerable we are, and how obstinate we are individually. This brings to mind an interesting moment in the last session of the parliament of Uzbekistan. One of the leaders of the republic's Academy of Sciences talked about how the provision of water for Central Asia is an all-Union problem. And he was interrupted by a comment from President Islam Karimov:

"Hold on, you just talked about the need for the full sovereignty of the republic. And now you are appealing to the Union. And you yourself are proving that we can raise and resolve this question only in a federation structure..."

Yes, water is a decisive argument for Central Asia, and very important for the Union as a whole, in favor of preserving the federative system of the country. If this fact will not be assessed in the proper way, then water, and the shortage of it, will be the cause of a great fire.