When talking about the dams built on the rivers of Iran, you should be careful; make sure your words do not question the sanctity of these structures; dam construction has become so sacred for some groups in Iran that they consider any criticism as blasphemy and want to destroy your reputation.

Dam construction has become so ideological for many people that they forget a dam is ultimately a tool for water management, not something else. The ideological behavior of water managers is based on “hydraulic mission” (1). According to this perspective, “every drop of water that flows from droughts to the sea is a waste of water”; in other words, the duty-conscious officials of the Ministry of Energy do not pay attention to the share of water resources for the continents. The focus of the entire Ministry of Energy on the “hydraulic mission” without considering the consequences is neglecting the environment.

Some employees and consultants of companies related to dam construction have been influenced by this discourse over time, that the only way to manage water is through building dams. Whenever a dam builder passes through a valley, they assess the potential for building a dam in that spot, without paying attention to the geological and environmental characteristics of that valley. However, one critical engineer told me that if it were up to dam builders, they would even build a large hole in the middle of the desert just to be able to build a dam there.

Experience has shown me that discussing with many dam builders who focus more on the appearance and durability of the structure rather than its function and the irreversible effects it imposes on nature, is not easy. In recent decades, more than 650 dams have been built on the country’s rivers, of which nearly 180 are large multipurpose dams. Budget planners in recent years have shown a great interest in approving the construction of multipurpose dams for electricity generation, water collection, irrigation network supply, flood management, and creating pleasant and recreational spaces for citizens. However, what has been less considered is the high profit margin of these large structures.

One of the actions that could have possibly restrained the extravagance of dam builders is the assessment of environmental impacts (2) of dam construction on a river before any decision is made to build a dam. According to the definition, environmental assessment means “predicting the effects of activities and functions of a project on the environment, human health, and social welfare, or in other words, identifying and evaluating the systematic consequences of projects, programs, and plans on the physical, chemical, biological, cultural, and socio-economic components of the environment.” When the ratio of profit to loss of environmental impacts of building a dam is examined, one can come to the point of whether the benefits of creating such a large structure on a river and altering the ecosystem of the region outweigh the costs. What will happen to the groundwater tables and biodiversity? Most importantly, will the construction of a dam within the framework of sustainable development lead to improvement for future generations and will environmental justice be achieved?

The study of large dams such as Karun 3, Gotvand, Karun 4, Karkheh, and dozens of small and large dams around Lake Urmia shows that before the construction of these water structures, a comprehensive environmental assessment was not carried out. What was presented to the authorities as an environmental assessment report was only a justification plan. If Karun 3 negatively affected the lives of many villagers and forced them to migrate, if it could not provide the necessary water for better living in the Izeh region and the southern part of Dezful due to the production of electricity for certain areas of the country, and caused the death of thousands of trees in the Zagros forests and the extinction of various animal species in the region, and at the same time resulted in the loss of many lives, we must doubt the managers who claimed to have a precise assessment of the dam. When more than 100 villages in the area between the dams of Karun 3 and

If the construction of the Gotvand Dam causes a large salt mass, including layers of brine and evaporite in the Gachsaran formation, to be submerged under water at the current point, and so far more than 66 million tons of salt have been deposited in the reservoir and hidden in thick layers at the bottom of the reservoir, then there should be doubts about the self-assessment and senior managers of the country who have imposed this dam on Karun. Most importantly, despite the claims of the managers and implementers of the dam about controlling the existing salt in the water, we now know that in the early years of water intake from the Gotvand Dam, the water was very salty and until the sedimentation of the salt water, there was always a risk of salinity in Karun. Dr. Ehsan Daneshvar recently wrote in the Khuzi newspaper.‌

Ha (3) has caused negative effects on the construction of Gotvand Dam in its current form, which has submerged parts of the salty Gachsaran formation. He raises several important questions:

I’m sorry, there is no Farsi text provided. Please provide the text so I can translate it for you.

Was there a clear mention of the risks of the presence of salt and gypsum (plaster) and their effects on water dissolution and consequently the decrease in water quality?

Were the environmental and geological reports accurately prepared?

If the answers to the above questions are positive, then why was this dam built in this location?

Why have the warnings of scientists and experts been completely ignored despite the clear and precise scientific reasons against this action?

If the answer is negative, who has given permission to design and implement without necessary and initial information and investigations?

If environmental and geological reports are prepared in a way that justifies the construction of a dam in this location and hides all the risks, who is responsible for these problems?

These are important questions. Is anyone willing to give an accurate answer to these questions without falling into defensive tactics?

Ehsan Daneshvar raises an important point elsewhere: “They have determined the number of eight to ten layers of water based on the level of salinity, for example, the top layer up to a depth of about 30 meters has a salinity of 800 to 1200 units. The standard for drinking water, according to the World Health Organization, is 400 units and water above 800 is not suitable for drinking. The lower layers in the reservoir have a higher salinity (300 to 8000 units) which is not suitable for drinking or agriculture, and in the lower parts of the reservoir, this salinity reaches over 100,000 units, which is several times higher than the salinity of the seas.”

The painful point is that the builders and managers of Gotvand Dam, instead of explaining the issues, justify the construction and the positive effects of the dam against the 1398 Khuzestan floods. However, according to experts, the lack of rational management of dam reservoirs and the fear of managers of water scarcity had caused officials to refrain from emptying the reservoirs before the arrival of the floods. Additionally, the majority of floodwaters in Lorestan descended on Zagros and the lack of sufficient and rational water management infrastructure, as well as neglecting nature-based methods, were among the factors that intensified the destructive effects of the 98 spring floods.

If the construction of dozens of dams on the flowing rivers to Lake Urmia has caused significant changes in the volume of the lake and contributed to its gradual destruction; and the effects of this process have been the drying of parts of the lake and the creation of salty and toxic sediments (due to the accumulation of poisons and chemical fertilizers from the surrounding farms over time and industrial wastewater), what positive effects can be imagined from the construction of these large water barriers for the region? Officials of the Lake Urmia Restoration Headquarters say that in order to reach ecological balance, the volume of water must reach close to 15 billion cubic meters. This year, this figure has reached close to three and a half billion cubic meters, which is approximately two billion cubic meters less than last year. Decreased rainfall on one hand, and the lack of allocation of water from some of the surrounding dams due to officials’ fear of the effects of drought and high evaporation in a warm year, and the

The mentioned cases above may make the reader think that the author is ideologically opposed to building dams. On the contrary, in many cases such as river flow management and controlling some floods, alongside nature-based infrastructure, the existence of dams that have undergone precise environmental assessments and their benefits outweigh their damages, is very necessary. The problem starts when the assessors have received large sums of money from groups that have gained immense wealth from building dams, and pointing out the flaws and drawbacks of building dams will be like cutting off their own source of wealth.

Currently, the complete environmental impact assessment report for any dam is not freely available to the public and experts are not able to access the evaluations. A Ministry of Energy manager told me that “consulting companies have access to these reports but they do not make them public.” In my opinion, if the evaluations of dams that have had negative environmental impacts are made public and people and critics re-evaluate these studies, it is possible that the result will be that the allocation of budget to these large projects was completely wrong and the negative environmental effects of dams could lead to charges against employers, consultants, and contractors.

Nowadays, we know that there is no supervision over these evaluations and even during the construction stages of the dam and afterwards, no one compares the results obtained from the construction of the dam and the management of the reservoir with the initial evaluations.

Neglecting the environmental assessment of dams has a major culprit: the media and journalists. An environmental journalist told me that “in recent decades, most of the time these journalists have been economic ones who, on behalf of their newspapers, have visited various ceremonies related to the construction of dams and their opening after filling, without writing anything about the effects of dam construction on the environment.” These visits have been accompanied by the employer’s expenses and possibly by giving coins and gifts. In other words, the employer of the dam construction, such as the “Water and Power” company, which has been under the control of the left wing of the Islamic Republic for years and people like Habibollah Bitaraf, Vafa Tabesh, Mohammad Naeimipour, and Ali Zhametkesh have been its main members, has been in contact with the environment through its public relations with the media and journalists, and their reports have been praised in the media as development projects for the country,

One of the economic journalists who is critical of the financial methods of the media believes that as long as the gatekeepers control the content of newspapers in their favor through infiltrating economic services and advertising, people will not be informed about many realities of major projects. On the other hand, for various reasons, some journalists have become accustomed to having their travel expenses to major events covered by their employers and do not see a reason to thoroughly investigate evaluation reports.

In many Western countries, newspaper editors have banned any financial relationship or provision of expenses for reporting or even providing the opportunity to visit by the institution related to the subject. Of course, this lack of distance between the reporter and the project owner can sometimes come at the cost of the reporter’s life, as was the case a few days ago when a group of reporters visiting the Lake Urmia restoration projects were left half-dead with the tragic death of two reporters.

If independent journalists in the field of environment have the necessary knowledge about the benefits and harms of dam construction and are able to analyze environmental assessments of dams, then the possibility of presenting the subject to the people will be better than ever. If many editors and managers of newspapers were not under the influence of advertisements from the Ministry of Energy, Mahab Ghods, Sepasad, and other companies, their journalists would have been sent to these areas during the construction and inauguration of Karun 4, Karun 3, Gotvand, and Karkheh dams for independent investigation. With the analysis of assessments, they could have asked difficult questions from project managers.

When in the structure of the Islamic Republic, the decision to build a dam is in the hands of centralists and politicians and the people have no role in this process, attention to environmental assessment is at least necessary. But the important and less discussed point is, if building a dam is harmful to the environment, will its destruction be beneficial to ecosystems? Many critics of the Gotvand dam are calling for its destruction, but has a detailed assessment of the consequences of dam destruction been presented? The important thing is that before any construction or destruction, a thorough assessment is carried out to accurately examine the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the situation, and the possibility of making a logical decision in accordance with the needs of the environment and the people is provided, and most importantly, the people also have a share in the decision-making process.

Nowadays, based on the results of the construction of a number of large structures, we know that a great burden has been placed on the environment and people. If we do not turn these structures into idols and carefully evaluate their effects, we should report the results to the community and ask for explanations from those involved in their construction. If the results are positive, we should encourage them, and if they have committed crimes against the environment, we should demand compensation until the end. Evaluating the performance of companies involved helps them to pay more attention to the environment in future projects.

If organizations like Mahab Qods, Sepasad, Water and Power are suffering from the dam construction syndrome and believe that building dams is the only solution for managing surface waters, let’s examine how the money from previous projects has been spent through various methods and through companies from foreign countries, and how some dam builders have been able to purchase multi-million dollar properties in countries like Canada. Perhaps it would be better not to let criminals engage in real estate transactions with the money of the Iranian people outside the country in an environmentally exploitative manner.

Sources and references:

سلام، من به دنبال یک دوست خوب هستم

Hello, I am looking for a good friend.

Hydraulic Mission and its Connection with the Development of Water Resources in Iran, Authors: Sahar Bakhtiari, Ebrahim Amiri Tekladani, Mehdi Fasihinezhad.

Iran Water Resources Research Website

2- Environmental Impact Assessment, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010.

3- Khuzestan Newspaper, Issue 187, August 15th, 2021.